Many researchers addressed the enablers and barriers of ICT inclusion specifically, and the findings are often analogous. Kler (2014) argues that there are three phases to professionally grounded ICT integration from a bottom-up perspective. The first phase includes infrastructural development and mostly some experimenting with the technological tools; however, this experimental phase is not necessarily pedagogically well-grounded (Kler, 2014). The second phase begins when integration becomes pedagogically reasoned for and is aimed at facilitating studying and supporting learners’ educational needs; thus, the focus shifts from experimenting towards professional reasoning (Kler, 2014). The final stage begins when ICT use becomes strategic, and different groups of learners with different educational needs enrolled into different learning programmes (e.g., bilingual education, vocational education) see targeted ICT inclusion aimed at their specific needs.

 

 

From a more practical point of view, discovering what organisational changes took place to successfully integrate technology into their teaching and learning processes, Venezky and Davis (2002) conducted 107 case studies involving schools that focus on ICT integration. The authors detail five areas where change promoted this endeavour (Venezky & Davis, 2002, p. 19):

 

To see what further factors can be considered enablers and barriers of integration, Goktas and colleagues (2009) provided a meta-analysis of 18 different studies previously conducted into the barriers and enablers of ICT inclusion and supplemented this initial list through a research project involving three questionnaires (51 deans, 111 teacher educators and 1330 pre-service teachers) and two interview studies (six teacher educators and six pre-service teachers) in the Turkish university context. The enablers and barriers emerging in the literature as well as the additions that originate from the study are summarized in Table 5 (Goktas et al., 2009).

 

 

Additionally, Venezky and Davis (2002) identified three major barriers to ICT inclusion in their study consisting of 107 individual case studies. In schools purposefully selected because of their high level of integration, the authors identified a subgroup where, based on teacher interviews and surveys, the school staff did not equally favour inclusion. The first one was the lack of supporting staff trainings integrated into the working hours of the staff members. The second was teacher resistance either due to preferred routine teaching styles or negative attitudes towards technology, whilst the third one was the limited infrastructure – especially technical support. This latter means that certain students could not access the necessary devices or reach the online platforms needed for e.g., doing their homework, and thus inclusion mainly centred around the classroom as opposed to being extended and properly integrated into all learning processes. Such strict isolation of in-class and out-of-class use of technology also contradicts the definitions of technology integration and blended learning because the same technology ought to be utilised in- and out-of-class (Simon & Kollárová, 2015) and the material covered also needs to be the same online and on site (Fekete, 2017). If there is no connection between the learning material and the two learning environments (physical classroom and digital classroom), learning is not effective, and technology use is not pedagogically reasoned for (Fekete, 2017; Simon & Kollárová, 2015; Venezky & Davis, 2002).

 

 

The main aim of the study was to confirm if the TnETL programme resulted in better student achievement compared to control schools (Lowther et al, 2008). It was found that students who participated in the programme performed as well or better than students in the control groups; however, learners in the programme “were significantly more engaged in student-centred learning activities such as experiential, hands-on learning, independent inquiry/research, and cooperative learning” (Lowther et al, 2008, p. 204). This suggests that with long-term and professionally grounded facilitation programmes, learners were not only able to develop their digital competences, the experience resulted in competency (i.e., performance) development, which also signals generally good teacher competencies when instructing these classes.