Technology, Pedagogy and Education

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

Teacher perceptions of integrating technology in

writing

Kelley Regan, Anya S. Evmenova, Donna Sacco, Jessica Schwartzer, David S.

Chirinos & Melissa D. Hughes

To cite this article: Kelley Regan, Anya S. Evmenova, Donna Sacco, Jessica Schwartzer, David
S. Chirinos & Melissa D. Hughes (2019) Teacher perceptions of integrating technology in writing,
Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 28:1, 1-19, DOI: 10.1080/1475939X.2018.1561507

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2018.1561507

Published online: 15 Jan 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 869

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rtpe20
TECHNOLOGY, PEDAGOGY AND EDUCATION
2019, VOL. 28, NO. 1, 1–19
https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2018.1561507

Teacher perceptions of integrating technology in writing

Kelley Regana, Anya S. Evmenovaa, Donna Saccob, Jessica Schwartzera, David S. Chirinosc
and Melissa D. Hughesa
a
Division of Special Education and disAbility Research, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA; bDepartment of
Special Education and Child Development, University of North Carolina in Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, USA;
c
Department of Psychological Science, University of North Georgia, Dahlonega, GA, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

With increasing emphasis by policymakers, there has been an increase in Received 20 November 2016
access to technology within schools across the globe. However, recent Accepted 6 November 2018
survey findings suggest that teachers may not be integrating technology KEYWORDS
into their writing instruction in meaningful and effective ways. Variability Integrating technology;
in technology integration can be attributed to teacher attitudes about writing instruction; teacher
technology. This study seeks to understand teacher attitudes and per- perceptions
ceptions regarding writing instruction and use of technology. Interviews
of 47 middle school teachers revealed that most teachers considered
themselves to be technology users who perceived their students’ writing
skills to be deficient, yet spent little time on writing instruction in
content areas. Teachers indicated that barriers to using technology
included that it was too time-consuming; they had limited access; and
they perceived access to be a competition. However, teachers revealed
that technology was positive for students with disabilities, differentiating
instruction, and providing twenty-first-century learning opportunities.
These findings suggest that teacher attitudes and perceptions play an
important role in technology integration. In addition to increased access
to technology, school divisions should provide pre-service and in-service
training and time for reflection so that teacher attitudes that impede
technology integration can be positively manipulated to improve tech-
nology integration in the classroom.

The integration of technology into the classroom has been a long-stated goal of policymakers across
the globe. The use of technology in schools is believed to enhance learning and prepare students for
jobs of the future (Office of Technology Assessment, 1988, 1989, 1995; U.S. Department of Education,
2002, 2010). Countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States have made significant
financial investments in technology for teaching and learning in the past 10 years with targeted
education policies (Nutt, 2010). Such investments have increased both the access and the quality of
educational technologies available in schools, particularly over the past decade (Davies & West, 2014).
Anecdotally, these changes can be observed as interactive whiteboards have typically replaced over-
head projectors; students are more frequently using Chromebooks in class; digital textbooks are
beginning to replace traditional books; while parents can access information regarding their child’s
performance via varied learning management systems.
Although these changes tend to be welcomed, technology adoption in the classroom has been
slow. For example, despite huge investments and positive teacher perceptions of technology for
learning and instruction, there was little evidence of technology integration in Turkey’s classrooms

CONTACT Kelley Regan [email protected]

© 2019 Association for Information Technology in Teacher Education
2 K. REGAN ET AL.

(Gülbahar, 2007). Challenges in technology integration often arise when pedagogical change is
required (Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurur, & Sendurur, 2012; Zhao, Pugh, Sheldon, &
Byers, 2002), particularly given that teachers are expected to effectively utilise educational tech-
nologies in a number of different academic areas including reading, writing, mathematics and
science (Davies & West, 2014). Several studies, predominately using survey research, have exam-
ined teacher access to educational technologies in the classroom, how teachers integrate technol-
ogy, and how technology can improve teaching and student learning.

Access to technology
From 1994 to 2005, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) determined that Internet
access in US public schools increased from 35% to 100%, with 94% of instructional rooms having
access to the Internet and a ratio of 3.8 students to 1 instructional computer with some variation
based on the size of the school and level of minority enrolment (Wells & Lewis, 2006). A follow-up
survey of 4133 teachers in 2009 revealed that 97% of respondents reported having daily access to
one or more computers in their classroom, 93% of those computers had access to the Internet, and
a ratio of 5.3 students to 1 computer were reported among respondents (Gray, Thomas, & Lewis,
2010). Additionally, the NCES survey results indicated that 84% of teachers had access to projector
display technology, 51% had access to interactive whiteboards and 78% had access to digital
cameras (Gray et al., 2010).
Such large-scale surveys highlight the success of concentrated policy efforts to increase access to
technology in public school classrooms across the US (Culp, Honey, & Mandinach, 2005; Davies &
West, 2014), though access to technology is only the first step in meeting the larger goal of greater
educational gains through the use of technology integration. Increased access to technology does
not necessarily translate into technology integration on its own (Ertmer et al., 2012; Zhao et al., 2002).

Technology integration
As part of their survey, Gray et al. (2010) also examined how frequently teachers used computers
during instructional time and how frequently students performed various academic activities using
educational technologies in their classes. Findings revealed that 10% of teachers never used
computers during instruction, 19% reported rarely, 29% reported sometimes and 40% reported
often, with elementary school teachers using technology more often than secondary teachers (Gray
et al., 2010). Gray et al. (2010) also examined how frequently students used technology in terms of
several specific activities. It was found that educational technologies were more often used for
learning/practising skills (69%), followed by conducting research (66%), preparing written texts
(61%) and creating visuals (53%); social networking (7%) and contributing to wikis (9%) were the
least used activities.
Similar studies have also looked at teacher technology use. Russell, Bebell, O’Dwyer, and
O’Connor (2003) surveyed almost 3000 K–12 teachers in Massachusetts and found that teachers
used technology most frequently for preparation and work-related email. Further, newer teachers
reported higher levels of using technology for preparation purposes, while more experienced
teachers reported higher levels of integrating technology for delivery of instruction and engaging
students in learning experiences.

Technology use and writing instruction

One area where technology integration has the potential to increase student learning is in the area
of writing instruction (Cutler & Graham, 2008; Warschauer, 2007), though the extent to which
writing technologies have effectively influenced writing practices remains to be seen (Applebee &
Langer, 2011). Recent survey studies that have examined the role of technology use for writing
 TECHNOLOGY, PEDAGOGY AND EDUCATION 3

instruction report that the majority of teachers are not using technology to teach writing
(Applebee & Langer, 2011; Graham, Capizzi, Harris, Hebert, & Morphy, 2014). For example,
Applebee and Langer’s survey of 1520 middle and high school teachers found that less than
one-third of classrooms used any technology to teach writing. Furthermore, when technology was
used, it tended to be used by teachers and not students (Applebee & Langer, 2011).
Extending Applebee and Langer’s (2011) work, Graham et al. (2014) surveyed language arts,
social studies and science teachers from 285 middle schools across the nation about their sense of
preparedness to teach writing, their use of evidence-based practices for teaching and assessing
writing, and their use of technology when teaching writing. Whereas a majority of the 114 teacher
respondents reported having students use word processing to complete some of their assign-
ments, the most common use of technology reported was the use of the Internet to help students
locate information for a writing assignment. Surprisingly, a majority of teachers reported never
using some technologies when providing writing instruction. For example, 69% of teachers
reported never using computer software to teach writing and 85% reported never using computer
software to grade students’ writing. In addition, 79% reported never asking students to share their
writing with others and 84% reported never having students collaborate with others while writing
(Graham et al., 2014).

Variability in technology integration

Overall, survey findings regarding middle school teachers’ use of technology for teaching writing
are discouraging. While the majority of the aforementioned studies have examined the frequencies
of technology use, including use for the area of writing, less is known about the reasons for such
limited technology integration in writing instruction (e.g. Bauer & Kenton, 2005). Graham et al.
(2014) reported teacher reasons for the low rates of technology implementation including a lack of
computers in the classroom (62%), a lack of software programs (32%), a lack of computers in the
school (29%), a lack of knowledge of technology/software use (13%) and a lack of Internet access
(6%). This reported lack of access notably contrasts to the 2009 NCES report that indicated US
public schools having almost 100% access to computers (Gray et al., 2010).
In addition to a lack of skills and resources, variability in how technology is integrated in the
classroom also depends on whether teachers are novice or experienced and whether they are
secondary or primary teachers (Bebell, Russell, & O’Dwyer, 2004). Further variability was observed
when accounting for teacher characteristics including teacher content area, teacher beliefs about
technology, teacher training etc. (Ertmer et al., 2012; Vannatta & Fordham, 2004).
Although the variations did not explicitly distinguish general educators from special educators,
one can assume that there would be differences in their use of technology, as well. In fact, settings
in which technology may be used the most in order to meet the diverse needs of students is the
special education classroom. Technology can be beneficial to personalise instruction for students
with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) so that they may access and progress through the
general curriculum. For at-risk students or students with learning disabilities, use of software can
not only be highly motivating, for example, but can improve students’ literacy outcomes (e.g.
Regan, Berkeley, Hughes, & Kirby, 2014). Further, basic word processing is often identified as an
instructional accommodation for learners with IEPs (Bouck, 2016). Regardless, the mentioned
survey research findings do not reportedly disaggregate the perspectives of middle school special
education teachers, specifically.
Teacher attitudes toward technology also have a great impact on integration. Studies in Turkey
(Demirci, 2009) and the Netherlands (Drent & Meelissen, 2008) indicate that teachers’ positive
attitudes towards technology positively influence technology integration in classrooms revealing
that teacher attitudes can overcome perceived barriers to integration. With teacher attitudes and
perceptions playing an important role in technology integration, it is important to better under-
stand such attitudes and perceptions and the factors that may influence them when it comes to
4 K. REGAN ET AL.

integration to better support teachers daily in their classrooms. Factors like teacher attitudes about
technology can then be positively manipulated to improve technology integration in the classroom
(Ten Brummelhuis, 1995).
Therefore, the present interview study gleaned in depth insights from 47 middle school teachers
across five school districts regarding their use of technology in the classroom with specific
attention given to writing instruction. Given the potential variation of technology use for special
education teachers, we wanted to be sure to represent their perspectives as well. Additionally,
assistive technologies may be especially prevalent in classrooms with students who receive special
education services. Therefore, we sought educators who taught classes inclusive of students with
high-incidence disabilities in their classroom(s) (e.g. learning disabilities, emotional and behavioural
disorders, Autism Spectrum Disorder). The following research questions guided the teacher inter-
views: (a) How are content area teachers utilising technology in their classroom instruction and for
teaching writing? (b) What are the perceived barriers to teachers’ technology use in the classroom?
and (c) What encourages content area teachers to use technology?

Method
Participants
Following university and school board permissions, middle schools across five local school districts
in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States whose students had low writing performance scores
were identified. Researchers then asked the middle school principals and/or assistive/instructional
technology specialists of these targeted schools to identify potential interviewees. Criteria included
individuals who were (a) teachers of language arts, science, or social studies/history content areas;
(b) either general or special education teachers; and (c) teachers who had students with high-
incidence disabilities (e.g. learning disabilities, emotional and behavioural disorders, Autism
Spectrum Disorder) in their classrooms. Specifically, we asked the school contacts to nominate
three language arts, science and/or social studies teachers who were technology users (defined as
teachers who used some form of technology with their students at least once per week) and three
more teachers who were technology non-users (defined as teachers who never or infrequently
used technology with their students). After obtaining their contact information, a total of 64
general education and special education teachers across the five districts participated in the first
part of the study by completing an online survey. The survey data sought to capture teachers’
experiences and perceptions regarding writing instruction and use of technology; but survey data
are not the focus of this article. In-depth, qualitative interview data based on the survey responses
are the focus of this article. Of the 64 participants who completed the initial online survey,
interview participants consisted of 28 general education teachers, 20 special education teachers,
an English as a Second Language teacher and a gifted education teacher. Of these, three partici-
pants’ data were not audible resulting in a total of 47 participants with interview data. The majority
of the participants held a Masters degree (n = 33), while nine had a Bachelors’ degree and two held
a PhD degree. Participating teachers reported to teach in the following areas: language arts (n =
13), science (n = 13) and social studies (n = 10), while 14 reportedly taught a combination of
subjects. Of the 47 participants, three teachers identified themselves to be technology non-users
and 44 reported to be technology users.

Setting
Participating teachers were employed across five Mid-Atlantic school districts located in one state
on the east coast of the United States. A brief profile of each district is presented in Table 1.
Districts ranged in size and demographic make-up with the majority of districts being highly
diverse and only one school district with majority Caucasian (51%). School districts varied in their
 TECHNOLOGY, PEDAGOGY AND EDUCATION 5

Table 1. School district profiles.

District A District B District C District D District E
Number of teachers 5969 15,486 2458 3940 1468
Percentage free and reduced lunch 16.90% 28% 31.60% 76% 58.80%
Percentage ELL 8.90% 16.70% 18.40% 11% 28.40%
Percentage IEP 11.10% 13.70% 14.70% 15% 10.80%
Computer to student ratio 3.6 to 1 - 1 to 1 (by 2017) - 1 to 1
Number of participants 12 11 8 2 14
Note. ELL = English language learner; IEP = Individualized Education Program.

approaches to technology use, access to technology and student-to-computer ratio. All school
districts reported computer use as part of their learning/teaching philosophy, with District C aiming
to have digital learning environments in every classroom by 2017. District D stressed the impor-
tance of blended learning (technology and traditional), while District E had goals of one hour of
computer time (laptop, tablet etc.) per student per day, while District B aimed to have greater
access to technology use both at school and at home (through loaners).

Procedure
After completing an online needs assessment survey and indicating interest in a follow-up
telephone interview, times were coordinated with participants. The 47 respondents completed
telephone interviews lasting between 30 and 60 minutes. Interviews were audio-recorded and later
transcribed for analysis. Interviews were arranged and conducted by the researcher.

Instrumentation
A semi-structured interview protocol was designed to further clarify participants’ initial survey
responses. The interview protocol consisted of 25 questions. Participants were asked about their
level of personal technology use and their level of comfort in using technology, their use of
technology in the classroom, levels of technology accessibility in their schools and any experiences
with assistive technology for students with disabilities. Teachers were also asked to describe
examples of lessons in which they used technology, if they used technology to teach writing
and the types of technology used. Lastly, teachers were asked about factors that encouraged and
or discouraged their use of technology.

Data analysis
Our research questions warranted a qualitative approach to data analysis in order to identify
emerging patterns across participant responses and to better understand the use of technology
by content area teachers with specific attention given to writing instruction. We used the constant
comparison method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) in order to classify data and to compare perspectives
across participants. Analysis began with the research team reading through three randomly
selected transcripts. The research team consisted of three doctoral students and one faculty
member. Next, the researchers independently coded each transcript. Collaboratively, common
codes were discussed by the team and an initial list of categories that were responsive to the
purpose of our research were created and defined (Merriam, 2009). For example, it was decided
that ‘writing curriculum identified’ would be changed to ‘writing instruction identified’ and that
‘student needs’ was further defined as what teachers perceived their students struggled with in
writing. The initial list consisted of 13 categories, and seven of these included two to four sub-
codes. Then, each member of the research team independently coded one additional random
transcript using the initial categories. After meeting with the team, the categories were collabora-
tively refined and definitions were clarified. This process solidified 10 categories. The remaining 43
6 K. REGAN ET AL.

transcripts were then distributed among members of the research team and independently coded
using the final categories reported in Table 2.
The second part of our analysis included three team members. Each member independently
read through the same data set of two to three selected categories that had been sorted on a
spreadsheet, noting emerging patterns across participants. Members were also able to cross-
reference participant data with a table that identified the content area of the teacher participant
and if he/she was identified as a non-user or a technology user. We first analysed specific data for
context and then subsequently analysed data for concepts or categories that informed our specific
research questions (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). After identifying patterns independently, we then met
weekly to share the patterns found within the data, share insights and to confirm conclusions or
support alternative explanations. During these discussions, re-occurring trends emerged and/or a
central term was generated to subsume these ideas. These terms or emerging themes were
recorded and given a name (e.g. competing needs, frustration). The names of these themes
came from the researchers and/or the participants.

Trustworthiness and credibility

Triangulation of data was used to ensure trustworthiness and credibility of findings in this research
study. First of all, varied data sources were used. Thus, all emerging categories and themes were
corroborated with the survey findings reported elsewhere. In addition, triangulation of data was
addressed by noting emerging patterns within and across the participants. Finally, regular meet-
ings were conducted, when the research team discussed all the codes, categories and themes.
Thus, collaborative work was used to ensure credibility of this qualitative research study
(Brantlinger, Jimenez, Klinger, Pugach, & Richardson, 2005).

Findings
The first analysis of the data was completed in order to clearly situate the context of the participant
responses. First, participants were asked to self-identity as technology non-users or technology
users and described their comfort level with technology and the types of technology they used.
While equal numbers of technology users and non-users were nominated for this study, the vast
majority self-reported as technology users. Second, abstract concepts repeatedly represented
across participants were also collectively represented as part of the context (e.g. access to
technology, frustrations). Finally, teacher participants’ perceived writing needs of students are

Table 2. Final categories for analysis.

Categories Definition
Identifying Self w/ Technology Description of types of technology used and/or how one feels about using technology, both
personally and professionally
Access to Technology Ratio of computers to student; Ease or challenge of accessibility as perceived by
participants; How technology is accessed
Classroom Technologies Used Descriptions of specific technologies used with the majority of students in a class and/or
specific technologies used for individual students
How to Use Technology How technology was used for science instruction, individualised special education, everyday
lessons, test preparation and providing feedback
Writing Instruction Identified A strategy, a writing program or type of instruction specifically used for writing instruction
that may or may not involve technology
Student Needs Description of student writing needs with and without technology
Encourage Technology Use Description of what encourages teacher use of technology including benefits to students
Discourage Technology Use Description of what discourages teachers or students to use and/or learn technology
Negative Perceptions about Reference to specific software and associated negative perceptions
Software
Teacher Concerns with Using Teacher concerns of technology expressed as situations or conditions that teachers wish
Technology were different
 TECHNOLOGY, PEDAGOGY AND EDUCATION 7

also provided. By providing the described context, results for each research question can be better
understood. After the context is presented, findings for each research question are provided below.

Technology non-users
The three participants who reported never or infrequently using technology mentioned personal
use of email, Internet, a cell phone and texting. They also mentioned discomfort with technology
and one participant described technology as frustrating and another as frightening. In the class-
room, the non-technology users had access to technology such as interactive whiteboards (i.e.
SMART Board®), computer labs, laptop carts and desktops, but one participant chose to not use the
whiteboards and all mentioned that access to technology was a challenge. Finally, despite identify-
ing as non-technology users, the three participants did recognise the necessity of technology as
represented in one response, ‘I have to push myself to do it . . . that is the way of the future . . . and
my kids know how to do it.’

Technology users
In contrast, the remaining teacher participants identified themselves as technology users and
described themselves as being ‘plugged in’ and being ‘somewhat comfortable’ to ‘very comfor-
table’ with technology. They mentioned personal use of Twitter for news feeds, Google maps,
smartphones, Internet for research, and tablets. In the classroom, the technology users reported
using some form of technology with students at least once a week including varied software (e.g.
myON®, MobiMax Math). One respondent clarified who used the interactive whiteboard, the SMART
Board®, ‘I use it every day. The students are not always using it. Some information for direct
instruction, flipcharts . . . video clips. They use it much less than I do.’ A similar response about
students’ lack of hardware use was made: ‘in terms of my planning, I’m always using it, but in terms
of how much the kids are actively doing something directly with a device . . . that’s less.’
When technology was problematic, many participants used varied resources such as having
students help each other, asking the school’s technology specialist for support, taking professional
development classes and/or using Google to problem solve. The technology users reported the
specific technology available in their schools including two to five desktops in classrooms with one
being the teacher’s designated desktop, computer labs, carts with up to 19 laptops, a personal
tablet, a library with 10 to 12 iPads for checkout, and iPads on carts. Some of the carts were
described as having Google Chromebooks. The number of computer labs/carts per school varied.
One participant, for example, stated that her school had only one cart of iPads.

Perceived writing needs of students

Regardless of being a non-user or user of technology, participants perceived writing as a weakness
for their sixth- to eighth-grade students, those with and without disabilities. Specific student
writing deficits observed by teacher participants include idea generation, organisation, handwrit-
ing, sentence structure, grammar, spelling and keyboarding. Student writing was described as
laden with run-on sentences and as having a lack of detail. Eight teachers commented that they
could ‘not read their [students’] handwriting’ and one teacher further commented that, ‘The
sentence structure is horrid [with] no punctuation . . . we’re dealing with sixth graders who don’t
even capitalise the letter “I”.’ Ten teachers noted a concern with students’ sentence structure, four
with poor use of punctuation and three specifically mentioned a concern with capitalisation.
Student ability reportedly ranged from ‘students who read at a second or third grade level’ to
those who ‘have ideas just flowing out of them [but] organising those ideas is an entirely different
matter’. Teachers expressed frustration with student ability. One participant noted, ‘I don’t see any
strengths.’ Many blamed student weaknesses on the lack of emphasis on writing instruction in
8 K. REGAN ET AL.

school and the lack of keyboarding classes in schools, remarking, ‘they don’t have that strong
foundation when they come to middle school’ and that writing ‘is not emphasised and it’s not
tested except for three times in their school career, so. . .’ One participant blamed the poor
performance on the less formal use of technology, noting:
We’ve seen a major drop in grammar structure and all that kind of stuff. With all the technology the kids are
doing, texting and that kind of stuff . . . they can tell you how to Facebook . . . set up a blog, but as far as
presentations or PowerPoint presentations as far as regular skills . . . word processing, those kinds of skills are
starting to drop off.

Finally, despite noting student challenges with handwriting, letter formation and spelling, only
three participants mentioned the use of word prediction software.

Research question 1: How are local content area teachers utilising technology in
classroom instruction and for teaching writing?
In their interviews, teacher participants described how much time they spent writing and were
asked to further clarify how they used technology to support their instructional lessons. Participant
responses were categorised into one of the following: general instruction, individualised instruc-
tion, specific classroom activities, and test preparation and assessment. Types of technology that
teachers reportedly used are organised by category in Table 3.

Time spent writing in content areas

When asked how much time was spent writing in the content areas, one teacher said, ‘Honestly not
very much.’ This sentiment was prevalent in English, social studies and science classes. Teachers’
concerns about having the time to cover the curriculum seemed to be the primary reason for not
incorporating writing or addressing students’ writing needs. Another teacher explained that unless
a teacher had a particular passion for teaching writing, it was not going to be emphasised. One
social studies teacher expressed that the content was so dense that it was no place to incorporate
writing, stating, ‘I have a mandate to cover all this content and so to me it’s like we’re working
against each other.’ However, another social studies teacher integrated the arts and had students
write song lyrics about the Spanish American War to demonstrate their understanding of the
content. The amount of time students reportedly spent writing varied from daily to once a week, or
completing a writing project once every two weeks, or twice a quarter, or once a quarter. One
teacher encouraged her more advanced students to write more but didn’t extend that opportunity
to students with disabilities.

Technology use in the classroom

General instruction
Participants widely mentioned use of laptops, desktop computers, the Internet, learning manage-
ment systems to complete assignments, PowerPoint, and interactive whiteboards to facilitate
general instruction. One science teacher commented, ‘[Students] use the computers . . . to make
bar graphs or write their conclusions.’ Another explained that she has ‘students pull cell organelle
labels out of the box [on the Promethean Board] and they had to put them in magic containers’,
further explaining that ‘I try to make it as much as a kid tool as I can instead of just a board, that
they’re actually using it.’ Further descriptions encompassed how participants used technology such
as videos and online simulations to make the content more interactive and as a virtual way for
students to ‘see’ otherwise abstract concepts.
With regard to writing instruction, teachers were able to describe strategies and tools they used
in their classrooms. Four teachers mentioned use of message boards, discussion boards and blogs.
Table 3. Types of technology categorised by purpose.

General instruction Individualised instruction Specific classroom activities Test preparation and assessment
Interactive whiteboard systems (e.g. BrainPOP (www.brainpop.com) Cell phones Jefferson Lab (http://education.jab.org/)
Promethean Board, SMARTBoard®) Word prediction software (e.g. Word Q) Google (i.e. Google Search, Google Docs, Online Teacher Resource and Assessment (ONTRAC; http://
Microsoft PowerPoint and Word Text-to-speech software (e.g. Dragon Google Classroom) interactiveachievement.com/us/)
Internet Speak; Read: OutLoud) Blogging Neo responders
Tablets (e.g. iPads) Tablets (e.g. iPads) Readworks.org (Reading comprehension
Learning management systems (e.g. resource for grades K–6)
Blackboard) Weebly Website Builder (http://www.wee
LCD projectors bly.com)
Online library of simulations (e.g. Gizmos®) Discovery Education (i.e. digital textbooks
Videos (i.e. YouTube, websites) online, teacher resources)
Laptops and desktop computers AlphaSmart keyboards
Document cameras (e.g. ELMO)
Interactive multimedia posters (e.g.
Glogster)
Websites using Dreamweaver
TECHNOLOGY, PEDAGOGY AND EDUCATION
9
10 K. REGAN ET AL.

Various forms of graphic organisers were identified by 27 participants. Some teachers modelled
with their own writing (n =11), used sentences starters (n = 8) or word walls (n = 2) for students
experiencing difficulties with written expression. There were very few examples of teachers
providing explicit writing instruction or scaffolding. Although teachers mentioned a high frequency
of students having research papers across the content areas, their selected lesson descriptions
illustrated alternative ways for students to present learned information using technology rather
than traditional essay formats. An English teacher, for example, shared:
They had a choice of doing a character analysis, newspaper format, or a memorial for one of the characters in
the book . . . They were also given the choice of doing PowerPoint if they were not comfortable exploring a
new technology [such as] blogs. . .

Individualised instruction
Although four teacher participants shared how they used specific technologies to provide indivi-
dualised instruction such as word prediction software and text-to-speech readers (i.e. Read:
OutLoud, Dragon Speak), there were only eight descriptions of individualised instruction via
technology. Some participants alluded to being less familiar with specific technologies. For exam-
ple, one teacher struggled to recall terminology, ‘I can’t remember the name off the top of my
head, to where students can speak into a microphone and then it prints out on the screen what
they are trying to say. . .’. Another social studies teacher who used Microsoft Photo Story with her
advanced classes, was reluctant to use it with lower performing students: ‘I don’t do it with them
[low performing classes]. . .my instinct is that they wouldn’t get quite as much of the learning out of
that or they’re not quite ready for it.’

Specific classroom activities

In describing specific technologies, teachers mentioned YouTube, an LCD projector, an Elmo document
camera, Google Docs, learning management systems (e.g. BlackBoard®), interactive whiteboards (i.e. a
SMART Board®, a Promethean Board), PowerPoints and Neo responders for classroom use. One social
studies teacher had students pretend they were working for National Geographic and they had to
make a website using Weebly (http://www.weebly.com) and include an article based on artefacts of
Native American tribes. An English teacher shared how she integrated reading and writing and had her
students create a blog. Other teachers used Blackboard and Google Docs to provide students with
direct feedback on their written assignments and/or to have students provide each other feedback.
Another school purchased the Criterion writing program from Educational Testing Services. Criterion is
an online tool that scores student-writing samples and provides immediate feedback for the students,
but does not involve the teachers.

Test preparation and assessment

Participants also described how technology was used to assess student learning and/or prepare
students for the statewide assessment at the end of the year. Teacher participants were receptive
to using online practice tests and/or resources that provided games for reinforcing concepts to be
on the test (see Table 3). One teacher described ONTRAC as ‘testing that the students can use for
their regular unit assessments throughout the year’. Teachers can generate tests from a pool of
questions that the software provides. ONTRAC helped to familiarise students with the format and
delivery of their statewide test. A teacher commented,
I try to do three tests a semester or three in . . . a nine-week period. I love to do my quizzes online because then
when you do it online it grades it. It has differentiated distractors . . . you can look at the assessment data
instantaneously and then figure out what students need to be remediated.

In addition to ONTRAC for summative assessment, another teacher detailed the use of smart tests
created collaboratively by her grade level team to use with the interactive whiteboard, the SMART
 TECHNOLOGY, PEDAGOGY AND EDUCATION 11

Board®. She reflected on the convenience of using technology for creating tests and for auto-
scoring student assessments, remarking, ‘I have yet to grade a test.’

Research question 2: What are the perceived barriers to teachers’ technology use in
the classroom?
Although participants recognised the benefits of integrating technology into classroom instruction,
participants identified three major barriers that prevented them from using technology: time
consuming, limited access and competing needs.

Time involved
With many demands placed on teachers, participants expressed frustration with the amount of
time that using technology required. Many participants shared that the technology was outdated
or there were connectivity issues. One participant noted, ‘So, there are technological glitches. But
do they stop us? They don’t. They just delay.’ On the other hand, other participants felt that the
technological glitches made it not worth their time. They wanted technology that was ‘fairly easy
to use’. When instructional time was wasted and the teacher participants ‘did everything right and
it’s still not working properly . . . that would be a problem’. With time being a valuable commodity,
outdated or malfunctioning technology reportedly hindered technology use in classrooms.
Other teacher participants expressed that learning how to use the technology or being trained
to use the technology was too time-consuming. They wanted time to ‘play around with technol-
ogy’, but ‘I have these time constraints where I don’t have the time to plan really creative lessons.’
Another participant acknowledged that learning the technology took time, but frustrations arose
when ‘as soon as you learn how to use one software program then things change . . . and they want
you to use different things’. Choosing between resources left one teacher feeling overwhelmed
stating, ‘There’re so many resources, but I don’t know how to do it . . . no one really has time to
teach me’. One participant relied on a colleague to aid them, but felt ‘he’s so busy . . . he spends
most of his free time trying to meet our needs’.
Concerns over the amount of time available during class periods to teach the curriculum
prevented some teachers from taking the time to use technology in the classroom commenting,
‘We are constricted by forty-five minute class periods and it goes . . . By the time they get in [to the
classroom] you get started and you barely have a half hour.’ Two teacher participants expressed
that time was wasted accessing the technology and by students who needed to be repeatedly
reminded of their passwords and how to log into the network. One participant shared concerns
that students’ lack of experience with technology hindered instructional classroom time ‘because
it’s a matter of trying to have enough time . . . for the students to actually input things . . . given the
fact that many, do not know how to type’. One special education teacher added, ‘if it takes a given
child a lot of time to produce a document, then that computer is tied up and can’t be shared with
anybody else’. Interview data suggest that if teachers had more class time available, they may be
more inclined to use technology.

Limited access
Many participants also identified limited access to technology as a major barrier to using technol-
ogy in their classrooms. Teacher participants felt they had to compete with each other to access
technology since they didn’t have an adequate number of computers in the classroom. Fourteen
participants across three different school districts indicated that signing out laptop carts or
reserving the computer lab had to be done weeks in advance making it difficult to plan ahead
12 K. REGAN ET AL.

because ‘they’re [laptop carts are] in high demand and we don’t get them all the time’. One teacher
preferred ‘increased access so that at the spur of the moment - okay, you are ready’ and ‘when you
don’t have that, the access, that’s a big frustration’. A teacher participant described the competition
among each other as: ‘a lot of people check them out for huge blocks of time to be like a computer
lab in their room . . . and that’s very frustrating’. Another participant described the competitive
nature of obtaining technology as: ‘hovering over the lab schedule on my computer so when I see
an opening I start in like a bird catching a minnow’.
Participants also experienced frustration because of the limited access to reliable network
servers, software programs and technology. They shared how network servers might be down
or particular websites were not working or even blocked by cyber security programs, all of
which could hinder the success of a particular lesson. Several participants also noted that
school technology professionals were not always available for support in such cases. Such
issues left teachers ‘constantly re-shifting and readjusting’ their lessons. Interestingly, six
participants responded to their limited access by creatively using cell phones, photocopies of
computer program templates, or rotating students on computers using a centre-based learning
approach.

Competing needs: testing

English teacher participants found access a concern in that they required students to type final
papers at the end of a grading period and ‘to have nineteen English teachers all trying to get into
the lab to type these papers, it makes it a little bit difficult’. However, competition for technology
was reportedly most dire during standardised test preparation and administration. Using technol-
ogy for teaching was described as being secondary to testing needs: ‘if there’s any type of testing
then, you know, the mobile labs are off limits’. With an increased frequency of assessments and the
high-stakes assessments being online, eight teacher participants noted the importance of exposing
students to the online format in advance. One participant indicated that their students are required
to participate in online test preparation practice three times a grading quarter. Such practices left
participants claiming, ‘Unfortunately it’s all about being prepared for the [assessment]’ and less
about using technology for supporting student learning.

Research question 3: What encourages teachers across the content areas to use
technology?
Despite frustration, teachers were encouraged to use technology across the content areas. They
perceived technology as a way to positively address the needs of those students with disabilities,
as a means for differentiation and as a contemporary requirement in education.

Positive aspects for students with disabilities

When working with students with high-incidence disabilities, teachers noticed immediate changes
in behaviour as students were provided the opportunity to use technology. Three teachers noted
that their students with ADHD appeared to be more attentive and on task. Another found this was
true for other students as well. She explained, ‘I’ve just noticed for my struggling writers when
they’re on a computer they seem to be more focused and able to get their point across with what
they’re trying to say in their writing.’ In fact, teachers expressed that students are more positive
about written production completed with technology, despite their writing deficits. Teachers noted
improved student engagement with the use of technology, and that was specifically noted for
students at risk and with disabilities because it makes them feel successful.
 TECHNOLOGY, PEDAGOGY AND EDUCATION 13

[They are] so proud to produce products that are professional . . . these posters were professional. They were
beautiful. They put the background in there. They could put primary source pictures, photographs, and maps.
They could manipulate the fonts and they’re so proud of their product.

Another teacher expressed that, ‘I would say you put them [students with high incidence
disabilities], at the center of their learning . . . [and] they can do it. All you got to do is give them
a chance.’ Teachers described that students were proud of what they produced using technology,
whether it be an essay, a PowerPoint presentation, a website or a short video.
One benefit of using technology that one teacher highlighted was that using technology saved
students a great deal of effort in terms of editing and revising when they are able to cut and paste.
Specifically, the students were far less resistant to editing and revising when they didn’t have to
redo their entire piece of writing. Teachers shared that students who struggled with fine motor
skills and found handwriting to be burdensome, were relieved to have keyboards at their disposal.
When keyboarding skills were lacking, four teachers shared that they arranged for keyboarding
instruction. One teacher capitalised on computer use in the classroom because ‘it is giving them
some tools that they’re more likely to use like finding the correct spelling of a word . . . they’re more
likely to use spell check than go through a dictionary’.

Differentiation
Teachers also conveyed the fact that technology provided them with the opportunity to differ-
entiate instruction for all students. They were able to differentiate via the presentation of new
material, altering student assignments and varying student presentations, as well as assessments.
Some of the tools teachers used were message boards and websites. One in particular, Tween
Tribute, is a website with news articles that were geared toward tweens and teens at their
individual reading levels. Students found these articles to be relevant and the differentiated
reading levels available on the website expanded students’ access.
Teachers also described the ways that students worked in groups using technology, which
allowed opportunities for all students to excel. With students working on computers, teachers were
able to spend time circulating around the room and providing one-on-one assistance as necessary.
Teachers also explained that when using technology, students were also able to receive more
immediate feedback. For example, when taking quizzes, students could see what they got incor-
rect. In addition, the Internet searches they completed provide quick results.

Contemporary requirements
Teacher participants expressed a strong sense of responsibility to their students to provide them
with twenty-first-century learning opportunities. Sentiments such as ‘It is the future of learning’ and
‘We need to teach them for the world they live in today’ were a thread throughout the interview
data. One participant commented, ‘They’ll have to problem solve, create things, project things to
people, those tools, a lot of those are technology based.’ One special education teacher noted the
advantages of technology for students with disabilities, stating, ‘For those children who have
legitimate disabilities it [technology] makes them feel like they have a chance of being successful.’
In fact, one teacher found that students, unlike some adults, are not afraid of exploration with
the technology:
the kids are so used to technology and they know it probably better than we do. They’re more comfortable with it
than paper and pencil and I think it’s just an easy way. A lot of them can type a lot faster than they can write.

Teachers also shared that even students of lower economic status who may not have Internet
access in their homes, may have experiences using cell phones at the very least. A teacher
suggested that for those students, school might be the only exposure they would have to varied
technology.
14 K. REGAN ET AL.

As one teacher explained:

It’s imperative that kids use technology. Period . . . I believe in [using technology with students] one hundred
percent, but we’re in that weird in between space . . . the growing pains right now. Even so it is worth the effort
of wading through those growing pains. There’s no limit, really no boundaries to what we can do with the help
of technology.

Discussion
Interview data from middle school teacher participants in this study further explored conclusions
from existing research regarding the frequency, access and use of technology for providing writing
instruction in schools and classrooms throughout the United States. Research in this area has
largely been dominated by survey methodology (Applebee & Langer, 2011; Graham et al., 2014).
However, teacher perspectives gleaned from interviews help our understanding of what is really
happening in classrooms in terms of technology integration in general and when teachers provide
writing instruction in particular. Specific themes that emerged in this study present a picture of
how middle school teacher participants from one state used technology in content area class-
rooms, the particular barriers they faced when attempting to integrate technology for writing, and
factors that encouraged their use of technology for writing instruction.
Our findings were generally consistent with former survey results identifying that middle school
teachers rarely use technology to support writing instruction (Graham et al., 2014), and that
teachers tend to use technology more than students (Applebee & Langer, 2011). When teacher
participants were asked to describe how students used technology, besides completing research
papers across the content areas, they generally described students using technology to represent
knowledge via dynamic visual displays or formats (e.g. blogs, wikis, PowerPoint presentations)
more so than composing traditional essay formats. When they did refer to essay formats, the
teachers described students’ low-tech use of laptops to ‘type up’ the essays with no regard for
using technology throughout the writing process inclusive of planning and composing text. A lack
of sophistication for student use of technology for writing was evident. Over half of the teachers
surveyed in Gray et al.’s (2010) study also identified students using technology for creating visual
displays, more so. Unlike Graham et al. (2014) findings, six teachers in this study did expand on how
students collaborated on writing via Blackboard or Google Docs, but consistent with Graham et al.
(2014) is the notion that teachers reported rarely, if ever, using software to teach writing. Even
given the extreme deficits of their students’ writing, teacher participants in this study did not
mention use of specific software. Although the use of text-to-speech readers and word prediction
software for individualising instruction was mentioned by four participants, one participant surpris-
ingly perceived that her ‘lower’ performing students would not be ‘ready’ for technology. It was not
clear without further inquiry if this individual lacked the knowledge of how assistive technology
can support struggling writers or if he/she was limited by a deficit mindset. Nevertheless, for these
middle school teachers, the use of technology for supporting writing does not necessarily mean
that technology was used to explicitly teach students how to write or how to support their writing.
Rather, the teachers primarily offered use of technologies for students to solely publish their work.
This rather basic use of technology by both students and teachers is surprising considering that 44
of the 47 participants identified themselves as ‘technology users’. An additional surprise is that
participants were teachers of students with high-incidence disabilities and although they reported
differentiating student learning, the vast number of assistive technology tools available to help
students who struggle with writing were not reported to be a part of instruction (e.g. Batorowicz,
Missiuna, & Pollock, 2012; spell checkers, speech recognition software, concept-mapping software,
multimedia software). Our findings reinforce that, despite the 1997 reauthorisation of the
Individuals with Education Act (IDEA), which requires IEP teams in the US to consider use of
assistive technologies for students with disabilities, they are largely underutilised by students
with reading or writing difficulties (Bouck, 2016).
 TECHNOLOGY, PEDAGOGY AND EDUCATION 15

Ward (2003) claimed that individuals who feel comfortable using technology in the classroom
‘and see clear advantages to doing so, overcome any negative constraints that may otherwise limit
their use’ (p. 11). Furthermore, teachers who have a positive attitude towards technology can
generally overcome the barriers to technology integration (Demirci, 2009; Drent & Meelissen, 2008).
However, the majority of the self-identified technology users who were interviewed in this study
generally reported little innovative use of technology, if any, in the classroom for supporting
student writing. They perceived access to technology in schools as a competition and some
blamed ‘testing’ for lack of access. The lack of congruence between how teachers perceive
themselves as users of technology and what actually transpires in the classroom is not new
(Bate, 2010). This type of misalignment may be related to a teacher’s level of development and/
or expertise (Ertmer et al., 2012). For example, teacher participants may not have the skills for
providing assistive technology to support the writing performance of students with disabilities. Or,
Ward (2003) asserted that ‘the [teacher] perceptions of barriers to use while often cited may be
little more than rationalization of lack of use’ (p. 10).
The majority of teacher participants in this study revealed an attitude of resistance and defeat
towards using modern technology for writing instruction. Modern technologies used for commu-
nication may include blogs, wikis, applications (apps), social media and text messaging. Blogs can
be created independently or students can work in cooperative groups to develop a blog on a given
topic. Tweets can be used to teach students how to compose a summary or a succinct topic
sentence in 140 characters or less. Writing apps can support students with grammar. Social media
supports students with personal expression and communication. However, such examples of
modern technologies used to teach writing were not explicitly mentioned by teacher participants,
perhaps suggesting a disconnect with these modern technologies for writing instruction.
Moreover, two teacher participant comments in this study exposed a mindset barrier towards
text messaging as a way of communicating via technology in writing instruction. Teachers in this
study parallel the perspective of teachers in South Africa who reported that text messaging
negatively influences adolescent students’ written language skills (Geertsema, Hyman, & van
Deventer, 2011). The South African educators reported that texting or Short Message Service
(SMS) causes learners to have ‘diminished knowledge of correct Standard English’ (p. 485).
However, teachers may be incorrectly blaming texting for poor student writing. Although results
are largely mixed, research has revealed little evidence that text messaging contributes to the
decline of writing skills for children (Plester, Wood, & Joshi, 2009; Powell & Dixon, 2011).
Furthermore, text messaging may perhaps be more motivating for students who are then less
constrained by the conventions of writing and encouraged by the brevity of short messages.
In addition to the descriptions as to how technology is used in general and/or to support
writing instruction, teacher participants specified those factors that hindered their use of technol-
ogy for writing. Supported by previous research (Applebee & Langer, 2011; Graham et al., 2014),
access to technology for writing was reportedly a significant problem. Some of the school districts
represented in this study reported having 1:1 initiatives or future goals of technology use. The
expectation for devising such initiatives and goals is that they will help to facilitate inclusionary
practices and personalise the needs of all students so that student learning can improve. However,
teachers in this study were hindered by a lack of access and depicted gaining access to technology
as a competitive race. A competitive climate was described as teachers needed to plan months in
advance in order to sign up for computer lab access while others would hoard the cart of laptops in
one’s classroom to secure access. Further, some school carts provided laptops but were often short
of the number of students if classrooms were over 17 students. Seemingly, the challenge of access
is evident if there is not a 1:1 ratio of student to computer in every classroom. The recent 2016
National Educational Technology Plan from the US Department of Education recognises progress
over the last five years to include high-speed classroom connectivity and a drop in the cost of
digital devices, but it does recognise that many schools still do not have access or are still not using
technology to support student learning. In addition, and most relevant to the findings described in
16 K. REGAN ET AL.

this study, the report recognises ‘the importance of preparing teachers to teach effectively with
technology and to select engaging and relevant digital learning content’ (U.S. Department of
Education, 2016, p. 6).
Therefore, the 2016 Technology Plan made the following recommendation: ‘Provide pre-service
and in-service educators with professional learning experiences powered by technology to increase
their digital literacy and enable them to create compelling learning activities that improve learning
and teaching, assessment, and instructional practices’ (p. 83). Instructional practices to improve
student writing is essential. Teachers who are hindered to integrate technology for writing
instruction because they are struggling ‘to cover the curriculum’, need experiences to help them
understand that writing and communication is a skill to be woven in ALL aspects of the curriculum.
Also, Ward (2003) suggested that teachers need to actively discover the reasons for using technol-
ogy in the classroom via reflective practice of their current practices and an awareness of how new
technologies can improve student learning. In doing so, perhaps these practices can influence
teacher beliefs and attitudes towards technology integration.
In addition, access to technology was reportedly limited given the use of technology for test
preparation. This increase in online formal assessment is a new barrier to technology integration
yet to be identified in the literature (see Groff & Mouza, 2008). Although Russell et al. (2003)
identified teachers’ use of technology ‘for recording grades’, results of this study highlighted heavy
use of technology to prepare students for high-stakes testing. Technology was often inaccessible at
certain times owing to testing administration. Although use of testing data is intended to support
teachers’ instructional decision making, the emphasis on test preparation deemphasises technol-
ogy use for supporting instruction and student learning.
Second, teacher participants struggled to find time for integrating technology. Specifically,
teachers spoke of limited class time when technology was involved owing to the time sometimes
needed to trouble-shoot technology and/or because students forgot their passwords or lacked
proficient keyboarding skills. Although teachers from at least one school district mentioned class
time of 45 minutes, perhaps classes that are longer, as often observed in secondary settings with
what is referred to as ‘block scheduling’ (as much as 90 minutes per class period), would help to
facilitate the integration of technology. With more time, would teachers be more inclined to
integrate technology in the classroom? Some literature indicates that special education teachers
have limited time allocated for instruction and so they struggle to manage the instructional
demands already (e.g., Vannest, Soares, Harrison, Brown, & Parker, 2010). Therefore, to expect
these teachers, as well as their general education counterparts, to prioritise technology integration
in addition to their other instructional demands may be ambitious. On the other hand, Karasavvidis
(2009) noted that the restrictive factor of time to integrate technology is implicitly alluding to issues
of the curriculum. The responses of the 51 teachers in the 2009 study revealed that they were more
concerned with getting through the Greek National Curriculum than students learning it. Teachers
in the current study appear to similarly perceive that the use of technology would not necessarily
facilitate meaningful student learning in a timely manner or enhance instruction. Further research
is needed to explore the optimal conditions for a teacher to best integrate technology including
teacher preparation, professional development experiences and instructional schedules.

Conclusion
While this study was conducted in the United States, it has implications for international teachers
and researchers. First, since the US is considered to be one of the more technologically advanced
countries, the reported limited access to both hardware and software in schools seems especially
troublesome. Despite accounts of progress with access to technology, this barrier to technology
integration is well documented in the literature and to be expected in varying degrees throughout
the world. However, a unique reason as to why access is challenging in the US was revealed in this
study. Findings suggest that technology in the US seems to be prioritised for assessing student
 TECHNOLOGY, PEDAGOGY AND EDUCATION 17

learning rather than facilitating student learning. During high-stakes testing times in US schools
(typically during April–June), technology for instructional use is limited. Whether the increase in
online formal assessment is also an emerging phenomenon outside of the US remains to be seen,
but further research is needed to determine the implications this may have on teachers and
students.
Second, countries such as the US, Australia and parts of Europe continue to see a heightened
demand for digital competence of both teachers and students. The International Society for
Technology in Education provides global educators with technology standards for both students
and teachers. Teacher education programmes across the globe have attempted to reform their
curricula so as to develop beginning educators who can integrate technology into their teaching
and for student learning. However, implications of this study suggest that professional develop-
ment and even policy mandates similar to that of IDEA for special educators in the US may not be
the agent of change needed. For example, simply because special educators are mandated to
consider assistive technologies to support students, it does not mean that the educators are
familiar with the technological options that exist to support student learning. That is, they cannot
consider what they don’t know (i.e. the consideration paradox, Edyburn, 2000). Teachers in this
study recognised the significant writing needs of their students, yet reported use of less sophisti-
cated technologies to support student learning. Given the increased international interest in
inclusive education, it is essential to at least introduce teachers around the world, especially in
developing countries, to the low-cost and low-tech solutions available to support students’ writing.
With the diversity of classrooms across the world, it is important to emphasise the affordances of
various technologies to support personalised and individualised learning. Finally, it is possible that
students should be the change agents that facilitate technology integration in schools. Teachers
and researchers around the world may benefit from introducing students to technologies that can
support their needs and allowing them to choose the tools or features to use.
While teachers continue to experience barriers to technology integration, it is important to note
that technology use is one of the critical skills in twenty-first-century learning. The fact that teacher
participants in this study recognised its importance offers hope for more technology integration
given more access to hardware and more training for teachers, particularly with how technology
can be used to enhance writing instruction. Exploration of settings with one-on-one technology
initiatives might provide a different perspective on the factors that hinder technology integration.
As Ward (2003) pointed out, however, negative barriers to accessing technology may be overstated
in the literature. Rather, influencing teacher attitudes and changing mindsets towards use of
technology, particularly in the content areas like writing, is needed.

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

Funding
This work was supported by the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services [Grant No. H325D120036,
Grant No. H327S120011].

Notes on contributors
Kelley Regan, PhD, is an associate professor of Special Education at George Mason University. She is Co-Principal
Investigator of Project WeGoRIITE, a United States Department of Education, Office of Special Education (OSEP) grant
supporting the implementation of an evidence-based technology tool to support student writing. Her scholarly
interests include teacher preparation and improving the literacy skills of students with learning and emotional/
behavioural disabilities.
18 K. REGAN ET AL.

Anya S. Evmenova, PhD, is an associate professor of Special Education at George Mason University. She is Principal
Investigator of Project WeGoRIITE, a United States Department of Education, Office of Special Education (OSEP) grant
supporting the implementation of an evidence-based technology tool to support student writing. Her research
interests focus on assistive technology and instructional technology, Universal Design for Learning, and quality online
teaching.
Donna Sacco, PhD, is a clinical assistant professor at the University of North Carolina in Charlotte. Her research
interests include supporting culturally and linguistically diverse exceptional learners and improving teacher
preparation.
Jessica Schwartzer is a doctoral candidate in Educational Leadership at George Mason University. Her research
interests include socially just leadership, culturally relevant pedagogy and racial identities in schools.
David S. Chirinos, PhD, is a faculty member at the University of North Georgia. His research interests include self-
regulated learning, motivation and educational psychology.
Melissa D. Hughes, PhD, is a special education teacher of students with learning and behavioural disabilities and adjunct
instructor at George Mason University. Her research interests include literacy and assistive and instructional technology.

References
Applebee, A. N., & Langer, J. A. (2011). A snapshot of writing instruction in middle schools and high schools. English
Journal, 100, 14–28.
Bate, F. (2010). A bridge too far? Explaining beginning teachers’ use of ICT in Australian schools. Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology, 26, 1042–1061.
Batorowicz, B., Missiuna, C. A., & Pollock, N. A. (2012). Technology supporting written productivity in children with
learning disabilities: A critical review. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 79, 211–224.
Bauer, J., & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward technology integration in the schools: Why it isn’t happening. Journal of
Technology and Teacher Education, 13, 519–546.
Bebell, D., Russell, M., & O’Dwyer, L. (2004). Measuring teachers’ technology uses: Why multiple-measures are more
revealing. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37, 45–63.
Bouck, E. C., (2016). A national snapshot of assistive technology for students with disabilities. Journal of Special
Education Technology, 31, 4–13. doi: 10.1177/0162643416633330
Brantlinger, E., Jimenez, R., Klinger, J., Pugach, M., & Richardson, V. (2005). Qualitative studies in special education.
Exceptional Children, 71, 195–207.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Culp, K. M., Honey, M., & Mandinach, E. (2005). A retrospective on twenty years of education technology policy. Journal
of Educational Computing Research, 32, 279–307.
Cutler, L., & Graham, S. (2008). Primary grade instruction: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100,
907–919.
Davies, R. S., & West, R. E. (2014). Technology integration in schools. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop
(Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 841–853). New York, NY: Springer.
Demirci, A. (2009). How do teachers approach new technologies: Geography teachers’ attitudes towards Geographic
Information Systems (GIS). European Journal of Educational Studies, 1, 43–53.
Drent, M., & Meelissen, M. (2008). Which factors obstruct or stimulate teacher educators to use ICT innovatively?
Computers & Education, 51, 187–199.
Edyburn, D. L. (2000). Assistive technology and students with mild disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 32(9), 1–24.
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology
integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers and Education, 59, 423–435.
Geertsema, S., Hyman, C., & van Deventer, C. (2011). Short message service (SMS) language and written language
skills: Educators’ perspectives. South African Journal of Education, 31, 475–487.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Graham, S., Capizzi, A., Harris, K. R., Hebert, M., & Morphy, P. (2014). Teaching middle school students: A national
survey. Reading and Writing, 27, 1015–1042. doi: 10.1007/s11145-013-9495-7
Gray, L., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2010). Teachers’ use of educational technology in U.S. public schools: 2009 (NCES-2010-
040). National Center of Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010040.pdf
Groff, J., & Mouza, C. (2008). A framework for addressing challenges to classroom technology use. AACE Journal, 16, 21–46.
Gülbahar, Y. (2007). Technology planning: A roadmap to successful technology integration in schools. Computers &
Education, 49, 943–956.
Karasavvidis, I. (2009). Activity Theory as a conceptual framework for understanding teacher approaches to
Information and Communication Technologies. Computers & Education, 53, 436–444.
 TECHNOLOGY, PEDAGOGY AND EDUCATION 19

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Nutt, J. (2010). Professional educators and the evolving role of ICT in schools. Perspective report. Retrieved from http://
www.ictliteracy.info/rf.pdf/ICTinSchools.pdf
Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress. (1988). Power on! New tools for teaching and learning. Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress. (1989). Linking and learning: A new course for education. Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress. (1995). Teachers and technology: Making the connection, OTA-HER-
616. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Plester, B., Wood, C., & Joshi, P. (2009). Exploring the relationship between children’s knowledge of text message
abbreviations and school literacy outcomes. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27, 145–161.
Powell, D., & Dixon, M. (2011). Does SMS text messaging help or harm adults’ knowledge of standard spelling? Journal
of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 58–66. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00403.x
Regan, K., Berkeley, S., Hughes, M., Kirby, S. (2014). Effects of computer-assisted instruction for struggling elementary
readers with disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 48, 106–119. doi:10.1177/0022466913497261
Russell, M., Bebell, D., O’Dwyer, L., & O’Connor, K. (2003). Examining teacher technology use: Implications for
preservice and inservice teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 54, 297–310.
Ten Brummelhuis, A. C. A. (1995). Models of educational change: The introduction of computers in Dutch secondary
education (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Twente, Enschede.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Enhancing education through technology. Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 2001. Retrieved from http://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. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Technology.
U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Future ready learning: Reimagining the role of technology in education. National
Education Technology Plan 2016. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Technology.
Vannatta, R. A., & Fordham, N. (2004). Teacher dispositions as predictors of classroom technology use. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 36, 253–271.
Vannest, K. J., Soars, D. A., Harrison, J. R., Brown, L., & Parker, R. I. (2010). Changing teacher time. Preventing School
Failure, 54, 86–98. doi:10.1080/10459880903217739
Ward, L. (2003, November–December). Teacher practice and the integration of ICT: Why aren’t our secondary teachers
using computers in their classrooms? Paper presented at NZARE/AARE 2003, Auckland. Retrieved from http://www.
aare.edu/03pap/war03165.pdf
Warschauer, M. (2007). Technology and writing. In C. Davidson & J. Cummins (Eds.), The international handbook of
English language teaching (pp. 907–912). Norwell, MA: Springer.
Wells, J., & Lewis, L. (2006). Internet access in U.S. public schools and classrooms: 1994–2005 (NCES 2007-020). U.S.
Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.
gov/pubs2007/2007020.pdf
Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. L. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology innovation. Teachers College
Record, 104, 482–515.