Encyclopedia of Education and Information Technologies

2020 Edition
| Editors: Arthur Tatnall

Policy Rationales and Integration Rationales, Implications for Subject Area Teaching

  • Sarah HowardEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10576-1_91

Over the past three decades, the number of national educational policies addressing technology integration in teaching and learning has significantly increased. Rationales for these policies have largely reflected the perception that the world is more technological and to raise the quality of national workforces schools must prepare students to compete in a knowledge economy (Kozma 2008). The problem is that these national aims do not translate to technology integration in teaching and learning (Hammond 2014). As a result, high-level educational technology policies often will have limited impact on teachers’ practice and student learning.

One of the key reasons for this problem is a lack of alignment between national educational technology policy and curriculum. The recontextualization of educational policy to the classroom is largely a political rather than educational practice, which is often driven by a social agenda rather than teaching and learning. As such, rationales for...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2012). Information and Communication Technology (ICT) capability. Sydney. Retrieved from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/GeneralCapabilities/Information-and-Communication-Technology-capability/Introduction/Background
  2. Bayne S (2015) What’s the matter with “technology-enhanced learning”? Learn Media Technol 40(1):5–20.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2014.915851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bebell D, Kay R (2010) One to one computing: a summary of the quantitative results from the Berkshire wireless learning initiative. J Technol Learn Assess 9(2):5–58Google Scholar
  4. Beynon J, Mackay H (1989) Information technology into education: towards a critical perspective. J Educ Policy 4(3):245–257.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093890040303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. BOSTES (2012) Syllabuses – board of studies teaching and educational standards NSW. Board of Studies Teaching and Educational Standards, Sydney. Retrieved from http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/syllabuses/Google Scholar
  6. Connelly FM, He MF, Phillion JA (2007) The SAGE handbook of curriculum and instruction. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks. Retrieved from https://books.google.com.au/books?id=LPl0AwAAQBAJGoogle Scholar
  7. Department for Digital Culture Media & Sport (2017) Culture secretary launches digital strategy set to create a world-leading digital economy that works for everyone. Retrieved November 7, 2017, from https://www.gov.uk/government/news/digital-strategy-to-make-britain-the-best-place-in-the-world-to-start-and-grow-a-digital-business
  8. Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations (2012) Digital education revolution – overview. Retrieved September 20, 2013, from http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/DigitalEducationRevolution/Pages/default.aspx
  9. Digital Education Revolution program – National Secondary Schools Computer Fund (2011) Canberra. Retrieved from https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/digital-education-revolution-program-national-secondary-schools-computer-fund
  10. Elliott SW (2017) Computers and the future of skill demand. OECD Publishing, Paris.  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264284395-enCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ertmer PA, Ottenbreit-Leftwich AT (2010) Teacher technology change: how knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. J Res Technol Educ 42(3):255–284.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551
  12. EU Science Hub (2017) DigComp 2.0: the digital competence framework for citizens. JRC Science for policy report. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/digcomp
  13. Hammond M (2014) Introducing ICT in schools in England: rationale and consequences. Br J Educ Technol 45(2):191–201.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hargreaves A, Goodson I (2006) Educational change over time? The sustainability and nonsustainability of three decades of secondary school change and continuity. Educ Adm Q 42(1):3–41.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X05277975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Helsper EJ, Reisdorf BC (2016) The emergence of a “digital underclass” in Great Britain and Sweden: changing reasons for digital exclusion. New Media Soc.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816634676
  16. Howard SK (2011) Affect and acceptability: exploring teachers’ technology-related risk perceptions. Educ Media Int 48(4):261–273.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2011.632275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Howard SK (2013) Risk-aversion: understanding teachers’ resistance to technology integration. Technol Pedagog Educ 22(3):357–372.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2013.802995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Howard SK, Maton K (2011) Theorising knowledge practices: a missing piece of the educational technology puzzle. Res Learn Technol 19(3):191–206.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21567069.2011.624170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Howard SK, Mozejko A (2013) DER-NSW evaluation: conclusions on student and teacher engagement and ICT use. New South Wales Department of Education and Communities, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  20. Howard SK, Thurtell E, Gigliotti A (2012) DER-NSW evaluation: report on the implications of the 2011 data collection. Department of Education and Communities, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  21. Howard SK, Chan A, Caputi P (2015a) More than beliefs: subject areas and teachers’ integration of laptops in secondary teaching. Br J Educ Technol 46(2):360–369.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Howard SK, Chan A, Mozejko A, Caputi P (2015b) Technology practices: confirmatory factor analysis and exploration of teachers’ technology integration in subject areas. Comput Educ 90:24–35.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.09.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kozma RB (2008) Comparative analysis of policies for ICT in education BT. In: Voogt J, Knezek G (eds) International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education. Springer, Boston, pp 1083–1096.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73315-9_68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Levin B (2008) Curriclum policy and the politics of what should be learned in schools. In: Connelly M, He MF, Phillion J (eds) The SAGE handbook of curriculum and instruction. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp 7–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lowther DL, Inan FA, Ross SM, Strahl JD (2012) Do one-to-one initiatives bridge the way to 21st century knowledge and skills? J Educ Comput Res 46(1):1–30.  https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.46.1.aCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. OECD (2015) Students, computers and learning. OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239555-en
  27. OECD (2017a) PISA. Retrieved November 6, 2017, from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/
  28. OECD (2017b) Survey of adult skills. Retrieved November 6, 2017, from http://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/
  29. OECD/CERI (2008) 21st century learning: research, innovation and policy directions from recently OECD analyses, Paris. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/site/educeri21st/40554299.pdf
  30. Orlando J (2014) Veteran teachers and technology: change fatigue and knowledge insecurity influence practice. Teach Teach 20(4):427–439.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2014.881644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Perrotta C (2013) Do school-level factors influence the educational benefits of digital technology? A critical analysis of teachers’ perceptions. Br J Educ Technol 44(2):314–327.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01304.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Silvernail DL, Gritter AK (2007) Maine’s middle school laptop program: creating better writers. GorhamGoogle Scholar
  33. Singapore Educational Technology Division (2015a) Approaches. Retrieved November 8, 2017, from https://ictconnection.moe.edu.sg/masterplan-4/approaches/approach-1-deeper-ict-integration-in-curriculum-assessment-n-pedagogy
  34. Singapore Educational Technology Division (2015b) Cyber wellness 101. Retrieved November 8, 2017, from https://ictconnection.moe.edu.sg/cyber-wellness/cyber-wellness-101
  35. Singapore Educational Technology Division (2015c) ICT Masterplan 4. Singapore. Retrieved from https://ictconnection.moe.edu.sg/masterplan-4/overview
  36. Singapore Educational Technology Division (2015d) Our ICT journey. Retrieved November 21, 2017, from https://ictconnection.moe.edu.sg/masterplan-4/our-ict-journey
  37. Singapore Educational Technology Division (2015e) Vision and goals. Retrieved November 8, 2017, from https://ictconnection.moe.edu.sg/masterplan-4/vision-and-goals
  38. Skryabin M, Zhang J, Liu L, Zhang D (2015) How the ICT development level and usage influence student achievement in reading, mathematics, and science. Comput Educ 85:49–58.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.02.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tamim RM, Bernard RM, Borokhovski E, Abrami PC, Schmid RF (2011) What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning. Rev Educ Res 81(1):4–28.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310393361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. The Commonwealth of Australia (2009) This national partnership agreement of the digital education revolution. (T. C. of A. Governments, Ed.). Retrieved from http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/DigitalEducationRevolution/Documents/DERNatPartnership.pdf
  41. The World Bank (2017a) Education and technology overview. Retrieved November 7, 2017, from http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/edutech
  42. The World Bank (2017b) Systems approach for better education results – ICT. Retrieved November 7, 2017, from http://saber.worldbank.org/index.cfm?indx=8&pd=10
  43. Tondeur J, Kershaw LH, Vanderline R, van Braak J (2013) Getting inside the black box of technology integration in education: teachers’ stimulated recall of classroom observations. Australas J Educ Technol 29(3):434–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. U.S. Department of Education (2017a) Funding digital learning. Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/funding/
  45. U.S. Department of Education (2017b) Reimagining the role of technology in education: 2017 national education technology plan update. Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/files/2017/01/NETP17.pdf
  46. Zhao Y, Frank KA (2003) Factors affecting technology uses in schools: an ecological perspective. Am Educ Res J 40(4):807–840.  https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040004807CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Social ScienceUniversity of WollongongWollongongAustralia

Section editors and affiliations

  • Don Passey
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Educational ResearchLancaster UniversityLancasterUK