This review paper presents categories of barriers of integrating, adopting and designing educational technology. Presented at 45th Congress of the Nordic Educational Research Association (NERA)

1. PROBLEMATIZING THE RAPID CHANGES IN
DIDACTICS, MATERIAL AND SPATIAL CONDITIONS
AS FACTORS UNDERLYING THE DISSATISFACTION
AMONG NORDIC TEACHERS AND STUDENTS
TOWARDS EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGIES
MD. SAIFUDDIN KHALID
PHD (HCCI), MSC (CSC)
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, KHALID@LEARNING.AAU.DK

2. BARRIERS OF INTEGRATING AND ADOPTING
EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY: A LITERATURE REVIEW
Scope of the paper

3. METHODOLOGY

6. Paper Exclusion Criteria
Applying PACT framework of Interaction design.
• People: If not teachers, students, parents and educational administrators.
• Activities: Teaching-learning activities
• Context: If not educational, for instance, doctors and nurses in clinics and
hospitals.
• Technology: If not at all dealing with digital technologies.
Other exclusion criteria
• If not in English language
• Years: Not before 1991 (History: WWW and Linux were launched)

7. PRISMA Flow Diagram
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The
PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The
PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(6): e1000097.
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097

8. Keywords
• Classroom,
• Educational technology,
• Information and communication technology
• ICT in education
• Integration, assimilation, adoption
• Diffusion, domestication,
• Barriers, challenges, obstacles, and hindrances

9. QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS & SYNTHESIS
SYNTHESIS

10. Evident
Factors:
Designs for
Learning in
two different
contexts and
organizational
systems

11. Technology Obsolescense: Not Evident in EdTech Literature

12. QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS & SYNTHESIS
ANALYSIS

13. Edtech integration barriers: Seven categorization approaches
Categorizations of Barriers Literatures
Micro level, meso level and macro level (Khalid & Nyvang,
2013)
Teacher level, school level and system level (Balanskat et al., 2006)
Extrinsic or first-order and intrinsic or second-order (Ertmer, 1999;
Snoeyink & Ertmer,
2001)
Material and non-material barriers (Pelgrum, 2001)
Teacher-level barriers (confidence, competence, and
resistance to change & negative attitude) and school-level
barriers (time, training, accessibility, technical support)
(Bingimlas, 2009)
Resources, knowledge and skills, institution, attitudes
and beliefs, assessment, and subject culture
(Hew & Brush, 2006)
Direct and Indirect (Hew & Brush, 2006)

14. Extrinsic and Intrinsic barriers
(Ertmer, 1999; Snoeyink & Ertmer, 2001; Albirini, 2006)
Ertmer’s terminology Applied understanding
First-
order
Extrinsic Institutional,
incremental
• External to education system,
and/or
• Internal to education system
levels of macro and meso
Second-
order
Intrinsic Fundamental
, personal
Internal to individuals — roles
within or outside the education
system

15. Material and Non-material barriers
(Pelgrum, 2001)

16. Teacher-level and School-level barriers
(Bingimlas, 2009)
• School-level = Institution-Level
• University-level
• Faculty-level
• Department-level
• Study program level
• Teacher-level barriers
• confidence,
• competence,
• resistance to change,
• & negative attitude
• School-level barriers
• time,
• training,
• accessibility,
• technical support

17. Resources,
Knowledge and skills,
Institution,
Attitudes and beliefs,
Assessment,
Subject culture
(Hew & Brush, 2006)

18. Direct and Indirect barriers
(Hew and Brush, 2006)
Four Categories of Direct Barriers
1. Teachers’ attitudes and beliefs towards edcuational
technology
2. Teachers’ knowledge and skills
3. Institution
4. Resources

19. Framework: Macro, Meso, Micro, External
(Khalid & Nyvang, 2013)

20. Education system’s external barriers!
• Poor internet connectivity
• Lower social status – color, cast, creed, gender
• Language proficient and language difference
• Education and Technology in Family

21. Micro (Individual) Level Barriers
• Teachers’ and administrators’
attitude and belief
• Students’ attitude
• Parents’ attitude
Three components of learners’ motivation
1. An expectancy component, which
includes the student’s belief in his or her ability
to perform a task (i.e., [computer] self-efficacy),
2. A value component, which includes the
student’s goals and beliefs about the importance
and interest of the task (i.e., intrinsic value)
3. An affective component, which includes
the student’s emotional reactions to the task (i.e.,
[computer] anxiety).” (Montazemi, 2006, p. 126)

22. Meso (Institutional) Level Barriers
• Teachers’Subjective norm (social factors of organization)
• Classroom Environment and Design
• Collaboration as organization culture
• Organizational freedom at individual level

23. Macro (Institutional) Level Barriers
• Teachers’ subjective norm (social factors of organization)
• Leadership and Decision Support
• Classroom environment and design
• Collaboration as organziation culture
• Organizational freedom at individual level

24. Macro (National)
Macro Level
• Teacher Training
• National Policies

25. Multil –Level (Macro & Meso): Resources
• Availability of technology
• Access to available technology
• Time
• Technical support
• Ressource quality
• Funding
• Lack of teacher or trainer

26. Macro & Meso
Teachers’ Knowledge and Skills
1. Specific Technology
2. Technology-supported
pedagogical
1. Replacement
2. Amplification
3. Transformation
3. Technology-related-classroom
management
• Corruption & Ethics
• Assessment
• Re-integration
• Vision, Strategy, and Plan

28. Summing-up
• Myth: “One size fits all” – EdTech design & User Experience
• Biases:
• Pro-Innovation bias (Rogers, 2003)
• “System blame” versus “individual blame” (Rogers, 2003)
• Common Practice: IT support can do everything!
• Future direction: Job roles to work the challenges
• Dedicated pedagocial IT specialists
• Learning Process and IT Systems Analysts
• Time and budget for knowledge and skills development
• Learner Experience Design approach for EdTech development

29. Reference: Khalid , M. S. Secondary Educational Institution Centered
Diffusion of ICT in Rural Bangladesh. (2014). Institut for Læring og Filosofi,
Aalborg Universitet. URL: https://goo.gl/i157Tb