Teachers’ Perceptions of Integrating
Information and Communication
Technologies Into Literacy Instruction:
A National Survey in the United States
Amy Hutchison
Iowa State University, USA
David Reinking
Clemson University, South Carolina, USA
ABSTRACT
This research explores literacy teachers’ perceptions of integrating information communication technologies (ICTs)
into literacy instruction. To this end, a national survey of 1,441 literacy teachers in the United States was conducted.
The survey provided data concerning the types and levels of reported availability and use of ICTs, beliefs about the
importance of integrating ICTs into literacy instruction, and perceived obstacles to doing so. The analysis of data
included descriptive statistics, an exploratory factor analysis, and a path analysis used to test a model hypothesizing a
relation between teachers’ perceived importance of technology and reported levels of integration. Results revealed
relatively low levels of curricular integration, consistent perceptions about obstacles to integration, and technological
rather than curricular definitions of ICTs and of integration. The path analysis suggested several characteristics and
influences associated with higher levels of integration and use. The findings advance understanding of the extent to
which ICTs are being integrated into literacy instruction and what factors should be considered toward profitably
increasing integration consistent with expanding definitions of literacy.
D
igital forms of communication, which are
often referred to collectively as information
and communication technologies (ICTs),
have entered the mainstream of everyday literacy. For
example, since 2000 the Pew Research Center’s Pew
Internet & American Life Project has disseminated
numerous reports that document the increasing use of
the Internet and how its use has transformed diverse
areas of personal and professional life (see www
.pewinternet.org/topics.asp?c=4). Responding to these
trends, prominent professional organizations promoting the development of literacy in schools have issued
calls for educators to integrate ICTs and associated
forms of digital reading and writing into their instruction. For example, the International Reading Association (IRA) has adopted a position statement that takes
the following stance:
312
To become fully literate in today’s world, students must
become proficient in the new literacies of 21st-century technologies. As a result, literacy educators have a responsibility
to effectively integrate these new technologies into the curriculum, preparing students for the literacy future they
deserve. (IRA, 2009, n.p.)
Likewise, the National Council of Teachers of English
(NCTE) has 4 position statements, 4 sets of guidelines,
and 11 resolutions related to ICTs, including standards
for integrating them into instruction (see www.ncte
.org).
Several premises underlie these calls to integrate
ICTs into literacy instruction and establish the need
for and the focus of the present study. First, literacy
teachers are expected to provide foundational skills,
strategies, and dispositions for reading and writing in
Reading Research Quarterly 46(4) pp. 312–333 doi: 10.1002/RRQ.002 © 2011 International Reading Association
the dominant modes and genres of communication
employed in academic learning and daily life.
Although there are many opportunities to authentically
apply and practice these skills, strategies, and dispositions in other academic subjects, literacy teachers are
specifically charged with developing all mainstream
aspects of literacy, increasingly including those involving ICTs. Second, the curriculum of literacy instruction includes opportunities for using ICTs to enhance
content specific to the language arts (e.g., using the
Internet to find background on an author or the setting
of a novel). These two premises are reflected in the
recently released national common core state standards
for language arts in the United States (www.corestan
dards.org/the-standards), which include attention to
digital forms of reading and writing and reaffirm the
fundamental role of the language arts in supporting
literate activity in other curricular areas.
Third, despite prominent calls for integrating
ICTs into instruction and the widespread availability
of Internet access in schools (in 2006, Wells & Lewis
reported access approaching 100%), many scholars
have argued that integration has been minimal or
superficial and has not kept pace with developments
outside of classrooms and schools, especially in the
United States (e.g., Cuban, 2001, Leu 2006). Some
empirical evidence suggests that integration has been
relatively sparse among literacy teachers (Karchmer,
2001; Stolle, 2008). Indeed, a perceived lack of adequate integration is the implicit rationale for IRA and
NCTE to stress the need to integrate ICTs into
instruction. However, data have not been collected
on a large scale to determine—from the standpoint
of literacy teachers—the extent to which integration
has occurred, what obstacles inhibit integration, how
teachers conceptualize ICTs, and so forth. Neither
are there data suggesting what characteristics, perceptions, or situations pertaining to the use of ICTs are
associated with lower or higher levels of reported
integration.
A fourth premise is that ICTs provide unique
affordances for reading and writing and thus they
require unique skills, strategies, and dispositions that
may build upon, but also exceed, those associated with
conventional printed forms of communication. This
premise is supported theoretically and empirically in
the literature substantiating the differences between
digital and printed texts (e.g., Leu & Reinking, 1996;
McEneaney, 2006; Reinking, 1992, 1998, 2001) and by
prominent arguments that digital forms of reading and
writing significantly alter and expand definitions of
literacy (e.g., Coiro, Knobel, Lankshear & Leu, 2008;
Kress, 2003; Lankshear & Knobel, 2003). Thus, a failure to integrate ICTs appropriately into language arts
instruction risks leaving today’s generation of students unprepared for mainstream reading and writing
activities that are increasingly prominent in and out of
academic contexts (Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, & Cammack,
2004).
A final premise is that the burden of integrating
ICTs into literacy instruction does not fall solely on
literacy teachers. For example, the IRA position
statement calls for research that not only informs practitioners’ understandings of integration but also policymakers and those involved in pre- and inservice
education who are in a position to support efforts to
facilitate integration. However, the research that might
provide such guidance is relatively limited. There has
been no widespread, systematic effort to determine
how teachers, who must be in the vanguard of integrating ICTs into literacy instruction, view the relevant
issues. For example, although a variety of obstacles
inhibiting the integration of ICTs into instruction have
been identified in the literature, little is known about
what literacy teachers themselves perceive the obstacles to be. There are no data broadly characterizing
teachers’ beliefs about the importance of integrating
ICTs into literacy instruction (e.g., Are they being convinced by the calls for such integration?) or about the
ways in which they conceptualize ICTs in relation to
their instruction. Neither do we know whether certain
perceptions, beliefs, and practices are associated with
more or less integration of ICTs. The lack of data pertaining to such questions is especially unfortunate
because teachers’ beliefs have consistently been identified as related to the extent to which they integrate
ICTs into their instruction (Bruce & Rubin, 1993;
Clark & Peterson, 1986; Ertmer, 2005; Hughes, Kerr, &
Ooms, 2005; Windschitl & Sahl, 2002; Zhao, Pugh,
Sheldon, & Byers, 2002).
In light of these premises, the purposes of the present study were to (a) characterize literacy teachers’ perceptions about integrating ICTs into instruction; (b)
clarify and extend findings from previous research pertaining to integrating ICTs into literacy instruction; (c)
assist policymakers, education leaders, and those
involved with professional development in efforts to
facilitate the integration of ICTs into instruction; and
(d) create a benchmark against which evolving trends
might be compared in the future. Specifically, we
developed and disseminated to literacy teachers in the
United States an online survey to address the following
questions:
1. Do literacy teachers report that necessary or useful technologies are available to facilitate the integration of ICTs into instruction, and do they
have the technological support to assist with the
use of those technologies?
2. Which ICTs do literacy teachers believe are
important for literacy instruction, and how frequently do they report using them?
Teachers’ Perceptions of Integrating Information and Communication Technologies Into Literacy Instruction
313
3. How do literacy teachers conceptualize the
integration of ICTs into their instruction? Do
their conceptions align more with superficial
technological or substantive curricular integration
(as explained subsequently in this manuscript)?
4. What are literacy teachers’ perceptions about the
role and benefit of using technology in literacy
instruction?
5. What do literacy teachers perceive to be the
obstacles to integrating ICTs into literacy
instruction?
6. What characteristics or beliefs are associated with
more or less integration of ICTs? In other words,
what factors predict teachers’ reported integration of ICTs?
Background
Because there are no current data addressing these
questions on a large scale in the United States, our
intent was to create a broad backdrop for more narrowly focused research in the future. We wish to note
that we previously reported preliminary data from the
survey regarding the question about literacy teachers’
perceptions of obstacles to integrating ICTs (Hutchison & Reinking, 2010). Those data are summarized
again in the present report because conclusions and
interpretations from the previous report are extended
and refined in the context of results from the entire
survey. The previously reported data about obstacles
to integration also illuminate the results and conclusions pertaining to the other research questions
addressed in the present study.
Defining Integration
Integrating ICTs into literacy instruction is not a unidimensional concept. In the literature, a distinction is
typically made between simply using ICTs in a perfunctory way to replicate existing instruction aimed at
goals for conventional reading instruction, such as
using a digital projector to display a website providing
information about the author of a novel, and using
ICTs to address new instructional goals, such as how
to find information on the Internet (see Dockstader,
1999). Reinking, Labbo, and McKenna (2000) used the
Piagetian concepts of assimilation and accommodation
to highlight that distinction, arguing that teachers might
move through a developmental process of assimilating
ICTs to serve conventional instructional goals but
eventually accommodating them substantively into
their conceptions of literacy, thus adopting expanded
goals for instruction. That distinction is consistent with
the literature suggesting that technology is less likely to
314
be integrated, or integrated authentically and effectively, when teachers conceptualize the integration of
technology as separate from the curriculum. Indeed,
Harris, Mishra, and Koehler (2009) argued that
authentic curricular integration might entail complex
and dynamic interactions between technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge. Labbo and Reinking
(1999) proposed a hierarchy corresponding to that
development. Arguing that integrating ICTs in literacy
research and instruction involves multiple realities,
they identified the following progression:
1. Acquiring digital technology
2. Employing it to teach conventional instructional
goals
3. Allowing it to transform instruction
4. Adopting new instructional goals consistent with
new forms of reading and writing
5. Empowering students
Drawing on these perspectives, we developed the
survey to distinguish between what we refer to
broadly as technological integration and curricular
integration. Technological integration is more superficial, corresponding to assimilating ICTs (Reinking et
al., 2000) and the lower levels of Labbo and Reinking’s (1999) multiple realities. Technological integration reflects a stance that views ICTs as separate
from, or not fully integrated into, the curriculum. Curricular integration, on the other hand, is associated
with accommodation and higher levels, such as teaching specific skills related to using the Internet, and
reflects a stance that views ICTs as integral to the curriculum, as called for in the IRA position statement
indentifying 21st-century literacy skills. For example,
on the survey we queried teachers about the extent to
which they believed elements of Leu et al.’s (2004)
instructional categories were included in their definition of integration and the extent to which they were
engaged in such instruction.
Previous Research on Integration
Previous research relevant to understanding the extent
to which literacy teachers are integrating ICTs into
instruction is characterized by one or more of the
following limitations: (a) integration is studied across
several curricular areas, (b) no distinction is made
between more shallow technological and deeper curricular integration, (c) only a few teachers in a single
school or district are studied, or (d) the focus is on
teachers identified as being on the leading edge of integrating technology into instruction. For example,
Karchmer (2001) analyzed data from semistructured
e-mail interviews with 13 teachers who taught in kindergarten through 12th grade and from their journals
Reading Research Quarterly 46(4)
that reflected on how they integrated technology into
instruction. Although the teachers expressed understanding of and commitment to what we call curricular
integration, Karchmer concluded that such integration
was minimal. Importantly, these teachers were selected
to participate in the study from a pool of 31 teachers
who were nominated as being exemplary in integrating
technology into literacy instruction. Thus, this study
did not reveal the perceptions of a broad cross-section
of literacy teachers with varying stances toward and
experiences with ICTs.
More recently, Stolle (2008) conducted observations of 16 secondary teachers in various content
areas, accompanied by focus-group interviews, to
investigate how they viewed the effects of ICTs on
teaching and learning, and the relation between those
views and their teaching practices related to literacy.
She concluded that tensions, ambiguities, and fears
teachers face about access to technology, knowledge
of its use, and who benefits from using it limit the
extent to which ICTs are integrated into instruction.
As a consequence, “teachers are limited in their ability
to envision beyond what they already know and do”
(p. 65), and they “simply find ways to use ICTs to
complete tasks they previously did without ICTs”
(p. 66). The present investigation provides larger scale
national data to determine if such findings and conclusions are pervasive among a broad spectrum of
literacy teachers.
Obstacles to Integration
There is little consensus about what may inhibit the
integration of ICTs into instruction in general or into
literacy instruction in particular. Possible obstacles
have been studied using qualitative methods (Honan,
2008; Kist, 2007; Stolle, 2008; Warschauer, Knobel, &
Stone, 2004; Zhao et al., 2002), mixed methods (Bauer
& Kenton, 2005), and surveys (National Center for
Educational Statistics, 2005; United States Department
of Education, 2003). However, there is little consistency across these studies, suggesting that small-scale
studies, often across diverse school subjects, do not
provide a complete or reliable identification of the
obstacles literacy teachers perceive as impeding
integration of ICTs into instruction. Further, the range
of factors considered is often limited in individual
studies.
Thus, one goal of the survey was to reveal what
obstacles literacy teachers believe inhibit integration of
ICTs into literacy instruction. To address that goal, we
developed an item for the survey that listed 21 potential obstacles to integration and asked respondents to
indicate the extent to which they perceived each to be
an obstacle. Seventeen of the obstacles were drawn
from a systematic review of the literature, and four
were drawn from our experience in working with literacy teachers to integrate ICTs into instruction (see
Hutchison & Reinking, 2010).
Teachers’ Perceptions and Beliefs
Teachers’ perceptions of integrating ICTs into instruction represent another potential obstacle to integration.
That is, if teachers have shallow definitions or incomplete perceptions of integrating ICTs into instruction
—or perhaps even oppositional stances—they are not
likely to achieve a more authentic curricular integration
of ICTs. That theme is common in the literature. For
example, Ertmer (2005) noted,
Ultimately, the decision regarding whether and how to use
technology for instruction rests on the shoulders of classroom teachers. If educators are to achieve fundamental, or
second order, changes in classroom teaching practices, we
need to examine teachers themselves and the beliefs they
hold about teaching, learning, and technology. (p. 27)
Further, there is ample evidence that teachers’
beliefs, including their beliefs about their own efficacy
(see Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010) in integrating
technology into instruction, play a predominant role in
how they conceptualize and use computer-based technologies in their teaching (Bruce & Rubin, 1993; Clark
& Peterson, 1986; Ertmer, 2005; Hughes et al, 2005;
Windschitl & Sahl, 2002; Zhao et al., 2002). For example, Hughes et al. (2005) determined that the more
teachers see the connection between technology and
the subject content they teach, the more likely they are
to develop a technology-supported pedagogy. Thus,
one of the goals of the current study was to gain an
understanding of how literacy teachers define integrating ICTs into their instruction and how they perceive
the importance of doing so.
Factors Associated With Integrating ICTs
Into Instruction
There have been no studies specifically addressing
what factors might be associated with the level and
type of teachers’ activities aimed at integrating ICTs
into literacy instruction. However, knowing such distinctions may enlighten teachers, theoretically and
practically, about how to facilitate integration of ICTs
into literacy instruction. Nonetheless, there is some
research that suggests a starting point for considering
what the key factors might be. For example, researchers have investigated the pedagogical beliefs and environmental factors that seem to influence teachers’
integration of ICTs (e.g., Becker, 1994; Ertmer, Gopalakrishnan, & Ross, 2001; Scott, Chovanec, & Young,
1993). Likewise, Garner and Gillingham (1996), based
on six case studies of teachers who were engaging
their students with digital technologies during literacy
Teachers’ Perceptions of Integrating Information and Communication Technologies Into Literacy Instruction
315
activities, reported that the teachers seemed to be student-centered, active seekers of alternatives to their
current practice, and they were apt to see technology
as a means to an end. The present study examined on
a larger scale what reported perceptions, beliefs, and
uses might be related to literacy teachers’ reported
levels of integrating ICTs into instruction. Specifically,
we used the survey data to develop and test a model
that predicts reported levels of integration. One factor
included in that model is the role of professional
development, to which we now turn.
The Role of Professional Development
Some studies have suggested that a lack of appropriate
professional development is one of the prominent
reasons that teachers do not integrate technology into
their curriculum (Bauer & Kenton, 2005; Stolle, 2008).
It seems logical to assume that professional development aimed at helping teachers understand and integrate ICTs into instruction is useful and necessary
given that the evolution of ICTs has been rapid.
Additionally, the necessary adaptations of instruction
are potentially substantial (Leu, 2006). There are data
supporting that view, although none specifically pertaining to literacy teachers (e.g., Becker, 1999; Fatemi,
1999; Penuel, Boscardin, Masyn, & Crawford, 2007).
Yet there is no clear empirical evidence about what
approach to or what content provided through professional development might effectively advance teachers’
integration of ICTs into curriculum and instruction.
Although the methodology of the present investigation
does not address those issues directly, it does provide
data concerning teachers’ views about professional
development and what role those views may play in a
model predicting levels of integration, which might
inform the direction and content of professional development aimed at facilitating integration. For example,
if teachers’ definitions and perceptions of ICTs are
not conducive to integration (e.g., seeing it as separate
from the curriculum), then those views might be an
appropriate starting point for professional development. If, on the other hand, that issue is moot, then
professional development might emphasize more practical issues of implementation. Thus, understanding
literacy teachers’ perceptions about integrating ICTs
into instruction, and which perceptions and reported
uses are associated with higher levels of integration,
may inform professional development.
Method
Participants
The sample for this survey was drawn from teachers in
the United States who are members of a state or local
316
council of the IRA. That population was selected
because (a) members are predominantly literacy educators, the target population of this study; (b) every
state in the United States has a state affiliate comprised
of local councils, thus representing the potential for a
national sample, but with diversity in grade levels and
demographic profiles such as teaching experience; and
(c) many, but not all, of the state affiliates have e-mail
distribution lists, or they have other means available to
disseminate information about an online survey. In a
few states where there were obstacles to disseminating
the survey through IRA channels, respondents were
contacted through similar organizations with listservs
such as the Connecticut Association for Reading and
the weekly e-mail of Enhancing Missouri’s Networked
Teaching Strategies.
Table 1 provides a profile of respondents to the
survey. As noted, 31 states are represented in the survey from every region of the United States, with states
and number of participants grouped in accordance
with national regions designated by the United States
Census Bureau. To determine if the profile of the survey’s respondents was consistent with the profile of the
IRA membership, we obtained demographic data from
IRA headquarters (Anne Fullerton, personal communication, November 19, 2010). Comparing data from
the IRA membership that overlapped with the survey
revealed the following comparisons for level taught
(survey values, in parentheses, follow IRA data): teaching in kindergarten through grade 6 = 63.7% (53.2%);
teaching in middle school = 8.9% (30.2%); teaching in
high school = 5.6% (4.0%). Respondents to the survey
paralleled relatively closely the IRA membership
except at the middle school level. It may be that the
issues identified in the survey were more relevant to
middle school teachers, thus generating a higher
response from those teachers.
Likewise, we compared the teaching experience of
the IRA membership to that of respondents to the survey, which resulted in the following comparisons (IRA
percentages are followed by survey percentages in
parentheses): 0–5 years, 10.1% (18.9%); 6–10 years,
12.4% (16.7%); 11–20 years 27.3% (30.9%); and more
than 21 years, 50.2% (33.5%). The percentage of
respondents at each level of experience was somewhat
higher than the IRA membership, except for teachers
with more than 21 years experience, which had a lower
percentage.
Participants’ rating of their own capabilities in
using ICTs indicated that 85% believed their general
capabilities were developed to a moderate (51%) or
to a large (34%) extent, although interestingly, they
believed that the extent of their capabilities to use
ICTs for instruction was somewhat lower. That is,
15% of participants indicated that their general capabilities were developed not at all (1%) or to a small
Reading Research Quarterly 46(4)
Table 1. Profile of Participants
Professional experience
and demographics
Number of
respondents
Grade level taught
K–3
4–6
7–9
10–12a
Specialist/other
Percentage of
respondents
470
297
435
57
182
32.6
20.6
30.2
4.0
12.6
1,321
120
91.7
8.3
Teaching experience (years)
0–5
6–10
11–15
16–20
21–25
26 or more
272
240
232
213
162
322
18.9
16.7
16.1
14.8
11.2
22.3
Age
20–25
26–30
31–35
36–40
41–45
46–50
51–55
56–60
>60
87
123
126
154
172
183
263
213
120
6.0
9.0
9.0
10.7
12.0
12.7
18.2
14.8
8.0
Region of residence in the United States
Northeast
117
Northwest
124
Midwest
311
Southeast
324
Southwest
111
West
454
8.1
8.6
21.6
22.5
7.7
31.5
Teach language arts
Yes
No
Capability in using ICTs in general
Not at all
Small extent
Moderate extent
Large extent
NA
16
202
733
486
2
1.1
14.0
51.0
33.8
< 0.1
Capability in using ICTs for instruction
Not at all
66
Small extent
356
Moderate extent
675
Large extent
339
NA
4
4.6
24.7
46.8
23.5
< 0.1
a
Because there were substantially fewer grade 10–12 teachers than K–9
teachers (see Table 1), we conducted an analysis to determine if the results
would be statistically different without grade 10–12 teachers. We ran separate correlations for these respective groups for each of the factors established in the exploratory factor analysis. The correlations for each group of
teachers followed virtually the same direction and pattern. Further, all of the
factors identified when the analysis was conducted with both groups
together remained significantly correlated, and all but one of the items were
correlated in the same direction. Thus, we determined that the results and
conclusions would not be affected by removing the grade 10–12 teachers
from the analysis.
extent (14%), whereas twice that percentage indicated
that their capabilities for using ICTs in instruction
were developed not at all (5%) or to a small extent
(25%).
Development and Validation
of the Survey
The development and validation of the online survey
followed procedures and recommendations in the literature on survey development (Dillman, 2007; Rea &
Parker, 2005), including the development of online
surveys (Sue & Ritter, 2007). The development of the
survey began by establishing the constructs that would
be surveyed (Rea & Parker, 2005). These constructs
(reported in Table 2) were derived from the research
questions and informed by the available literature
reviewed previously in this article.
An initial pool of survey items for each construct
was developed. A focus group consisting of three classroom teachers was then consulted about all items to
obtain feedback from representatives of the group for
whom the survey was intended (Rea & Parker, 2005).
Teachers were selected to represent a range of ICT
use, including low, medium, and high levels of ICT
integration based on the teachers’ self-report and the
researchers’ experience working with the teachers during a previous, unrelated research study. The survey
items were revised based on feedback from the focusgroup meeting with the teachers. For example, several
additional examples of ICTs were noted during the
focus-group meeting, and additional questions were
generated to inquire about those ICTs. In addition,
clarifications in terminology were made to the survey
based on teachers’ input. After revision, the survey was
converted to an online format using Survey Monkey
(www.surveymonkey.com), a widely used application
for developing online surveys.
To enhance validity and increase refinement of the
survey, the initial survey was piloted. The pilot survey
consisted of 86 items based on the research questions,
survey constructs, relevant literature, and focus-group
results, and was distributed online using Survey Monkey. A link to the survey and a request for participation
were e-mailed to a convenience sample of 100 kindergarten through high school teachers in the researchers’
home state. Ninety-two completed surveys were
received. The sample for the pilot survey roughly
resembled that of the final survey, with 29 teachers of
grades K–3, 45 teachers of grades 4–6, and 18 teachers
of grades 7–12. Item analyses were conducted on the
items hypothesized to represent the constructs used to
design the survey. Cronbach’s a was computed to
determine internal consistency, and values ranged from
.82 to .96 for the constructs guiding development of the
survey. However, based on survey responses to the initial draft, feedback from the focus group, and problems
that arose while validating the survey, several items
were revised for clarity. For example, the word year
was changed to academic year to clarify the time span
to which we referred. In addition, we added specific
Teachers’ Perceptions of Integrating Information and Communication Technologies Into Literacy Instruction
317
Table 2. Survey Constructs and Items
Survey construct
Representative item
a
Numbered items
from surveyb
Response format
Extent of ICT integration
To what extent do you present students in
your typical reading or language arts class
with online work that involves using
computers or the Internet in the following
ways?
-Publishing information on a wiki or blog (etc.)
3A–K, 4L–R
Likert scale
Perceived importance of ICTsa
To what extent do you feel the following
activities would be important to your literacy
instruction, assuming they were available?
-Publishing information on a wiki or blog (etc.)
5A–K, 6L–R
Likert scale
Competency with ICTs a
To what extent are you skilled at using digital
technology for instruction?
7–9, 33
Likert scale
Obstacles to integration a
Please indicate the extent to which you
believe the following are obstacles to
integrating technology into your literacy/
language arts instruction:
I don’t think technology is reliable (etc.)
12A–H, 13A–G, 14A–G
Likert scale
Stance toward technology a
Choose the statement below that best
describes how you view technology as it
relates to language arts instruction.
10, 19–20, 37
Likert scale
Support for using/integrating ICTs
What kind of technology support is available
to you? (Click all that apply.)
-An in-school technology coordinator (for
instructional support)
17–18
Checklist (click all
that apply)
Availability of technology
What types of technology are available to you
at school? (Click all that apply.)
-Internet connected computer(s) in my
classroom
15–16
Checklist (click all
that apply)
Demographics
How many years have you been a teacher?
22–30, 38–41
Yes/no, open ended
Professional development
Do you feel that you have received adequate
professional development on the integration
of digital technology into your reading
curriculum?
31–32, 34–35, 36
Yes/no
Perceptions about integration
What do you feel would help you increase
your integration of technology into your
literacy/language arts instruction?
11, 21
Open ended
a
Construct with items and response formats that produced a composite scale. b Numbered items can be found at www.surveymonkey.com/s/KJJDQ6F
examples of the categories of ICTs identified in several
of the items. The final version of the survey consisted
of 69 items with responses on a Likert scale, 11 multiple
choice items, and eight open-ended items, for a total of
88 items. (The survey can be examined at www.surveymonkey.com/s/KJJDQ6F.) Table 2 summarizes the
major constructs in the final survey, followed by a sample item, the corresponding item numbers on the survey, and the format of responses for each construct.
For several of these constructs, response formats
that produced only numerical responses—as opposed
to, for example, open-ended statements—allowed us
to create composite scales (a term preferred in survey
research rather than “composite scores”). These scales,
highlighted with an a in Table 2, were used in an
exploratory factor analysis and a path analysis, as
detailed later in this article.
318
Disseminating the Survey and Soliciting
Participation
To decrease errors due to inadequate coverage, sampling, and nonresponse, the dissemination of the survey and the solicitation of participation were guided by
what Dillman, Smyth, and Christian (2009) referred to
as tailored design, which is advocated by Baumann
and Bason (2011) in the area of literacy research. Thus,
during three months the full survey was distributed in
several stages through multiple contacts. Each subsequent contact was intended to increase motivation and
investment in completing the survey diligently and
fully. Research has suggested that such multiple contacts and opportunities to complete the survey effectively improve the response rates (Schaefer & Dillman,
1998).
Reading Research Quarterly 46(4)
The initial contact consisted of sending a personal
e-mail to each of the presidents and membership
chairs of all the state IRA councils to inform them of
the study, to request their cooperation in facilitating
the study, and if they consented, to make them aware
that they would subsequently receive further instructions about how they could participate. That e-mail
also pointed out the importance of gathering such
data to address IRA’s goals. In addition, it informed
the state presidents and membership chairs that if at
least 15% of their members completed the survey,
they would receive a customized report of the survey
findings for their state. Five days after the first e-mail,
a second e-mail contact was made with state presidents and membership chairs. The second e-mail
suggested several ways each state president or
membership chair could invite their state reading
association members to complete the survey, and it
included a sample invitation e-mail. They were asked
to send the invitation e-mail to their members through
their e-mail distribution list, or to inform the
researcher if an e-mail invitation was not possible.
Based on Crawford, Couper, and Lamias’s (2001)
finding that a single e-mailed reminder doubled the
number of responses, approximately a week after the
second contact, a reminder was e-mailed to presidents
who had not replied.
Twenty-three state presidents or membership
chairs (47% of all presidents and chairs) did not
respond to either the first or second e-mail. Four state
presidents (< 1%) declined to participate because they
did not have an e-mail list or because of concerns
about members’ privacy. In these cases, an e-mail was
sent with other options for announcing the survey and
distributing the survey link, including posting a link to
the survey to the organization’s webpage and announcing the survey in a state newsletter. After determining
which state reading associations declined participation,
we e-mailed personal contacts in those states to request
suggestions about how to distribute the survey effectively to the appropriate population and who might be
contacted to facilitate dissemination through e-mail.
These contacts led to participation in five additional
states. The survey was available online from January
2009 through March 2009.
Sampling and Rates of Response
Although online surveys have many advantages and
are increasingly viewed as a useful and necessary tool
among survey researchers (Dillman et al., 2009; Sue &
Ritter, 2007), they also pose unique methodological
challenges when compared with traditional methods.
Although these challenges suggest caution in interpreting results, they do not negate the usefulness and validity of results under certain conditions. For example, as
Dillman (2007) noted, online surveys are particularly
appropriate for surveying “certain populations, such as
university professors, federal government employees,
workers in many companies and corporations, and
members of some professional organizations” (p. 356),
who generally have Internet access. In that regard,
there is reason to believe that virtually all literacy teachers have access to the Internet. For example, in 2005
the Pew Internet & American Life Project survey found
that 85% of college graduates regularly accessed the
Internet (Raine & Horrigan, 2005).
It is not possible to specify a response rate because
the number of individuals who received an invitation
to participate is unknown. For example, in several
cases the survey link was posted to an organizational
website or in a newsletter. Nonetheless, we believe that
the relatively high number of respondents, which
would produce a relatively small sampling error (< 3%
at a 95% confidence level) if it were a true random
sample, compensates somewhat for this limitation, as
argued by Sue and Ritter (2007). Further, the total
number of members of the IRA state affiliates is
approximately 75,000 (Anne Fullerton, personal communication, March 17, 2010). Thus, the number of
respondents was approximately 2% of the total subpopulation, and there was no reason to believe that
any members of state affiliates were systematically
excluded on the basis of factors related to the present
investigation. Further, as noted in a previous section,
respondents represented a diversity of demographic
variables such as age, teaching experience, grade level
taught, and region of the United States, and they were
proportionately consistent in most cases with the overall membership of the IRA.
Preliminary Data Analysis
Analysis began by deleting any surveys that were less
than 85% complete. The number of returned surveys
was 1,637, and 196 (11%) were omitted due to inadequate completion, resulting in 1,441 useable surveys.
Any remaining missing data were handled using the
data analysis software SPSS (SPSS, 2010) and Mplus
(Muthén & Muthén, 2007). In computing the descriptive statistics, missing data were handled using pairwise deletion in SPSS. For the path model, missing
data were handled using maximum likelihood estimation in Mplus. These methods were selected after the
missing data patterns were examined using the analysis
command in Mplus and it was determined that the
data were missing at random (MAR).
Exploratory Factor Analysis
Maximum likelihood exploratory factor analysis was
conducted to examine the internal reliability of the
survey and identify the underlying factor structure
Teachers’ Perceptions of Integrating Information and Communication Technologies Into Literacy Instruction
319
suggested by the pattern of responses. Items pertaining
to demographic characteristics, open-ended items, and
checklist items for which respondents only checked a
box to indicate if something was available to them
were not included in the factor analysis. First, the factorability of the items was examined. Assumptions for
factorability of the data were sufficiently met based on
Bartlett’s test of sphericity, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
measure of sampling adequacy, and the correlation
matrices. A Promax solution for rotation was selected
because the items within each of the variables were
likely to be related. Three items were eliminated
because they loaded below the acceptable level of 0.30.
A five factor solution was selected by examining (a)
eigenvalues greater than 1.0, (b) the scree plot of
eigenvalues, (c) factor loadings greater than 0.30, and
(d) substantive interpretability of the factor structures.
Internal consistency for each of the factors was examined using Cronbach’s a. Factor solutions are reported
in Table 3.
Table 3. Factor Loadings
Item
loadings
Number
of items
Cronbach’s
α
% common
variance
Extent of
integration
.38–.87
18
.92
52.84
Perceived
importance
.57–.86
18
.94
57.21
Obstacles
.38–.70
22
.89
30.62
Competency
.76–.90
3
.80
72.02
Stance
.73–.80
3
.66
59.73
Factor
Figure 1. Hypothesized Path Model of Factors Related
to the Extent of Integration of ICTs
PD–skill
PD–
integra on
Hypothesized Path Model
The constructs in the survey, including factors determined through the exploratory factor analysis, were
used to develop a hypothesized path model. The
model was derived from the existing theoretical and
empirical literature (reviewed previously in this article)
specifically the consistent finding that beliefs about
the importance of integrating technology into instruction were related to the extent of integration (e.g.,
Angers & Machtmes, 2005; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Hermans, Tondeur, van Braak, & Valcke,
2008; Windschitl & Sahl, 2002). Thus, in our model
we hypothesized a direct path between perceived
importance of ICTs (the summed raw scores from
the perceived importance factor, items 5A–K and 6L–
R) and the reported extent of integration (the
summed raw scores from the extent of integration factor, items 3A–K and 4L–R). Additional factors were
included in the model as potential mediating variables. Specifically, variables labeled as professional
development (PD) skill (item 31 in the survey) and as
PD integration (item 32 in the survey), and the competency factor (the summed raw scores from the competency factor, items 7–9) were included based on Zhao
et al.’s (2002) report on the importance of teachers’
skill and pedagogical understandings regarding technology integration. The variables labeled as stance
(created from the summed standardized scores from
the stance factor; items 10, 20, and 37), availability
(the summed raw scores from items 15 and 16) and
support (the summed raw scores from items 17 and
18) were added based on Christensen and Knezek’s
(2002) Will, Skill, Tool model. This model emphasized the effect of attitudes toward ICTs and the
320
Perceived
importance–
technology
Competency
Obstacles
Extent of
integra on
Support
Stance
Availability
availability of ICTs and relevant resources on ICT
integration. Finally, we included a variable based on
the summed values of responses to the items on the
obstacles composite scale. This variable represents the
range of obstacles displayed in Table 8 as derived
from our review of the literature. The hypothesized
model is displayed in Figure 1.
To conduct the path analysis, the composite scales
became variables in the path analysis by summing the
raw scores of the items included in each variable, with
the exception of the variable labeled stance. Instead, Z
scores were summed to create this variable because the
items comprising that variable did not include identical
response scales.
Results
In this section, we present results in subsections corresponding respectively to the six research questions outlined in the beginning of this article.
Reading Research Quarterly 46(4)
Are Relevant Technologies and Technical
Support Available?
Because literacy teachers cannot be expected to integrate ICTs fully into instruction if they lack requisite
technological tools and support, our first research
question addressed teachers’ perceptions of the extent
to which relevant technologies and technological support were available for their instruction. On the survey,
literacy teachers identified which of several technologies related to ICTs were available for their instruction
Table 4. Percentage of Teachers Reporting Availability
of Relevant Technologies for Literacy Instruction
Technological capability
Teachers reporting
availability % (n)
Computer(s) connected to the Internet
in school (outside of classroom)
92.0 (1,325)
Computer(s) connected to the Internet
(in classroom)
86.1 (1,240)
Digital projector
66.7 (961)
Interactive whiteboard
43.1 (621)
Laptop computer(s) at school for personal use
41.1 (592)
Digital video recording equipment
32.0 (461)
Document camera
15.3 (220)
Laptop computers for each student
12.3 (177)
Student e-mail
11.4 (164)
Personal Data Assistant (PDA)
7.0 (101)
iPod
5.8 (83)
Table 5. Percentage of Teachers Reporting Availability
of Technical Support for Using ICTs
Type of support
District technology coordinator (for technical
support)
Teachers reporting
availability % (n)
73.8 (1,063)
Library/media specialist
70.5 (1,015)
Another teacher who assists with technology
48.0 (691)
In-school technology coordinator (for
technical support)
47.4 (683)
Administrative support (for obtaining resources,
PD, etc.)
46.7 (673)
District technology coordinator (for
instructional support)
46.2 (665)
In-school technology coordinator (for
instructional support)
31.9 (459)
No assistance provided
1.6 (23)
and what types of support were available for using
them. The technologies listed in the survey included
those necessary to engage in using ICTs (e.g., Internet
connections), those that would facilitate use and integration of ICTs into instruction (e.g., digital projectors
and interactive whiteboards), and those that might fit
into both of these areas (e.g., laptops for individual
students). Tables 4 and 5 respectively summarize the
results, in descending order, for availability of the specified technologies and types of support. These data
indicate that although access to the Internet, which is a
fundamental capability to using ICTs, is widespread,
one third of the teachers reported that they do not have
access to a digital projector. Fewer than half of the
teachers reported having access to several other useful
tools and capabilities that would facilitate integrating
ICTs into literacy instruction. For example, fewer than
1 in 8 teachers reported that laptops were available
for each student to use during instruction. Although
Internet access is ubiquitous, many literacy teachers
reported that they lack these two important tools necessary for integrating ICTs into large-group or whole
class instruction. Virtually all teachers reported some
form of technical support, most often at the district
level, with only 1.6% reporting no assistance.
What ICTs Are Perceived as Important,
and How Often Are They Being Used?
To address our second research question, we asked literacy teachers to indicate the extent to which they
engage their students in activities involving specific
ICTs. The activities listed in that section of the survey
included those identified in the literature as examples
of new literacies (Leu et al., 2004), 21st-century literacy
(International Reading Association., 2009), and the
skills and strategies associated with online reading
comprehension (Leu et al., 2007). We reasoned that
these activities would reflect curricular rather than simply technological integration (e.g., using presentation
tools). We also reasoned that there might be a relation
between reported frequency and perceptions of importance. Thus, using the identical Likert scale for
responses, we asked teachers to identify the importance of integrating the same ICTs into instruction.
Table 6 compares respondents’ reported frequency
and their rated importance of using each of the ICTs
included in the survey. Means and standard deviations
in the table were computed from responses on a Likert
scale, which were assigned values as follows: not at all
(0), a small extent (1), a moderate extent (2), and a
large extent (3). The activities are listed in descending
order of reported frequency from those reported being
used most frequently to least frequently, paired with
the rated importance for each activity respectively. The
third column indicates the difference between the
Teachers’ Perceptions of Integrating Information and Communication Technologies Into Literacy Instruction
321
Table 6. Means and Standard Deviations of Reported Frequency and Importance of Using ICTs in Instructional Activities
Instructional activity using ICTs
Reported
frequency
M (SD) a
Perception of
importance
M (SD) a
Creating a Word document
Locating information online
Searching for information online (without specific search strategies)
Using reference sites online
Playing educational games online
Gathering pictures online
Searching for information online (with specific search strategies)
Reading a story online
Creating a multimedia presentation
Playing educational games on CD-ROM
Evaluating information online
Synthesizing information online
Formulating questions to research online
Sending e-mail
Publishing information on a website
Publishing information on a wiki or blog
Collaborating online with students from other classes
Communicating using Instant Messenger or other chat tools
2.69 (1.22)
1.57 (1.07)
1.56 (1.10)
1.46 (1.09)
1.37 (1.05)
1.25 (0.99)
1.19 (1.07)
1.15 (1.01)
1.13 (1.09)
1.07 (1.05)
1.03 (1.04)
0.96 (1.02)
0.91 (0.99)
0.47 (0.88)
0.32 (0.70)
0.26 (0.66)
0.24 (0.59)
0.17 (0.56)
3.36 (0.89)
2.45 (0.83)
2.43 (0.85)
2.28 (0.92)
1.38 (1.05)
1.79 (0.92)
2.32 (0.95)
2.06 (0.88)
2.08 (1.02)
1.61 (.94)
2.24 (0.99)
2.14 (1.03)
2.08 (1.01)
1.28 (1.07)
1.29 (1.05)
1.18 (1.06)
1.63 (1.02)
0.80 (0.94)
Difference between
M frequency and
M importance
0.67
0.88
0.87
0.82
0.01
0.54
1.13
0.91
0.95
0.54
1.21
1.18
1.17
0.81
0.97
0.93
1.39
0.63
a
Means and standard deviations for frequency and importance computed from responses on the following scale: not at all (0), a small extent (1), a moderate
extent (2), and a large extent (3).
mean values for frequency and importance for each
activity.
Comparing frequency and importance in Table 6
reveals several potentially insightful patterns. First, for
each activity listed, subtracting the mean for rated
importance from the mean for reported use results in a
negative value. Thus, in every instance, respondents
rated the importance as greater than the frequency of
use (with the caveat that the items on frequency and
importance are not necessarily isomorphic, despite
using identical scales). Among the literacy teachers
responding to this survey, there seemed to be a gap
between their perceptions about the importance of
integrating ICTs into their instruction and their
reported use of them. A second pattern is that for some
items, there is a relatively close connection between the
teachers’ beliefs about importance and the frequency
of use on the lower end of each Likert scale. For example, for communicating using Instant Messenger or
other chat tools, the means for frequency (0.17) and
for importance (0.80) are both relatively low, indicating
a relatively close connection between low-rated importance and reported use. A similarly close connection
between lower rated importance and reported use is
evident for other new genres of reading and writing,
such as publishing information on a wiki or blog,
publishing information on a website, and even sending
e-mail. Finally, Table 6 also shows that the larger differences between reported frequency of use and rated
importance are between uses associated with the 21stcentury skills for literacy that imply curricular rather
than technological integration (i.e., collaborating online
with students from other classes, evaluating information online, synthesizing information online, formulat-
322
ing questions to research online, searching for
information online, and, to an extent, reading a story
online).
How Do Teachers Conceptualize
and Define Integration?
Our third research question addressed how literacy
teachers conceptualize and define integrating ICTs into
instruction. To address that question, teachers were
asked to respond to the following open-ended question: “What do you think it looks like to integrate technology into literacy instruction? Give as many ideas as
you can.” Five scrolling text boxes were provided for
responses. All respondents entered a response in at
least one text box, and the majority entered a response
in all five boxes. Less than 1% of the respondents indicated that they did not know what integration of ICTs
meant.
Responses were analyzed using a content analysis
approach (Neuendorf, 2002) with an emergent coding scheme. First, two researchers independently
reviewed all of the responses, each creating an initial
list of categories into which the responses seemed to
fit. Then they met to discuss their independent categories, creating a set of common codes. For example,
at this stage they decided that all responses related to
using ICTs for multimedia presentations, to showing
documents using a document camera, to using digital
projectors, or to presenting information to a group
would be coded as presentation tools. Using these
codes, the researchers each independently coded the
same 150 randomly selected responses. They met
again to compare their coding and agreed that three
Reading Research Quarterly 46(4)
Table 7. Conceptualizations and Definitions of ICT Integration: Codes and Percentage of Teachers’ Responses
for Each Code
% of respondents
coded accordingly
Code
Description
Presentation tools
Using ICTs (students or teachers) for presenting information (e.g., making
multimedia presentations or demonstrations, displaying websites and other
information, using document cameras)
38
Research
Students using ICTs for research on any topic
23
Supplement or replacement
for existing materials and
instruction
Using ICTs to replace activities that were already being conducted with
conventional materials (e.g., Word documents), or to supplement, extend, or
support existing instructional content or activities (e.g., using an interactive
whiteboard to do word sorts)
20
Enhancement tool and building
block for background
information
Using ICTs for building background knowledge prior to reading instruction, and
for extending and enhancing reading instruction and reading topics
16
Computer as tutor
Using ICTs to provide supplemental instruction or to reinforce instruction
(e.g., online tutorials and educational games)
15
Computer as publisher
Using ICTs for publishing students’ work online (e.g., on blogs or websites, or in
podcasts) and offline (e.g., word processing to print stories and assignments)
15
Student interaction
Using ICTs to allow students to interact with the teacher during instruction
(e.g., students use clickers to provide responses), and to allow for interactive
work between students (e.g., students share an online writing space)
14
Alternative format reading
and texts
Using ICTs for reading in formats other than conventional print (e.g., e-books,
audio-supported readings, blogs, and books on iPods)
13
Enhancing the instructional
environment
Using ICTs to enhance the instructional environment to improve students’ interest,
engagement, excitement, comfort, sense of challenge, and inspiration to learn
12
Writing
Using ICTs (students and teachers) for conventional writing, digital story writing,
interactive writing, creating photo stories, editing and revising, learning the
writing process, and as a tool for writing to real audiences
12
new codes were needed. Using the additional three
codes, the researchers scored an additional 150
responses and compared their coding. No new codes
emerged, and intercoder agreement was 96%. Considering this acceptable agreement, the researchers
divided the remaining responses and coded them
independently.
Table 7 summarizes the codes, a description of
each code, and the percentage of teachers whose
responses related to each code. Codes are listed in
descending order by percentage, and only those codes
that captured at least 10% of the teachers’ responses
are listed.
These results suggest that many literacy teachers
conceptualize integration primarily as technological
rather than curricular. That is, they see integration more
often as enhancing conventional instructional goals or
using technology for its own sake as opposed to adopting new instructional goals involving new activities.
Consistent with this interpretation, despite the fact that
literacy teachers acknowledge the importance of skills,
strategies, and dispositions associated with 21st-century
literacy, they do not identify such uses of ICTs as central to their conceptions of integration. For example, in
Table 6, creating word processing documents and
searching for information online were among the few
functions that teachers indicated they used at least
moderately and that suggest curricular integration,
although these uses also lend themselves readily to supplementing more conventional instruction. Likewise, a
relatively high percentage of teachers identified more
perfunctory activities, such as using computers as presentation tools (38% of responses, which was the most
consistent response) and as a supplement to existing
instruction (20% of responses), as consistent with their
conception of integrating ICTs into their instruction.
Similarly, among the themes that less than 10% of the
teachers identified as consistent with their conceptualization of integration were those associated with curricular integration, such as authentic activities aimed at
preparing students for adulthood in the 21st century
(2%) and an awareness of global communication for
global understandings (2%).
What Is the Perceived Role or Benefit
of Technology?
To further study literacy teachers’ beliefs, our fourth
research question addressed their perceptions about
the role and benefit of ICTs. Respondents were
Teachers’ Perceptions of Integrating Information and Communication Technologies Into Literacy Instruction
323
asked to choose from among the following statements the one that is closest to their own view (each
followed by the percentage of respondents selecting
that statement): (1) “Technology should not be used
in instruction” (0.06%), (2) “Technology is not
important to instruction” (1%), (3) “Technology is
supplemental to instruction” (67%), (4) “Technology
is central to instruction” (29%), and (5)” I don’t
know” (2.4%). When they were asked to indicate the
extent to which technology benefits instruction, most
indicated that its benefits were large (46%) or moderate (40%). Less than 1% selected “not at all” and
5% were unsure. These data suggest that virtually all
literacy teachers believe that technology should be
integrated into instruction, but two thirds indicated
that it played a supplemental role. Likewise, a substantial majority (86%) believed that its benefits were
large or moderate.
What Are Perceived Obstacles
to Integration?
A fifth research question addressed literacy teachers’
perceived obstacles to integrating ICTs into instruction. For the present study, we drew on and extended
an earlier analysis of the survey data pertaining to this
question (Hutchison & Reinking, 2010). Knowing what
literacy teachers perceive to be obstacles to integrating
ICTs may be informative, for example, in (a) planning
professional development, (b) developing educational
policy, and (c) as a benchmark for monitoring
ICT integration in the future. Perceived obstacles to
integration was also a variable included in the model
generated from the exploratory factor analysis
described in the method section, and in a statistical test
of the model described in the subsequent section.
Teachers indicated their perceptions about obstacles by responding to the following statement: “Please
indicate the extent to which you believe the following
are obstacles to integrating technology into your
literacy/language arts instruction.” A list of 21 possible
obstacles followed, including 17 drawn from the existing literature and 5 from our experience in working
with teachers on projects aimed at integrating ICTs
into instruction. These latter items, which participants
in the focus group also endorsed, were (a) lack of
understanding about how to integrate technology into
instruction, (b) lack of professional development
related to integrating technology into instruction, (c)
lack of understanding about how to evaluate students’
ability to use ICTs, (d) Internet texts being too difficult
for students to read, and (e) lack of time due to highstakes testing. Possible choices for each potential obstacle were on a Likert scale and were assigned values as
follows: not at all (0), a small extent (1), a moderate
extent (2), and a large extent (3).
324
Table 8. Means and Standard Deviations of Responses
Concerning Perceived Obstacles to Integrating ICTs
Into Literacy Instruction
Ma
SDa
Lack of time during a class period
1.85
1.06
Lack of access to technology
1.73
1.13
Lack of professional development on how to
integrate technology b
1.63
1.08
Lack of technical support
1.58
1.10
Lack of time to prepare for using technology
1.46
1.10
Lack of time to teach students the basic
computer skills needed for more complex
tasks
Lack of time to integrate technology because
of the amount of time required to prepare
students for high stakes testing b
1.35
1.10
1.29
1.13
Lack of incentives to use technology
1.01
1.02
Not knowing how to evaluate or assess
students when they work online b
0.93
0.89
Difficulty controlling what information
students access online
0.92
0.90
Lack of support from administrators
0.90
1.04
Not knowing how to incorporate technology
and still teach content standards
0.89
0.92
Internet text seemingly too difficult for
students to read b
0.87
0.91
Lack of understanding of how to integrate
technology into literacy instruction b
0.83
0.88
Not knowing how skilled students are at
using technology
0.82
0.87
Considering technology to be unreliable
0.74
0.82
Not knowing how to use technology
0.65
0.84
Lack of understanding of copyright issues
0.62
0.78
Difficulty managing the classroom when
students are working on computers
0.52
0.77
Thinking that technology doesn’t fit my
beliefs about learning
0.29
0.63
Thinking that technology integration isn’t
useful
0.17
0.50
Potential obstacle
a
Means and standard deviations computed from responses on the following
scale: not at all (0), a small extent (1), a moderate extent (2), and a large
extent (3).
b
An obstacle not reported previously in the literature.
Table 8 presents the obstacles included in the survey with means and standard deviations for the
responses to each potential obstacle in descending
order with a higher mean representing teachers’ perceptions that it was a greater obstacle than one with a
lower mean. Thus, the obstacles toward the top of the
table are those that are perceived to be more problematic than those toward the bottom of the table.
For 13 of the 21 potential obstacles, the mean value
was less than 1.00, a point on the scale representing the
Reading Research Quarterly 46(4)
Table 9. Intercorrelations and Other Descriptive Statistics for Variables in Path Analysis
Variable
Importance
M
SD
Poss.
range
Sample
range
1
2
3
51.90
11.55
0–72
18–72
—
.04
.00
4
.28**
5
6
.07*
.05
7
8
.56**
9
.14**
.53**
PD—skill
0.42
0.49
0–1
0–1
—
.51**
.33**
.38**
.32**
.00
.22**
.09**
.09**
PD—integration
0.81
0.39
0–1
0–1
—
—
.37**
.38**
.25**
.04
.23**
.16**
.16**
Competency
11.56
2.53
0–16
4–16
—
—
—
.47**
.12**
.36**
.25**
.43**
.43**
Obstacles
23.07
11.37
0–66
0–66
—
—
—
—
.22**
.15**
.24**
.25**
.25**
Support
3.65
1.73
0–7
0–7
—
—
—
—
—
.08**
.38**
.12**
.12**
Stance
6.72
1.28
0–8
2–8
—
—
—
—
—
—
.16**
.45**
.45**
Availability
4.80
1.91
0–12
0–11
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
.30**
.30**
35.71
11.17
0–72
18–72
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Level of integration
**
p < .01
perception that the potential obstacle was an obstacle
to a small extent. That finding is encouraging and may
suggest progress in light of previous findings. However,
the mean for 8 of the potential obstacles was greater
than 1.00, representing the overall perception that each
obstacle was an obstacle to a greater extent. Of those 8
items, the following have been identified as obstacles
in the existing literature:
Lack of time within a class period (Bauer & Kenton, 2005)
● Lack of access to technology (Bauer & Kenton,
2005; Honan, 2008; Stolle, 2008; Zhao et al., 2002)
● Lack of technical support (Bauer & Kenton, 2005;
Ertmer et al., 1999; Stolle, 2008; Zhao et al., 2002)
● Lack of time to plan for integrating ICTs into
instruction (Ertmer et al., 1999)
● Lack of time to teach basic computing skills
(Bauer & Kenton, 2005; Warschauer et al., 2004)
● Lack of incentives to integrate technology (Zhao
et al., 2002)
●
the main constructs that guided the development of
the survey. The outcome variable was the composite
scale representing extent of integration. The exogenous
variable was the perceived importance composite scale.
To begin our analysis, bivariate correlations were conducted to test the strength and direction of the relationships among the variables (see Table 9). Because the
strength and direction of the correlations were as
expected based on our hypothesized model, we continued with the path analysis using Mplus 5.2 (Muthén
& Muthén, 2007) software. The results are shown in
Figure 2. We chose to report the paths that were not
statistically significant in the model (indicated by a
dotted line) for purposes of comparing how various
categories of teacher perceptions relate to the extent
of ICT integration. For example, the model indicates
that a teacher’s stance toward ICTs may be a better
Figure 2. Relationship of Perceived Importance of ICT
With Reported Extent of Integration of ICT in Literacy
Instruction
In addition, two obstacles not identified in the previous
literature had mean values greater than 1.00: lack of
professional development on how to integrate technology (M = 1.63) and lack of time to integrate ICTs
because of high stakes testing (M = 1.29).
What Factors Predict Teachers’ Reported
Integration of ICTs?
Our sixth research question led us to investigate what
constructs in the survey predicted teachers’ levels of
reported use of ICTs. To address that question, we
tested the hypothesized path model illustrated and
explained in the previous section, describing our
exploratory factor analyses. The model included factors derived from the existing literature and reflected in
PD–skill
–.05
PD–
integra on
.01
Perceived
importance–
technology
.29**
–.05
Competency
–.06*
.05
.20**
–.08*
Obstacles
Extent of
integra on
–.01
.13**
.56**
.15**
–.06*
Support
.16**
Stance
Availability
.37**
*p < .05, **p < .01
Teachers’ Perceptions of Integrating Information and Communication Technologies Into Literacy Instruction
325
Table 10. Bootstrap Analysis of Magnitude and Statistical Significance of Indirect Effects
Indirect effect
1. Importance ? PD‐skill ? level of integration
B (standardized path
coefficient and product)
.05 9
.06 = .0030
Mean
indirect effect
SE of
mean
95% CI for mean indirect
effect (Lower, Upper)
.003
.002
.000, .009*
2. Importance ? PD‐integration ? level of integration
.01 9 .04 = .0004
.000
.001
.004, .002
3. Importance ? competency ? level of integration
.29 9 .20 = .0580
.058
.010
.041, .080*
4. Importance ? obstacles ? level of integration
.06 9
.09 = .0054
.005
.003
.001, .012*
5. Importance ? support ? level of integration
.05 9
.01 = .0005
.001
.001
.005, .001
6. Importance ? stance ? level of integration
.56 9 .14 = .0784
.078
.013
.052, .105*
7. Importance ? availability ? level of integration
.15 9 .15 = .0225
.023
.005
.013, .033*
Note. n = 1,441
*
p < .05 (excluding zero).
predictor of ICT integration than the amount of support he or she receives.
The bootstrap procedure was used to test the statistical significance of the indirect effects. Bootstrapping was selected because of Mallinckrodt, Abraham,
Wei, and Russell’s (2006) recommendation that the
“use of bootstrap methods provides greater precision
when calculating confidence intervals regardless of the
sample size, effect size, or level of statistical significance” (p. 377). In general, bootstrapping is an empirical method used to examine the variability of estimates
(Efron & Tibshirani, 1993). In this procedure (see
Shrout & Bolger, 2002), 1,000 bootstrap samples were
first created from the original data set by random sampling with replacement. Then the model was tested
with these 1,000 samples, yielding 1,000 estimates of
each path coefficient. Next, the output from these
1,000 estimates of each path coefficient was used to
calculate estimates of indirect effects for the hypotheses. This approach was accomplished by multiplying
the 1,000 pairs of path coefficients (a) from perceived
importance to each mediator variable (e.g., PD-skill)
and (b) from the mediator variable to the outcome variable (extent of integration). If the 95% confidence
interval for the estimates of the indirect effects based
on these 1,000 estimates does not include zero, it can
be concluded that the indirect effect is statistically significant at the 0.05 level. Table 10 displays the results
for the indirect effects, and indicates that five of the
seven indirect effects did not include zero and were
thus statistically significant.
The resulting model is a linear model with seven
mediating variables. Even with seven mediating variables, the standardized direct (or unmediated) effect of
teachers’ perceptions of the importance of technology
on their level of ICT integration for literacy instruction
is .37, which is a moderate effect. R2 for the model—a
measure of the proportion of the variability in teachers’
reported use of ICTs explained by the model—was
.41. That is, the model explains 41% of the variability
326
in teachers’ reported use of technology for literacy
instruction as determined by the composite scale for
the extent of integration, the outcome variable.
Overall, this model suggests that the more teachers
perceive ICT use to be important to literacy instruction, the more likely they are to (a) have improved perceptions of their competency with ICTs, (b) improve
their stance toward technology and their access to
technology, and (c) perceive they have fewer or less
severe obstacles to integration. In turn, as competency,
stance, and access are perceived to be improved and
perceptions of obstacles are reduced, teachers are more
likely to report integrating ICTs into their literacy
instruction. Of particular note in this model is the fact
that professional development on how to integrate
ICTs into instruction does not seem related to increasing use of ICTs, and professional development on how
to use ICTs is only moderately significant. These findings have implications for the variety and quality of
professional development on technology that teachers
receive, which we discuss next.
Discussion
The present study provides a detailed national profile
of literacy teachers’ perceptions about various aspects
of integrating ICTs into literacy instruction. The data
reveal perceptions about the extent to which various
ICTs are being integrated into literacy instruction and
suggest factors that might play a role in efforts to facilitate integration. Thus, this investigation extends and
clarifies findings from previous studies, but more
importantly it establishes a foundation for future work.
We discuss possible interpretations in light of the
existing literature, raise questions suggested by the
data, and draw tentative conclusions about what our
findings suggest for professional development activities, for education policymakers, and for future
research. We also highlight limitations that suggest
Reading Research Quarterly 46(4)
caution in drawing unequivocal conclusions, and we
suggest avenues for further research.
Availability of Technologies
and Technical Support
A large majority of the literacy teachers completing the
survey reported having Internet access in their schools
(98%) and in their classrooms (86%). The level of
school access to the Internet is consistent with previous
studies for teachers in all subject areas; however, classroom access is somewhat below the 94% reported by
Wells and Lewis (2006) based on data from 2005, and
that discrepancy may be somewhat greater at the time
of the present study, given the steady upward slope of
access since 2000. Thus, although most literacy teachers report having access to the Internet in their classrooms, overall their access may be somewhat less than
their peers in other subject areas. In order to promote
more integration of ICTs into literacy instruction,
administrators may wish to ensure equitable access for
literacy teachers. A finer grained analysis, not possible
from the present data, would be to determine the ratio
of computers available to the students who might use
them. Wells and Lewis (2006) reported that, in 2005,
the overall national ratio in the United States was one
instructional computer to every three students. It may
be useful to investigate whether there is a similar ratio
within literacy instruction.
Likewise, virtually all of the literacy teachers
responding to this survey reported some level of technological support at the district or building level. However, as noted in Table 8, respondents indicated that
access to equipment and lack of technical support were
predominant obstacles to integration, and these two
potential obstacles have been reported often in previous research (Bauer & Kenton, 2005; Honan, 2008;
Stolle, 2008; Zhao et al., 2002). More objective corroborating data may be needed to verify the accuracy of
teachers’ perceptions. Nonetheless, perceptions are
important and suggest that appropriate responses are
warranted from administrators, policymakers, and
those who conduct professional development.
Despite relatively widespread access to the Internet, our data suggest that many literacy teachers do
not have access to useful digital equipment that
would facilitate integrating ICTs into instruction.
One third of the teachers in this survey reported not
having access to a digital projector, and less than half
reported having an interactive whiteboard or laptop
computers for personal use, which limits options for
whole class instruction and may discourage developing instructional activities focused on ICTs. Relatively few teachers (1 in 8) reported having a laptop
available for each student. This limitation may be
important because individual laptops have been
shown in one major study to be a necessary condition for implementing an instructional intervention
aimed at explicitly teaching skills, strategies, and dispositions associated with reading comprehension on
the Internet (Leu et al., 2009). Thus, one-to-one laptop initiatives may be advisable at the school, district,
or state level (e.g., the state of Maine’s laptop initiative; see www.maine.gov/mlti/index.shtml). However, making digital technologies and capabilities
available to teachers has long been argued to be a
necessary but insufficient condition for insuring that
activities dependent on those technologies will be
assimilated into literacy instruction (e.g., Labbo &
Reinking, 1999; Reinking et al., 2000).
Also noteworthy is the lack of access to, and presumably therefore the lack of use of, e-mail. Less than
12% of the teachers surveyed reported that their students have access to e-mail at school. That relatively
low availability is likely due to concerns about students
engaging in inappropriate correspondence and the
filters that many schools install to prevent access to
inappropriate content on the Internet, which can also
complicate the use of e-mail. However, given that
e-mail is a ubiquitous component of literacy today that
opens up innovative possibilities for collaborative
work, (e.g., telecurricular projects; see Craig, 1997),
seeking workable solutions to the sociological and technological challenges of arranging for students to use
e-mail seems warranted. That conclusion seems especially valid for literacy teachers who would most likely
be responsible for helping students acquire necessary
skills, strategies, and dispositions related to important
new genres of ICTs. Newer social networking applications that have become increasingly popular since we
conducted this study further complicate these issues
and challenges.
Frequency and Importance of Various
ICTs
Overall, the data on frequency and importance, as
summarized in Table 6, suggest that literacy teachers
are not integrating ICTs into instruction by engaging in
activities typically associated with 21st-century literacy,
such as those called for in the IRA and NCTE position
statements and standards. Nonetheless, literacy teachers consider these areas to be important. This finding
justifies the call for more integration issued by those
professional organizations and provides some encouragement for achieving the integration that these professional organizations call for, given that literacy teachers
apparently recognize the need for more integration.
However, it also raises questions about why such a gap
exists and how it might be closed. More research is
needed to address the critical issue of how the integration of ICTs into literacy instruction—particularly into
Teachers’ Perceptions of Integrating Information and Communication Technologies Into Literacy Instruction
327
what we call curricular integration—can be most efficiently and authentically increased without neglecting
more conventional and longstanding goals of literacy
instruction.
The data from the present investigation provide
guidance for such efforts. For example, the data suggest that many teachers do not consider new genres of
reading and writing, such as online chats, blogs, wikis,
and e-mail, to be important to include in literacy
instruction. Taken together, these findings may have
implications for engaging literacy teachers in professional development aimed at facilitating integration of
ICTs into their instruction. For example, literacy
teachers may not need to be convinced that it is important to integrate skills, strategies, and dispositions for
online reading into their instruction, but they may be
less inclined to integrate new genres of writing unless
they can be convinced that engaging students in these
genres is useful and important or can contribute
directly to accomplishing valued curricular goals,
especially those to which they are already committed.
Further, it is incumbent on those who advocate for
incorporating such ICTs into literacy instruction to
justify what conventional or new curricular goals might
be accomplished by integrating these genres into
instruction.
Conceptualizations, Definitions, Roles,
and Benefits of Integrating ICTs
Into Instruction
Teachers’ open-ended responses indicated that they
conceptualized and defined integration of ICTs into
instruction primarily in technological, rather than curricular, terms (see Table 7). Thus, the data suggest,
at least indirectly, that relatively few literacy teachers
have moved from assimilation of ICTs within their
teaching to a deeper curricular accommodation where
ICTs are more central to their conceptions of what
comprises literacy and literacy instruction (Reinking,
Labbo, & McKenna, 2000). Likewise, when asked
about the role of technology in their instruction, two
thirds indicated that they see it as supplemental. Yet
the present data do not reveal what supplemental
means. Does it mean simply an add-on technology to
address conventional goals? Or does it mean that
new goals related to ICTs supplement more conventional goals? Does their commitment to conventional
forms of literacy and traditional standards and
content remains strong despite their belief that
21st-century literacies are important, as indicated in
their responses in Table 7? What does it mean that
almost 30% of the teachers indicated that ICTs were
central to literacy instruction, especially given that
high stakes assessments in the United States rarely
access aspects of digital literacy (Leu, 2006)? In that
328
regard, it would be enlightening to create a version of
this survey for administrators, policymakers, and teacher educators to determine their conceptions of integrating ICTs into literacy instruction. It may be
unreasonable to expect teachers to deepen their conceptions of ICT integration without the leadership,
encouragement, and assistance of those responsible
for supporting the integration of ICTs into instruction
through, for example, professional development.
Perceived Obstacles to Integrating ICTs
Into Literacy Instruction
Literacy teachers responding to this survey identified
many of the same obstacles to integration of technology into instruction as teachers in other curricular
areas, as reported in previous research (see Hutchison
& Reinking, 2010). However, 13 of the 21 potential
obstacles were rated on average as an obstacle less than
a small extent, suggesting that on the whole, literacy
teachers do not perceive the full range of potential
obstacles identified previously in the literature to be a
major stumbling block to integrating ICTs into instruction. The most prominent obstacle was a lack of time
to integrate ICTs during a class period, which suggests
indirectly that literacy teachers may see activities
involving ICTs as supplemental to conventional
instructional goals (i.e., they perceive ICTs to require
extra time). Other prominent obstacles included (a)
lack of access to technology and technical support, (b)
lack of professional development on how to integrate
technology (a factor not identified in the previous literature), (c) inadequate time to prepare for lessons
involving ICTs, (d) lack of time to teach basic computer skills, (e) the amount of time that must be
devoted to high-stakes testing, and (f) a lack of incentives to integrate ICTs.
Most of the more prominent obstacles teachers
identified in the survey fall into a category that Ertmer
et al. (1999) referred to as extrinsic factors (i.e., factors
that are external to teachers and often beyond their
control). That finding, if an accurate perception, suggests that administrators and policymakers need to take
a more active role in and responsibility for facilitating
integration. As suggested by the results pertaining to
accessing useful technologies and technical support,
where there is a lack of integrating ICTs into literacy
instruction, the remedy may not be simply to encourage teachers to increase their integration or to rely
solely on professional development. Correspondingly,
intrinsic factors such as teachers’ beliefs about integrating technology into instruction may not be a major
obstacle to integration. Few teachers indicated that
their own beliefs about the use of technology and
learning and their beliefs about integrating ICTs into
instruction were obstacles, even to a small extent
Reading Research Quarterly 46(4)
(M = 0.29 and M = 0.17, respectively, on a 3-point
scale). These data suggest that a majority of the literacy
teachers responding to this survey are open to integrating digital technologies into instruction. However, that
conclusion must be tempered by the finding, as noted
previously in this discussion, that they also define integration primarily in technological rather than curricular
terms. It must also be tempered by the results of the
path analysis because it indicated that a more positive
stance toward technology is associated with increased
use of ICTs for literacy instruction.
Factors Predicting Extent of ICT
Integration
The path analysis clarified and provided more nuanced
interpretations of the descriptive data discussed thus
far. The model shown in Figure 2 suggests that beliefs
about the importance of technology are directly related
to levels of integrating ICTs into instruction. Put simply, the more that teachers believed that each of several
possible ways of integrating technology into instruction
was important, the higher their reported level of integration. That finding suggests that teachers’ beliefs
about the importance of integrating various ICTs into
instruction are critical to increasing levels of integration. As indicated in Figure 2, the relation between
beliefs about importance and levels of integration
was also achieved through several mediating variables.
A teacher’s stance toward technology, which is essentially a belief logically related to importance, mediated
the strongest indirect effect (.08; p < .001) between
beliefs about importance and level of integration.
Thus, according to the model, if teachers perceived
technology as important, they were more likely to have
a positive stance toward its use in the classroom and its
benefit to students, in which case they were more likely
to integrate technology into instruction. Therefore, the
path analysis converges with interpretations of the
descriptive data from this survey, suggesting that teachers’ beliefs and conceptions are strong predictors of the
extent to which they reported integrating ICTs into
instruction. That conclusion is consistent with much
previous research, indicating that teachers’ beliefs
about technology are foundational to how it is conceptualized and used in their instruction (Bruce & Rubin,
1993; Clark & Peterson, 1986; Ertmer, 2005; Windschitl
& Sahl, 2002; Zhao et al., 2002).
Other statistically significant mediating factors in
the model included (a) competency, as indicated by
teachers’ perceptions of their abilities to use ICTs, to
teach online reading skills, and to integrate ICTs into
instruction; (b) perceptions of fewer obstacles; and
(c) availability of technology. These findings suggest
that the more importance teachers ascribed to various
uses of ICTs, the more their increased integration
was mediated by (a) the acquisition of competency,
(b) a reduction in the reported obstacles, and (c) by
greater access to facilitative technologies. For example, if teachers indicated a relatively strong belief in
the importance of technology, they were more likely
to (a) view themselves as competent at using and
integrating technology, (b) minimize the effects of
obstacles, and (c) have or seek out access to necessary technologies. However, determining the precise
roles of these factors and how they are related to
each other in relation to perceived importance and
levels of integration awaits further research. This
determination could perhaps be accomplished by
using a somewhat modified or more focused version
of the present survey. Another option might be to
monitor whether approaches aimed at increasing
literacy teachers’ investment in the importance of
integrating ICTs into instruction, if successful, results
in concomitant increases in these mediating variables
as well as in overall integration. Other methodological approaches such as case studies and interviews
might also investigate these relations.
These results lead us to speculate about whether
there may be an underlying motivational factor that
leads teachers who believe strongly in the importance
of integrating technology to seek appropriate professional development and overcome obstacles to integration, including finding necessary equipment (e.g., by
writing a grant). If so, then enhancing teachers’ perceptions about the importance of integrating ICTs into
instruction takes on added importance, although as
reported previously in this section, the literacy teachers
in the present study typically recognized the importance of 21st-century skills when asked, but they did
not spontaneously include them in their definitions of
integration. Further research might specifically investigate the relation among beliefs about the importance
of integrating ICTs, motivation to do so, and actual
integration.
The path analysis also revealed other potential
indirect effects of the mediating variables. For example, teachers’ perceptions about the adequacy of their
professional development on how to use technology
were marginally related to levels of integration, and
teachers’ assessments of the adequacy of their professional development on how to integrate technology
into literacy instruction were not statistically related
to integration. This finding suggests that the professional development that teachers receive on technology use and integration is not sufficient or
appropriately focused. For example, professional
development aimed at using new technologies only
as isolated tools may actually reinforce teachers’ conceptualization of integrating ICTs as technological,
rather than curricular, integration. That interpretation
is supported by Lawless and Pellegrino’s (2007)
Teachers’ Perceptions of Integrating Information and Communication Technologies Into Literacy Instruction
329
assertion that much of the professional development
on technology is “driven by a very strong perceived
need for action, but it is often not guided by any
substantial knowledge base derived from research
about what works and why, with regard to technology, teaching, and learning” (p. 576). Our results
reinforce their call for a systematic study of professional development aimed at increasing the integration of digital technologies into instruction. They also
suggest the value of alternative approaches to
research, which reveal enhancing and inhibiting factors to guide iterative development of promising
models of professional development, aimed at
increasing curricular integration (see Reinking &
Bradley, 2008).
The analysis of indirect effects noted in the path
analysis also complicates an understanding of the role
of technological support, as indicated in the descriptive
data where more than 80% of the teachers identified a
lack of such support as an obstacle to integration.
Although technological support was a mediating factor
in the model, it was not singularly the statistically significant factor in relation to reported levels of use. That
finding suggests several possible interpretations. For
example, technological support may be less of an
obstacle than many teachers believe, or teachers may
not make use of the support available. Further, teachers
who have a strong commitment to the importance of
integrating ICTs and who have a positive stance
toward technology may also be more motivated to circumvent or resolve technological difficulties on their
own. Or perhaps the technological support that virtually all teachers reported as being available, at least at a
district level, is not useful or appropriate to teachers’
instructional needs. That view was often expressed in
responses to the open-ended items. For example, one
respondent stated, “Our technology person is not nice
and hard to ask questions to. If I have a problem with
my technology, I would rather not use it than seek help
from the cranky, self-righteous, condescending tech.”
Nonetheless, several indirect effects were related to
actual integration of ICTs at statistically significant levels. Specifically, (a) a positive stance toward technology, (b) perceived confidence in being able to integrate
technology into instruction, and (c) the availability of
diverse technologies were all predictors of the extent of
integration. Thus, increases in any of these areas may
lead to increases in the level of integrating ICTs into
instruction, independent of views about the importance of technology. A positive stance toward integrating technology into instruction and confidence in
doing so are intrinsic factors (Ertmer et al., 1999)
related to teachers’ beliefs and perceptions. These findings again suggest the importance of addressing teachers’ beliefs and perceptions in any effort to increase the
integration of ICTs into literacy instruction. The find-
330
ing that availability also was related statistically to
reported use moderates to some extent previous views
that making technology available is only a necessary,
not sufficient, condition to increasing integration (e.g.,
Labbo & Reinking, 1999). Unlike a decade or more ago
when the availability of technology meant simply
having access to a computer and specific software programs, it is possible that newer, more established digital technologies such as the Internet and interactive
whiteboards more readily invite integration of ICTs
into instruction; therefore, it is possible that making
such technologies available to teachers can substantively enhance integration.
Conclusions and Implications
Overall, the results of the present study might be
framed as the proverbial case of looking at a glass as
half full or half empty. For those invested in realizing
the goals of integrating 21st-century literacy as identified in the IRA and NCTE position statements and
standards, our results suggest cause for both optimism
and concern. For example, an absolute majority of the
teachers responding to this survey clearly understand
and accept that literacy instruction needs to address
digital forms of reading and writing, and they acknowledge the importance of doing so, although their perception of frequency of use does not typically coincide
with the level of importance they assign to various
applications and activities. They are also not likely to
consider new forms of digital reading and writing as
central to their conception of integrating ICTs into
instruction, and perhaps rightfully so as some researchers have questioned whether certain ICTs have a place
in the classroom (e.g., Lewis & Fabos, 2005).
Although the teachers in this study acknowledged
many obstacles to integrating ICTs into instruction,
they did not see those obstacles as overwhelming or
unmanageable. Perhaps contrary to popular assumptions, many of them were also confident in their ability
to integrate ICTs into instruction, despite their
expressed need for professional development that
helped them find ways to do so. Seventy-one percent
of the participants indicated that they believed themselves capable of integrating ICTs into instruction to a
moderate (47%) or a large (24%) extent, whereas only
5% indicated they had no skills. Virtually identical
results were obtained when they were asked if they
were capable of teaching online reading skills (respectively, 46% to a moderate extent, 26% to a large extent,
and 4% not at all). However, this confidence might
inhibit integration if it is unrealistic or misguided.
Teachers’ confidence is also mitigated by the finding
that many of them reported a relatively shallow view of
integrating ICTs into instruction, based on simply
Reading Research Quarterly 46(4)
using digital technologies rather than addressing specific curricular goals.
The results of this investigation also emphasize the
fact that administrators and policymakers cannot
expect teachers to bear the sole responsibility for
increasing integration of ICTs into literacy instruction.
They, too, must provide support. One obstacle to
which administrators and policymakers might productively attend, for example, is arranging for additional
professional development aimed specifically at how to
integrate ICTs, given the extent to which curriculum
standards and high-stakes assessments enhance or
inhibit increased integration. Based on these findings
and the conclusions they suggest, we recommend that
calls for more integration of ICTs, such as those issued
by IRA and NCTE, should acknowledge that administrators and policymakers have an important role in
increasing integration.
The results also inform those interested in providing professional development aimed at assisting literacy teachers to increase the integration of ICTs. For
example, the present study adds nuance to the frequent finding that teachers’ beliefs influence actual
use of technology. That is, literacy teachers apparently
have a strong commitment to integrating 21st-century
literacy skills into instruction, despite the fact that they
do not spontaneously list those skills when asked to
define integration of ICTs. Also, they apparently see
integration more in technological, rather than curricular, terms that are more supplemental to instruction.
Neither do they typically believe that new genres of
reading and writing are important aspects of integrating ICTs into instruction. Appropriate professional
development may need to construct only a relatively
short bridge between narrower technological conceptualizations and the deeper curricular commitments
and understandings that IRA and NCTE have advocated. More research is needed to investigate that
possibility.
The findings and conclusions of the present study
must be interpreted in light of a few caveats. First,
although Internet surveys are a useful new tool, rarely
do they permit a truly random sample, nor do they
permit a precise computation of response rates (Sue &
Ritter, 2007). Nonetheless, that does not invalidate the
use of such surveys, nor the preliminary insights and
directions they may suggest for further study (Sue &
Ritter, 2007). Similarly, surveying literacy teachers who
are not members of a professional organization such as
IRA would usefully extend the findings of the present
study. A related caveat is that teachers’ perceptions
about integrating ICTs into instruction and their selfreported use may not be entirely accurate. The data
reported here would be strengthened by observational
data to verify consistency between teachers’ perceptions, reported use, and actual practice.
Another caveat is that the intent of the present
investigation was to provide a broad backdrop to
inform more narrowly focused studies in the future.
Interpretations and conclusions reported here must be
viewed in that light. Future studies might take a more
fine-grained approach examining, for example,
whether our conclusions hold for teachers in the primary, elementary, or middle school grades. 1,2 Such
studies might also include demographic information
on race and class. In the present study, we decided not
to conduct such a fine-grained analysis of the data
because (a) it was unwieldy to do so in a single report,
(b) our purpose was to gain a broad understanding of
literacy teachers as a cohort, and (c) it would have
weakened the power of our path analysis. Nonetheless,
the results reported here provide a firm basis from
which such comparisons might be launched.
A final caveat is that a model tested in path analysis, even though it is often described as a causal model,
does not establish causation. As Everitt and Dunn
(1991) noted, “However convincing, respectable and
reasonable a path diagram…may appear, any causal
inferences extracted are rarely more than a form of statistical fantasy” (p. 108). However, the model tested in
the present study reveals statistical relationships firmly
grounded in the data. Our results suggest possible connections that can lay the groundwork for additional
studies and other methodological approaches and suggest directions for, and the content of, professional
development.
Despite these caveats, we believe the present study
advances understanding of the extent to which ICTs
are being integrated into literacy instruction and what
factors should be considered toward profitably increasing integration, consistent with expanding definitions
of literacy. It might also serve as a benchmark to determine progress toward increasing integration and lead
to the development of assessments measuring propensity to integrate ICTs into literacy instruction. Finally,
we believe that the current study addresses Lawless
and Pellegrino’s (2007) conclusion, from a review of
the literature related to integrating technology into
instruction, that “We need to move to a more systematic study of how technology integration occurs within
our schools, what increases its adoption by teachers,
and the long-term impacts that these investments have
on both teachers and students” (p. 575). We agree and
believe that there is no area of the curriculum more
important than literacy instruction for which that conclusion is warranted.
Notes
1
Because there were substantially fewer grade 10–12 teachers than
K–9 teachers (see Table 1), we conducted an analysis to determine if the results would be statistically different without grade
10–12 teachers. We ran separate correlations for these respective
Teachers’ Perceptions of Integrating Information and Communication Technologies Into Literacy Instruction
331
2
groups for each of the factors established in the exploratory factor
analysis. The correlations for each group of teachers followed virtually the same direction and pattern. Further, all of the factors
identified when the analysis was conducted with both groups
together remained significantly correlated, and all but one of the
items were correlated in the same direction. Thus, we determined
that the results and conclusions would not be affected by removing the grade 10–12 teachers from the analysis.
For example, although it was beyond the scope of the present
study to parse the data by grade level, we found a statistically significant difference in the extent of ICT integration between teachers in grades K–3 and teachers in grades 4–6 and 7–12. Thus,
some of the results and conclusions reported here, which apply to
literacy teachers in general, may need to be modified for teachers
at a particular grade level.
References
Angers, J., & Machtmes, K. (2005). An ethnographic-case study of
beliefs, context factors, and practices of teachers integrating technology. Qualitative Report, 10(4), 771–794.
Bauer, J., & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward technology integration in the
schools: Why it isn’t happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 519–546.
Baumann, J., & Bason, J. (2011). Survey research. In N. Duke &
M. Mallette (Eds.), Literacy research methodologies (2nd ed., pp.
404–426). New York: Guilford.
Becker, H.J. (1994). How exemplary computer-using teachers differ
from other teachers: Implications for realizing the potential of
computers in schools. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(3), 291–321.
Becker, H.J. (1999). Internet use by teachers: Conditions of professional
use and teacher-directed student use. Teaching, learning, and computing: 1998 National Survey. (Report No. 1). Irvine: Center for
Research on Information Technology and Organizations, University of California.
Bruce, B.C., & Rubin, A. (1993). Electronic quills: A situated evaluation of using computers for writing in the classroom. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Christensen, R., & Knezek, G. (2002). Instruments for assessing the
impact of technology in education. Computers in the Schools, 18
(2), 5–25.
Clark, C.M., & Peterson, P.L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes.
In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp.
255–296). New York: Macmillan.
Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., & Leu, D. (2008). Central
issues in new literacies and new literacies research. In J. Coiro,
M. Knobel, C. Lankshear & D. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research
on new literacies (pp. 1–22). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Craig, D. (1997). Telecurricular teaching and learning the impact of
world-wide web access on the instructional process. Telecommunications in Education, 8(3), 6–8.
Crawford, S.D., Couper, M.P., & Lamias, M.J. (2001). Web surveys: Perception of burden. Social Science Computer Review, 19
(2), 146–162.
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Dillman, D., Smyth, J., & Christian, L.M. (2009). Internet, mail and
mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Dillman, D.A. (2007). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design
method (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Dockstader, J. (1999). Teachers of the 21st century know the what,
why and how of technology integration. T.H.E. Journal, 26(6),
73–74.
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. (1993). An introduction to bootstrap.
London: Chapman and Hall.
332
Ertmer, P. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in
our quest for technology integration. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.
Ertmer, P., Addison, P., Lane, M., Ross, E., & Woods, D. (1999).
Examining teachers’ beliefs about the role of technology in the
elementary classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in
Education, 32(1), 54–72.
Ertmer, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2010). Teacher technology
change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284.
Ertmer, P., Gopalakrishnan, S., & Ross, E.M. (2001). Technologyusing teachers: Comparing perceptions of exemplary technology
use to best practices [Electronic version]. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 33(5).
Everitt, B.S., & Dunn, G.G. (1991). Applied multivariate data analysis. London: Edward Arnold.
Fatemi, E. (1999). Building the digital curriculum: Summary.
Education Week, 19(4), 5–8.
Garner, R., & Gillingham, M.G. (1996). Internet communications in
six classrooms: Conversations across time, space, and culture.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types:
Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393–416.
Hermans, R., Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). The
impact of primary school teachers’ educational beliefs on the classroom use of computers. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1499–1509.
Honan, E. (2008). Barriers to teachers using digital texts of literacy
classrooms. Literacy, 42(1), 36–43.
Hughes, J.E., Kerr, S.P., & Ooms, A. (2005). Content-focused
technology inquiry groups: Cases of teacher learning and technology integration. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32
(4), 367–379.
Hutchison, A., & Reinking, D. (2010). A national survey of barriers
to integrating information and communication technologies into
literacy instruction. 59th yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Milwaukee, WI: National Reading Conference.
International Reading Association. (2009). New literacies and 21stcentury technologies: A position statement of the International
Reading Association. Newark, DE: Author.
Karchmer, R. (2001). The journey ahead: Thirteen teachers report
how the Internet influences literacy and literacy instruction in
their K–12 classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(4), 442–
466.
Kist, W. (2007). Basement new literacies: Dialogue with a first-year
teacher. English Journal, 97(1), 43–48.
Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge.
Labbo, L.D., & Reinking, D. (1999). Negotiating the multiple realities of technology in literacy research and instruction. Reading
Research Quarterly, 34(4), 478–492.
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003). New literacies: Changing
knowledge and classroom learning. Suffolk, UK: Open University
Press.
Lawless, K., & Pellegrino, J. (2007). Professional development in
integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns,
unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers.
Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575–614.
Leu, D. (2006). New literacies, reading research, and the challenges
of change: A deictic perspective. In J. Hoffman, D. Schallert, M.
Fairbanks, J. Worthy & B. Malloch (Eds.), 55th yearbook of the
National Reading Conference (pp. 1–20). Oak Creek, WI:
National Reading Conference.
Leu, D., Kinzer, C.K., Coiro, J., & Cammack, D. (2004). Towards a
theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other
information and communication technologies. In R.B. Rudell &
N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th
Reading Research Quarterly 46(4)
ed., pp. 1570–1613). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Leu, D., & Reinking, D. (1996). Bringing insights from reading
research to research on electronic learning environments. In
H. van Oostendorp (Ed.), Cognitive aspects of electronic text
processing (pp. 43–75). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Leu, D., Reinking, D., Carter, A., Castek, J.M., Coiro, J.L., &
Henry, L.A., et al. (2007, April) Defining online reading comprehension: Using think aloud verbal protocols to refine a preliminary
model of Internet reading comprehension processes. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago, IL.
Leu, D., Reinking, D., Hutchison, A., McVerry, G., O’Byrne, I.,
& Zawilinski, L. (2009, May). Internet reciprocal teaching
(IRT): A research-based model for teaching the new literacies of
online reading comprehension. Symposium presented at the
annual meeting of the International Reading Association, Minneapolis, MN.
Lewis, C., & Fabos, B. (2005). Instant messaging, literacies, and
social identities. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(4), 470–501.
Mallinckrodt, B., Abraham, T.W., Wei, M., & Russell, D.W.
(2006). Advance in testing statistical significance of mediation
effects. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(3), 372–378.
McEneaney, J. (2006). Agent-based literacy theory. Reading
Research Quarterly, 41(3), 352–371.
Muthén, L., & Muthén, B. (2007). Mplus 5.2 [Computer software].
Los Angeles: Statmodel.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2003). Internet access in
public schools and classrooms: 1994–2002. Retrieved June 27, 2011,
from nces.ed.gov/pubs2004/2004011.pdf
Neuendorf, K. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Penuel, W.R., Boscardin, C.K., Masyn, K., & Crawford, V. (2007).
Teaching with student response systems in elementary and secondary education settings: A survey study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(4), 315–346.
Raine, L., & Horrigan, J. (2005). A decade of adoption: How the
Internet has woven itself into American life. Retrieved April 20,
2010, from www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2005/How-the-internethas-woven-itself-into-American-life.aspx.
Rea, L., & Parker, R. (2005). Designing and conducting survey
research: A comprehensive guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Reinking, D. (1992). Differences between electronic and printed
texts: An agenda for research. Journal of Educational Multimedia
and Hypermedia, 1(1), 11–24.
Reinking, D. (1998). Synthesizing technological transformations
of literacy in a post typographic world. In D. Reinking, M.
McKenna, L.D. Labbo & R. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy
and technology (pp. xi–xxx). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Reinking, D. (2001). Multimedia and engaged reading in a digital
world. In L. Verhoeven & C.E. Snow (Eds.), Literacy and motivation: Reading engagement in individuals and groups (pp. 195–221).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Reinking, D., & Bradley, B.A. (2008). On formative and design experiments: Approaches to language and literacy research. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Reinking, D., Labbo, L.D., & McKenna, M.C. (2000). From assimilation to accommodation: A developmental framework for integrating digital technologies into literacy research and instruction.
Journal of Research in Reading, 23(2), 110–122.
Schaefer, D., & Dillman, D. (1998). Development of a standard
e-mail methodology: Results of an experiment. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 62(3), 378–397.
Scott, S.M., Chovanec, D.M., & Young, B. (1993). Philosophyin-action in university teaching. Proceedings of the 34th Annual
Adult Education Research Conference, University Park: Penn
State University.
Shrout, P.E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and
nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422–445.
SPSS for Windows. (2010). Rel. 19.0. [Computer software]. Chicago:
SPSS Inc.
Stolle, E. (2008). Teachers, literacy, & technology: Tensions, complexities, conceptualizations & practice. In Y. Kim, V. Risko,
D. Compton, D. Dickinson, M. Hundley, R. Jimenez, K. Leander & D. Wells-Rowe (Eds.), 57th yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 56–69). Oak Creek, WI: National Reading
Conference.
Sue, V.M., & Ritter, L.A. (2007). Conducting online surveys. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
United States Department of Education. (2003). Federal funding for
educational technology and how it is used in the classroom: A summary of findings from the integrated studies of educational technology. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Under Secretary, Policy and
Program Studies Service.
Warschauer, M., Knobel, M., & Stone, L.A. (2004). Technology
and equity in schooling: Deconstructing the digital divide. Educational Policy, 18(4), 562–588.
Wells, J., & Lewis, L. (2006). Internet access in U.S. public schools
and classrooms: 1994–2005. Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics.
Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers’ use of technology in a laptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs,
social dynamics, and institutional culture. American Educational
Research Journal, 39(1), 165–205.
Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. (2002). Conditions for
classroom technology innovations. Teachers College Record, 104
(3), 482–515.
Submitted April 22, 2010
Final revision received May 3, 2011
Accepted May 16, 2011
Amy Hutchison is an assistant professor of literacy at Iowa
State University, Ames, USA; e-mail amyhutch@iastate.edu.
David Reinking is the Eugene T. Moore Professor of Teacher
Education at Clemson University, South Carolina, USA;
e-mail reinkin@clemson.edu.
Teachers’ Perceptions of Integrating Information and Communication Technologies Into Literacy Instruction
333