Factors affecting ICT integration in TURKISH education: a systematic review

Abstract

This research aims to reveal factors affecting Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) integration in learning environments in Turkey. The meta-synthesis method is used to make in-depth analysis and to interpret qualitative research findings on this issue. Through inclusion and exclusion criteria, 60 studies among 907 candidate studies accessed from databases named Web of Science, Education Resource Information Center (ERIC) and the Turkish Academic Network and Information Center (ULAKBIM) are included in this research. As a result of analyses, it is revealed that ICT integration into learning environments in Turkey is affected by five factors; students, educational material, infrastructure, management, and teachers. Considering these factors, it has been found that certain factors become prominent namely: the ICT and pedagogy competence of teachers; students’ ICT competence; a lack of technical equipment and technical support; a lack of educational materials; the attitudes of school administrators; and the quality and lack of in-service training for ICT. It is concluded that the factors affecting the ICT integration in education are directly or indirectly related to each other, and that ICT integration should be addressed with all its stakeholders and phases as a whole.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

References

  1. Akcaoglu, M., Gumus, S., Bellibas, M. S., & Boyer, D. M. (2015). Policy, practice, and reality: Exploring a nation-wide technology implementation in Turkish schools. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 24(4), 477–491. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2014.899264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Akti Aslan, S., & Duruhan, K. (2018). Being counsellor of information technologies: Expectations and professional roles. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 33(4), 1049–1064. https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2018038631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Akti Aslan, S., & Duruhan, K. (2020). Problem based virtual learning: A conceptual analysis. Turkish Studies - Applied Sciences, 15(2), 157–182. https://doi.org/10.29228/TurkishStudies.43251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Alvarado, L. E., Aragón, R. R., & Bretones, F. D. (2020). Teachers’ attitudes towards the introduction of ICT in Ecuadorian public schools. TechTrends, 64(3), 498–505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00483-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Aslan, A., & Zhu, C. (2018). Starting teachers’ integration of ICT into their teaching practices in the lower secondary schools in Turkey. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 18(1), 23–45. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2018.1.0431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Aspfors, J., & Fransson, G. (2015). Research on mentor education for mentors of newly qualified teachers: A qualitative meta-synthesis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 48(May 2015), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.02.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative meta-synthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258–267. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X07306523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Belay, M. T., Khatete, D. W., & Mugo, B. C. (2020). Teachers' attitude towards integrating ICT in classroom instruction in teaching and learning biology in secondary schools in the southern region, Eritrea. Journal of Education and Practice, 4(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chand, V. S., Deshmukh, K. S., & Shukla, A. (2020). Why does technology integration fail? Teacher beliefs and content developer assumptions in an Indian initiative. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68, 2753–2774. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09760-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chauhan, S. (2017). A meta-analysis of the impact of technology on learning effectiveness of elementary students. Computers & Education, 105(February 2017), 14–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.11.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chun, S. (2017). Birth and major strategies of smart education initiative in South Korea and its challenges. In International Conference on Smart Education and Smart E-Learning (pp. 439-449). Springer, Cham.

  12. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. California: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Daghan, G., & Akkoyunlu, B. (2015). General trends of the studies about the sustainability of the technology usage in education: A thematic content analysis study. Education and Science, 40(178), 225–253. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2015.4175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Deryakulu, D., & Olkun, S. (2009). Technology leadership and supervision: An analysis based on Turkish computer teachers' professional memories. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 18(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759390802704055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dong, Y., Xu, C., Chai, C. S., & Zhai, X. (2019). Exploring the structural relationship among teachers’ technostress, technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK), computer self-efficacy and school support. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 29(2), 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-019-00461-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Endres, M. L., & Chowdhury, S. (2019). Team and individual interactions with reciprocity in individual knowledge sharing. In effective knowledge management systems in modern society (pp. 123-145). IGI Global.

  18. Eom, S. B., & Ashill, N. J. (2018). A system’s view of e-learning success model. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 16(1), 42–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/dsji.12144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2000). How to design and evaluate research in education (4th ed.). United States of America: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  20. Fuchs, C. (2008). The implications of new information and communication technologies for sustainability. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 10(3), 291–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Getenet, S. T., Beswick, K., & Callingham, R. (2016). Professionalizing in-service teachers’ focus on technological pedagogical and content knowledge. Education and Information Technologies, 21(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-013-9306-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gil-Flores, J., Rodríguez-Santero, J., & Torres-Gordillo, J. J. (2017). Factors that explain the use of ICT in secondary-education classrooms: The role of teacher characteristics and school infrastructure. Computers in Human Behavior, 68(March 2017), 441–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Goktas, Y., Gedik, N., & Baydas, O. (2013). Enablers and barriers to the use of ICT in primary schools in Turkey: A comparative study of 2005–2011. Computers & Education, 68, 211–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Gries, T., Grundmann, R., Palnau, I., & Redlin, M. (2017). Innovations, growth and participation in advanced economies-a review of major concepts and findings. International Economics and Economic Policy, 14(2), 293–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Gurcan, F., & Ozyurt, O. (2020). Emerging trends and knowledge domains in E-learning researches: Topic modeling analysis with the articles published between 2008-2018. Journal of Computer and Education Research, 8(16), 738–756.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Haji, S. A., Moluayonge, G. E., & Park, I. (2017). Teachers’ use of information and communications technology in education: Cameroon secondary schools perspectives. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 16(3), 147–153.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hu, X., Gong, Y., Lai, C., & Leung, F. K. (2018). The relationship between ICT and student literacy in mathematics, reading, and science across 44 countries: A multilevel analysis. Computers & Education, 125, 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Intel (2020). Australia Experiences a Digital Education Revolution. Retrieved from https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/case-studies/Ed-Transformation-CS-Australia-HiRes.pdf

  30. Isci, T. G., & Demir, S. B. (2015). The use of tablets distributed within the scope of FATIH project for education in Turkey (is FATIH project a fiasco or a technological revolution?). Universal Journal of Educational Research, 3(7), 442–450. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2015.030703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. ISTE. (2016). ISTE standards for students. Retrieved from https://www.iste.org/standards/for-students

  32. Izmirli, O. S., & Kirmaci, O. (2017). New barriers to technology integration. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 17(72), 147–166. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2017.72.8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Joo, Y. J., Lim, K. Y., & Kim, N. H. (2016). The effects of secondary teachers’ technostress on the intention to use technology in South Korea. Computers & Education, 95(April 2016), 114–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.12.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kaleli-Yilmaz, G. (2015). The views of mathematics teachers on the factors affecting the integration of technology in mathematics courses. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(8), 132–148. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2015v40n8.8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Karadeniz, S., & Hacifazlioglu, O. (2013). School Administrators Turning Dystopias into Utopias: Technology Stories From Low Socio-Economic Schools. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28(28–1), 211–222.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Karalar, H., & Dogan, U. (2017). Teacher perception on educational informatics network: A qualitative study of a Turkish Anatolian high school. International Education Studies, 10(4), 101–112. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v10n4p101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., Hong, H. Y., & Tsai, C. C. (2015). A survey to examine teachers’ perceptions of design dispositions, lesson design practices, and their relationships with technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 43(5), 378–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2014.941280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Krefting, L. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45(3), 214–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kula, A., & Deryakulu, D. (2017). Different subject teachers’ views, applications and suggestions about ICT integration in education. Educational Technology Theory and Practice, 7(2), 73–93. https://doi.org/10.17943/etku.267187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Kurt, S. (2014). Creating technology-enriched classrooms: Implementational challenges in Turkish education. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(1), 90–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2013.776077.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kuru Gönen, S. I. (2019). A qualitative study on a situated experience of technology integration: Reflections from pre-service teachers and students. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32(3), 163–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1552974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Lawrence, J., & Tar, U. (2013). The use of grounded theory technique as a practical tool for qualitative data collection and analysis. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 11(1), 29–40.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Lawrence, J. E., & Tar, U. A. (2018). Factors that influence teachers’ adoption and integration of ICT in teaching/learning process. Educational Media International, 55(1), 79–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2018.1439712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. In Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Malak, M. Z., Khalifeh, A. H., & Shuhaiber, A. H. (2017). Prevalence of internet addiction and associated risk factors in Jordanian school students. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 556–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Mascheroni, G., & Ólafsson, K. (2014). Net children go mobile: Risks and opportunities.

  47. Mishra, P. C., Kishore, S., & Shivani, S. (2018). The role of information technology for knowledge management: An empirical study of the Indian coal mining industry. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 21(3), 208–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Mulhim, E. (2013). The current use of ICT by novice female teachers in Saudi primary schools and their perceived training needs. In ASCILITE-Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education Annual Conference (pp. 597–601). Retrieved from https://www.ascilite.org/conferences/sydney13/about/proceedings.pdf

  49. Munyengabe, S., Yiyi, Z., Haiyan, H., & Hitimana, S. (2017). Primary teachers’ perceptions on ICT integration for enhancing teaching and learning through the implementation of one laptop per child program in primary schools of Rwanda. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(11), 7193–7204. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/79044.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Paryono, P., & Quito, B. G. (2010). Meta-analysis of ICT integration in vocational and technical education in Southeast Asia. Seavern Journals, 2(1) Retrieved from https://bit.ly/378wekk.

  51. Perrotta, C. (2013). Do school-level factors influence the educational benefits of digital technology? A critical analysis of teachers' perceptions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2), 314–327. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01304.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Rodríguez-Miranda, F. P., Pozuelos-Estrada, F. J., & León-Jariego, J. C. (2014). The role of ICT coordinator. Priority and time dedicated to professional functions. Computers & Education, 72(March 2014), 262–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.11.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Sanli, C., Sezer, A., & Pinar, A. (2016). Perceptions of geography teachers to integrating technology to teaching and their practices. Review of International Geographical Education Online, 6(3), 234–252.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Tondeur, J. (2019). The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers’ adoption of digital technology in education. Computers & Education, 128(January 2019), 13–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Sezer, B. (2011). Bilisim teknolojilerinin egitime kaynastirilmasi: Onem, engeller ve ulkemizde gerceklestirilen projeler [Integration of information technologies into education: importance, barriers and projects carried out in Turkey]. In 16th Internet Conference of Turkey. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326225245_Bilisim_Teknolojilerinin_Egitime_Kaynastirilmasi_Onem_Engeller_ve_Ulkemizde_Gerceklestirilen_Projeler

  57. Sharts-Hopko, N. C. (2002). Assessing rigor in qualitative research. Journal of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, 13(4), 84–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1055-3290(06)60374-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Skryabin, M., Zhang, J., Liu, L., & Zhang, D. (2015). How the ICT development level and usage influence student achievement in reading, mathematics, and science. Computers & Education, 85, 49–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Spiteri, M., & Rundgren, S. N. C. (2020). Literature review on the factors affecting primary teachers’ use of digital technology. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 25(1), 115–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9376-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Staneva, A., Bogossian, F., Pritchard, M., & Wittkowski, A. (2015). The effects of maternal depression, anxiety, and perceived stress during pregnancy on preterm birth: A systematic review. Women and Birth, 28(3), 179–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2015.02.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Tarman, B., Baytak, A., & Duman, H. (2015). Teachers' views on an ICT reform in education for social justice. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(4), 865–874. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1445a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(1), 45, 1–45,10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Timur, B., Yilmaz, Ş, & Timur, S. (2016). Science and technology teachers’ views about FATIH Project. Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 45(2), 287–300.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Tondeur, J., Forkosh-Baruch, A., Prestridge, S., Albion, P., & Edirisinghe, S. (2016). Responding to challenges in teacher professional development for ICT integration in education. Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 110–120.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Torgerson, C. J., & Elbourne, D. (2002). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of information and communication technology (ICT) on the teaching of spelling. Journal of Research in Reading, 25(2), 129–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.00164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Voet, M., & De Wever, B. (2017). Towards a differentiated and domain-specific view of educational technology: An exploratory study of history teachers’ technology use. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(6), 1402–1413. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Voogt, J., Knezek, G., Cox, M., Knezek, D., & ten Brummelhuis, A. (2013). Under which conditions does ICT have a positive effect on teaching and learning? A call to action. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(1), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00453.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Walsh, D., & Downe, S. (2005). Meta-synthesis method for qualitative research: A literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 50(2), 204–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03380.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Wikan, G., & Molster, T. (2011). Norwegian secondary school teachers and ICT. European Journal of Teacher Education, 34(2), 209–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2010.543671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Wikibooks (2020). One-to-One Laptop Schools/Portugal. Retrieved from https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/One-to-One_Laptop_Schools/Portugal

  72. Williams-Miller, G. (2020). The use of information and communication technology (ICT) by preschool and kindergarten educators. Retrieved from https://source.sheridancollege.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=fahcs_student_capstones_hbecl

  73. Yesilyurt, E., Ulas, A. H., & Akan, D. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy, academic self-efficacy, and computer self-efficacy as predictors of attitude toward applying computer-supported education. Computers in Human Behavior, 64(November 2016), 591–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Yıldırım, O., Kursun, E., & Goktas, Y. (2015). The factors affecting the quality of in-service training on information and communication technologies. Education and Science, 40(178), 163–182. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2015.4137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Yukselir, C. (2017). A meta-synthesis of qualitative research about mobile assisted language learning (MALL) in foreign language teaching. Arab World English Journal, 8(3), 302–318. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3053570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alper Aslan.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

ESM 1

(DOCX 28 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Turgut, Y.E., Aslan, A. Factors affecting ICT integration in TURKISH education: a systematic review. Educ Inf Technol (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10441-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Education
  • ICT integration
  • Meta-synthesis
  • Technology integration
  • Turkey