Computers & Education 55 (2010) 541e553

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu

The e-capacity of primary schools: Development of a conceptual model and scale

construction from a school improvement perspective
Ruben Vanderlinde*, Johan van Braak
Department of Educational Studies, Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, B9000 Ghent, Belgium

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In the search for factors affecting the use of ICT in educational settings, several authors have presented
Received 19 June 2009 holistic conceptual frameworks. In this study, we argue that while these models are valuable sources for
Received in revised form conducting qualitative research, they are less useful for quantitative research since few measurement
8 January 2010
scales have been created. We present an empirically tested conceptual framework to further examine the
Accepted 17 February 2010
complex process of integrating ICT for instructional purposes. This model has been developed from
a school improvement perspective and considers the e-capacity of a school as an overarching concept.
Keywords:
E-capacity refers to the schools' ability to create and optimise sustainable school level and teacher level
ICT integration
Conceptual framework conditions to bring about effective ICT change. The conditions identified are based on a literature review
School improvement in the change and school improvement literature and the ICT integration literature. All conditions have
Scale construction been translated into reliable measurement scales. Questionnaire data were collected from a represen-
Factor analysis tative teacher sample (N ¼ 471) in 62 primary school in Belgium (Flanders). Exploratory and confir-
matory factor analyses were conducted indicating good goodness of fit estimates and good internal
consistency.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

One of the central activities in Information and Communications Technology (ICT) research is the investigation of conditions that support
the integration of ICT into schools (Hew & Brush, 2007). While research has traditionally focused on individual teacher characteristics or
conditions at the teacher level, such as individual computer attitudes or gender differences, we believe that this ignores the social context in
which teachers behave. In a recent review study, Hew and Brush (2007) show that the majority of ICT integration research primarily focuses
on the role of teacher level variables, and that few studies examine important school level variables that may affect the integration of ICT. In
line with this view, Hermans, Tondeur, van Braak, and Valcke (2008) argue that future research should focus on specific school conditions
and school culture variables that may explain the use of ICT in classrooms. Other authors argue that ICT integration should be considered as
a special case of educational innovation, and that research on ICT integration should build on theories and insights from the educational
change and school improvement literature (e.g. Tearle, 2004; Watson, 2006). Furthermore, Somekh (2007) argues that we should adopt
strategies about successful management of change to enable the use of ICT to support effective teaching and learning. We believe that
research on ICT integration should increase its focus on both the role of characteristics of the school organisation or school level conditions,
and on ICT integration as a case of educational innovation. The first research focus implies that ICT researchers should pay more attention to
the role of school organisational features, the second research challenge means we endorse ICT can have a positive impact on student
learning, like recently provided by rigorous research evidence (e.g. BECTA, 2007).
Moreover, ICT itself is constantly and rapidly evolving. Hardware and software are changing very quickly and schools are also confronted
with new technological developments, such as web 2.0. In certain countries national governments have even administered formal and
compulsory ICT curricula. These curricula have a clear pedagogical foundation and tend to focus more on the use of ICT as a tool for teaching
and learning than the development of technical skills. Vanderlinde, van Braak, and Hermans (2009) argue that such ICT curricula cause
a shift in the policy actions of ICT support (i.e., from a technical rationale with the main focus on funding and resources to a pedagogical
rationale stressing student competencies). This is particularly the case in Flanders, the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium, where the Flemish

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ32 9 264 86 30; fax: þ32 9 264 86 88.
E-mail address: Ruben.Vanderlinde@UGent.be (R. Vanderlinde).

0360-1315/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.016
542 R. Vanderlinde, J. van Braak / Computers & Education 55 (2010) 541e553

Government formulated cross-curricular ICT attainment targets for compulsory education in September 2007. In so doing the Flemish
Government clearly outlines its view of how ICT should be integrated into schools and expects them to put this formal ICT curriculum into
practice (see Vanderlinde et al., 2009).
In this study, we present a conceptual framework that we developed from a school improvement perspective. This framework was
designed to help identify and measure the factors influencing both ICT integration and the implementation of ICT curricula. School
improvement is regarded as a strategy for educational change that aims to enhance student outcomes and strengthen the schools'
capacity for managing change (Hopkins, 2001). The following key assumptions of the school improvement approach have been outlined
by Harris (2002): (a) schools have the capacity to improve themselves, (b) school improvement involves cultural change, (c) there are
school level and classroom level conditions for change, and (d) school improvement is concerned with building greater capacity for
change.

2. The need for a new framework: e-capacity

As schools are being given greater autonomy and responsibility for their future, they must now operate as strategic organisations (van
den Berg, Vandenberghe, & Sleegers, 1999). Their capacity to successfully implement educational innovations or policy initiatives (Geijsel,
van den Berg, & Sleegers, 1999) has become an important issue among researchers and policy makers (see also Stoll, 1999). Geijsel, Sleegers,
Stoel, and Krüger (2009) rightly note that the schools' capacity to transform a large-scale reform into an accountable learner-oriented
teaching practice has become a major focus in recent research into educational change. However, it is necessary to clearly conceptualise
(Stoll, 1999) and operationalise (Geijsel et al., 1999) this concept of capacity. From a school improvement perspective (Harris, 2002; Hopkins,
2001; Stoll, 1999), the schools' ‘capacity’ can be generally defined as the competence of a school to implement educational innovations or to
bring about effective change (Geijsel et al., 1999; Malen & King Rice, 2004). A crucial matter in this context is that we assume that schools
have the capacity to improve themselves while establishing school level and classroom level conditions to support and manage change
(Harris, 2002; Hopkins, 2001).
In this study, the concept of capacity, as described in the school improvement literature, has been translated and contextualised for the
case of ICT integration. We speak about the e-capacity of a school, defined as the collective competence of a school to implement ICT in a way
that is a lever for instructional change. From this perspective, e-capacity is concerned with creating and optimising sustainable school level
and teacher level conditions to foster effective change through ICT. The school and teacher level conditions identified in this study and
presented in our model (see section 3) are based on both a review of the change and school improvement literature and the literature on ICT
integration. As a starting point for our own conceptual model, we examined existing conceptual frameworks (Hew & Brush, 2007; Kozma,
2003; Lim, 2002; Tearle, 2004), yet as these frameworks do not include measurement scales they were thoroughly revised. Below we outline
the central ideas within the frameworks studied. See Table 1 for a summary overview of the existing conceptual frameworks.
Kozma (2003) describes the conceptual framework developed by the ‘International Society for Technology in Education.’ This framework
outlines factors that might influence the use of ICT in the classroom and its impact on educational outcomes. Kozma (2003) speaks about
‘innovative pedagogical practices that use ICT’ and embeds these practices in a concentric set of contextual levels which include the
classroom (micro level), the school or local community (meso level), and state, national and international entities (macro level). For each
level, Kozma (2003) identified actors and factors that mediate change. Factors on the micro level include the classroom organisation, teacher
characteristics, teachers' experience with ICT, and student characteristics. For the meso level, Kozma (2003) identified school leaders and
parents as possible actors; and the school organisation, ICT infrastructure, technical support, and local culture as possible factors. National
and state policies and international trends are identified on the macro level. This framework puts emphasis on characteristics of the
innovation (or innovative ICT practices), such as practicality, complexity, clarity, relevance, and need. It also takes into account existing
teaching and student practices and the actual use of ICT.

Table 1
Brief summary of the existing conceptual frameworks.

Author Theoretical underpinnings Central concept Influencing conditions

Kozma (2003) Comparative education, school
reform, technology and education,
diffusion research, etc.
Innovative pedagogical practices
that use technology
- Innovation characteristics (e.g. complexity, clarity)
- Micro level (e.g. teacher background, classroom size)
- Meso level (e.g. leadership, ICT infrastructure)
- Macro level (e.g. policy makers, economic forces)
- Outcomes (e.g. teacher competencies)

Tearle (2004) - Management of change Use of ICT in teaching - Individuals (e.g. ICT skills, beliefs in ICT)
- Use of ICT in schools - The ICT implementation process
(e.g. support and training, resource provision)
- The whole school (e.g. strong leadership)

Lim (2002) - Sociocultural approach ICT-based lessons as - Course of study (e.g. curriculum, assessment)
- Activity theory activity systems - School (e.g. ICT facilities)
- Education system (e.g. recruitment and
training of teachers)
- Society at large (e.g. publishers)

Hew and Brush Technology integration Technology integration for - Barriers: resources, institution, subject culture,
(2007) in K-12 schools instructional purposes attitudes and beliefs, knowledge and skills, assessment
- Strategies: vision building, overcoming scarcity
of resources, changing attitudes, professional
development, reconsidering assessment
 R. Vanderlinde, J. van Braak / Computers & Education 55 (2010) 541e553 543

The model presented by Tearle (2004) is designed to identify important factors in relation to the implementation of ICT in UK secondary
education. The author's ‘whole school approach’ is characterised by considering ICT integration as a special case for implementing change.
Central in this concentric model is the use of ICT in teaching. This practice is influenced by three ‘layers’: the whole school, the ICT
implementation process, and the individual. ‘Whole school’ characteristics refer to strong school leadership, the school culture, the change
oriented nature of a school, the positive and proactive attitude towards external influences, and the school's internal processes. The ‘ICT
implementation process,’ refers to the carefully planned process through which ICT was implemented across the school, matters relating to
ICT resourcing, and matters relating to support and training. ‘Individual characteristics’ include a positive attitude to ICT and belief in its use
and the importance of ICT knowledge, understanding, and skills.
Somewhat differently, Lim (2002) presents a theoretical framework based on activity theory. One of the central notions in this frame-
work is that ICT cannot be studied in isolation, but must be studied within the broader context in which it is situated. From this perspective,
the focus should be on the events, activities, contents, and interpersonal processes taking place in the context where ICT is used. The author
proposes to study the activity system as a unit of analysis (i.e., the ICT-based lesson) surrounded by different successive levels (i.e., the course
of study, school, education system, and society at large).
In a recent study, Hew and Brush (2007) modelled the barriers and strategies that influence the integration of ICT for instructional
purposes into the curriculum. This ‘tentative model’ contains direct and indirect barriers influencing ICT integration. Direct barriers include:
(a) the teachers' attitudes and beliefs towards using ICT, (b) the teachers' knowledge and skills, (c) the institution (e.g. leadership, school
plan, etc.) and (d) resources (e.g. availability and access to ICT, support, etc.). In this model, ICT integration is indirectly influenced by the
subject culture and assessment activities measuring student learning. Interesting in this model is that these authors also present strategies
to overcome the identified barriers: having a shared vision on learning and teaching, overcoming the scarcity of resources, changing teacher
attitudes and beliefs, and reconsidering assessment activities.
All of the models outlined above are primarily conceptual models highlighting ICT integration from a holistic point of view. ICT is not seen
as an isolated phenomenon, but is situated within broader mediating contexts. The greatest weakness of these models is that they do not
give indications or guidelines to further empirically test the factors or conditions presented. While these models can be used for qualitative
research designs, such as case studies or in-depth interviews, they are inappropriate for quantitative research designs since measurement
scales are not discussed. The present study aims to develop a conceptual framework that leads to the construction of measurement scales.
More concretely, research goals are:

 To further develop the e-capacity conceptual framework and to identify school level and teacher level conditions influencing the use of
ICT as a lever for instructional change; to identify conditions in the e-capacity model derived from recent insights in the school
improvement and ICT integration literature.
 To translate the identified supporting school level and teacher level conditions into items and to construct reliable scales measuring the
conditions from the e-capacity framework.

3. Conditions in the e-capacity model

E-capacity refers to the schools' ability to create and optimise sustainable school level and teacher level conditions that can bring about
effective ICT change. The identified school and teacher level conditions are brought together in the e-capacity model. This model comprises
four mediating concentric circles; school improvement conditions; ICT related school conditions; ICT related teacher conditions; and
teachers' actual use of ICT, surrounding a twofold core element (see Fig. 1). Since teachers play a pivotal role in implementing innovations,
the present study will analyse all conditions from a teacher's point of view. This means that all conditions are considered as subjective
teacher perceptions rather than as objective characteristics (see also Geijsel et al., 1999).
The twofold core element of the e-capacity model refers to the transformative nature of ICT (Selwyn & Brown, 2000; Watson, 2006). It
stresses on the one hand the use of ICT as a lever for instructional change, and on the other hand the implementation of ICT curricula. In
other words, the heart of our model takes the new Flemish ICT curriculum (see section 1) into account as the current frame of reference
stressing the meaning of ICT as a lever for instructional change. In this respect, the twofold core element has one broader focus than the
often used and more narrow variables such as computer or ICT use. The heart of our model is concerned with influences of ICT on teaching
and learning processes (see also Underwood & Dillon, 2004). As such, teachers' actual use of ICT was added as an extra layer in the model
instead of placing it in the centre. Contrary to many other studies, teachers' use of ICT is not seen as a dependent variable. In our model,
teachers' actual use of ICT is a process or independent variable leading to different outcomes.
Before discussing the different conditions or layers of the e-capacity model, it is important to stress that this model is situated within
a broader societal and political context of national ICT policies and curriculum standards. Kozma (2003) argues that classroom practices
are influenced by state or national policies in areas such as curriculum and assessment, professional development, and telecommuni-
cations. National ICT policies provide schools with resources, such as equipment, network infrastructure, or ICT teachers' professional
development (Owston, 2007). The ‘rationales’ behind national ICT polices are also important to take into account. Selwyn and Brown
(2000) refer to individual employability and international competitiveness as important policy goals for nation states to promote ICT
in education. International ICT policies and the influence of supranational organisations (e.g. the European Union, the United Nations, the
OECD, the World Bank, etc.) are also becoming more important and exert influence on national and regional educational policies. The
Lisbon European Council (March 2000) and the strategic policy framework for the information society (i2010) that was launched by the
European Commission in 2005, are important policies for European countries (see also Vanderlinde et al., 2009). Another influential
international policy is the ‘ICT competency standards for teachers,’ which was recently presented by UNESCO (2008). The objective of this
policy is to provide guidelines in planning education and training for teachers and prepare them to play an essential role in producing
technologically capable students. Other factors affecting the conditions presented in the e-capacity model concern the societal
subsystems (e.g. the economic system, the social system and cultural norms) that interact with the educational system in general and ICT
policies in particular.
544 R. Vanderlinde, J. van Braak / Computers & Education 55 (2010) 541e553

Fig. 1. E-capacity model.

In what follows, the different layers of the e-capacity model will be presented and further analysed through our construction of
measurement scales.

3.1. School improvement conditions

The first layer in the e-capacity model comprises conditions described in the school improvement literature as contributing to the
implementation and realisation of educational change.

3.1.1. Leadership
In the school improvement literature (e.g. Stoll, 1999), leadership is put forward as an important condition for realising educational
change and school improvement. Leadership is understood as an element of the school culture and reflects the extent to which the school
leader engages in supportive and/or instructional behaviour (Devos, Bouckenooghe, Engels, & Aelterman, 2007). Several studies indicate
that strong leadership is an important condition for successful ICT integration (Baylor & Ritchie, 2002; Granger, Morbey, Lotherington,
Owston, & Wideman, 2002; Hadjithoma & Karagiorgi, 2009; Hayes, 2007). More specifically, these studies reveal that school leaders are
in an ideal position to create the conditions of developing a shared vision and policy on ICT, and that they can encourage and support
teachers in the process of ICT integration. Put differently, strong leadership is a necessary precondition to shape ICT policy in schools
(Tondeur, Coenders, van Braak, ten Brummelhuis, & Vanderlinde, 2009), and influences relationships amongst the school staff and the
general school climate (Hadjithoma, 2009). In this context, Dexter (2008) presents an interesting conceptualisation of ICT related leadership
functions, referring to tasks like setting a vision for the use of ICT in education, teacher development and professional community building
for teachers to learn about ICT integration, and providing access to supported and managed hardware and software.

3.1.2. Participation in decision making

The participation of teachers in the planning and decision making process in schools has been associated with more successful
implementation of educational innovations (Geijsel, Sleegers, van den Berg, & Kelchtermans, 2001; Harris, 2002). It is a crucial condition for
fostering the implementation of large innovation programs in schools (Geijsel et al., 2001), and has been identified as an important factor
when integrating ICT (Bowman, Newman, & Masterson, 2001; Hadjithoma & Karagiorgi, 2009). For instance, Hadjithoma and Karagiorgi
(2009) argue that this condition is linked with teachers' ownership of the ICT implementation initiative. Recently, in the context of ICT
integration, issues such as data-driven decision making processes have become a point of interest (e.g. Dexter, 2008; Vanderlinde, Hermans,
& van Braak, 2010).
 R. Vanderlinde, J. van Braak / Computers & Education 55 (2010) 541e553 545

3.1.3. Collegiality
Innovation and change requires that teachers collaborate. Harris (2002) describes collegial relations and collective practices as essential
for building the capacity for school improvement. Moreover, collegiality and collaborative relationships among teachers have been iden-
tified as an important condition in the context of integrating ICT in education (e.g. Granger et al., 2002; Hadjithoma & Karagiorgi, 2009;
Mumtaz, 2000). For instance, the case study research of Granger et al. (2002) demonstrates that supportive and collaborative relationships
among teachers was an important factor facilitating ICT implementation. These authors stress that teachers need each other for team
teaching and planning, technical problem-solving assistance and learning. Tearle (2004) speaks in this context of ‘a culture of collaboration
and collective endeavour’ and brings this in relation to positive learning opportunities for teachers.

3.2. ICT related school conditions

The next layer in the e-capacity model refers to specific ICT related school conditions. As stated above, these conditions should receive
more attention in research on ICT integration. For instance, the qualitative research carried out by Goodison (2002) and Hayes (2007)
illustrates that a range of organisational features or local conditions affect the process of integrating ICT into the teaching and learning
process. Five of these conditions have been identified in our e-capacity model:

3.2.1. ICT support

ICT support, particularly technical support, is an important school condition for the successful implementation of ICT, and teachers need
adequate technical support in order to facilitate their use of ICT (BECTA, 2004; Hew & Brush, 2007; Tondeur et al., 2009). Beyond technical
support, ICT support further needs to be understood as a form of pedagogical support that teachers require when integrating ICT into their
classroom (Mumtaz, 2000; Tondeur, Van Keer, van Braak, & Valcke, 2008). Based on a literature review, Strudler and Hearrington (2008)
state that ICT support is important because it has been empirically shown that the availability of quality ICT support impacts the
frequency, variety and increased use of ICT in the classroom. In this context, we refer to the work of Dexter, Anderson, and Ronnkvist (2002)
who have operationalised ‘quality of ICT support’ stressing the multifaceted nature of this concept. In their view, quality ICT support is about
creating classroom-convenient access to resources, providing teachers with one-to-one support, teaching them about how to integrate ICT
into practice, and encouraging professional collaboration. This last point illustrates that ICT support is not only a responsibility for the
schools' ICT coordinator, but that the support structures from the school leader and the peers are also at stake (Tearle, 2004).

3.2.2. ICT coordination

The second ICT school condition includes ICT coordination at schools, referring to tasks and responsibilities assigned to the schools' ICT
coordinator. The work of Marcovitz (2000) is relevant in this context. This author describes three major roles for the ICT coordinator. The first
role is the provision of ‘support by walking around’ and thus being available to respond to the immediate needs of teachers. The second role
includes the ‘nuts and bold’ activities referring to technical skills (e.g. installation of hardware and software). The third role is that of ‘policy
maker’ comprising issues of planning and funding. Despite this multiple role description, recent research indicates that the role of ICT
coordinators is often restricted to a technical one (e.g. BECTA, 2002; Tondeur et al., 2008). Although essential for successful ICT integration
(Lai & Pratt, 2004), they do not reserve appropriate time for more management and pedagogical tasks (Tondeur et al., 2008). In this context,
Vanderlinde et al. (2009) suggest that ICT coordinators should act more as curriculum managers and change agents. The focus of ICT
coordinators should mainly concern how ICT can foster teaching and learning processes, not hardware or software issues. Such ICT coor-
dinators provide leadership, vision, professional development and support to the school community (Dexter et al., 2002; Lai & Pratt, 2004,
Strudler & Hearrington, 2008).

3.2.3. The schools' vision of ICT integration

The next condition is seen as an important one in fostering the process of integrating ICT for instructional purposes into the curricula (Hew
& Brush, 2007). Schools need to develop a shared vision of teaching and learning as well as a shared vision of ICT integration. Without such
a vision, teachers are prone to limit their thinking about ICT to ‘boxes and wires’ or isolated computer skills (Fishman & Pinkard, 2001). A vision
on ICT integration must be related to particular curriculum content, to the enhancement of student learning (Staples, Pugach, & Himes, 2005 in
Hew & Brush, 2007), to roles played by teachers and to the choice of teaching methods and materials (Tondeur et al., 2009). Research indicates
that schools play an important role in developing a shared vision on the use of ICT for teaching and learning (Hughes & Zachariah, 2001). In this
context, Hayes (2007) refers to the commitment and involvement of the school leader in the process of establishing the schools' vision of
learning, a vision that is focused on how ICT enhances and supports new forms of learning. Similarly, Vanderlinde et al. (2008) argue that
a school should formulate its vision on the nature of ‘good’ education before developing an ICT policy plan.

3.2.4. ICT policy planning

The condition of ICT policy planning is strongly related to the previous one, and entails the establishment of a school-based ICT policy
plan that outlines different elements (e.g. ICT vision, professional development, ICT curriculum, hardware, software, funds, etc.) involved in
the integration of ICT in education (Vanderlinde et al., 2008). Baylor and Ritchie (2002) found that schools that are successful in integrating
ICT are often guided by an ICT policy plan. Such a plan acts as a blueprint for the sequence of events the school hopes to achieve. It describes
the overall philosophy of ICT use and explores how ICT will improve teaching and learning (Baylor & Ritchie, 2002). Tondeur et al. (2008)
found that teachers in schools which have an ICT plan that emphasises shared goals tend to use ICT more regularly in their classrooms.
Gülbahar (2007) stresses that an ICT policy plan is not only about hardware and internet connections, but also about how ICT is integrated
within the instructional program. In his view, continuous evaluation of the ICT policy plan is as important as the development of the plan. In
other words, ICT policy planning is an ongoing process (Vanderlinde et al., 2008) and an ICT policy plan needs frequent updates (Fishman &
Zhang, 2003). Other conditions for successful ICT policy planning are (1) a strong relation between ICT policy planning and vision devel-
opment (Fishman & Pinkard, 2001; Vanderlinde et al., 2009); and (2) ICT policy planning as a collaborative process in which all teachers
need to be involved (Tearle, 2004; Tondeur et al., 2008, Vanderlinde et al., 2009).
546 R. Vanderlinde, J. van Braak / Computers & Education 55 (2010) 541e553

3.2.5. ICT infrastructure

The last school condition refers to the access and availability of an ICT infrastructure at the school. According to Tearle (2004), this condition
includes ‘the quantity, type, reliability of computer, access arrangements and location of equipment’. While access to hardware is important,
a good ICT infrastructure also concerns the appropriateness of software. As such, ICT infrastructure is considered as one of the most notorious
impediments to ICT integration (Albirini, 2006; Pelgrum, 2001). A lack of appropriate material resources in the classroom (i. e., computers and
software) can seriously limit what teachers are able to do with ICT (Mumtaz, 2000). It also inhibits learning and causes frustration and
resistance among teachers (Granger et al., 2002). Summarizing, Johson and Maddux (2006) argue that this condition is the most favourable
one with regard to ICT integration and that hardware, software and connectivity must reach a serious level of sophistication.

3.3. ICT related teacher conditions

Teachers play a pivotal role in implementing educational innovations. Therefore, they are important agents in the concrete imple-
mentation of ICT in classroom settings (Albirini, 2006). Teachers have a main responsibility in the process of ICT integration in their
classrooms (e.g. the organisation of the curriculum with ICT, the organisation of students' ICT work), and different teacher conditions are at
stake. In this context, Drent and Meelisen (2008) make a distinction between exogenous factors (non-manipulative like gender and age) and
endogenous factors (manipulative). In this study, two endogenous teacher level conditions are put forward; the relevance of knowledge and
skills and ways of acquiring them (Granger et al., 2002).

3.3.1. ICT teachers' professional development

An important strategy for ICT integration is the professional development of ICT teachers. These activities are designed to improve
teachers' ICT skills and to foster positive attitudes towards ICT (Galanouli, Murphy, & Gardner, 2004). Hew and Brush (2007) describe three
conditions for effective ICT professional development: (1) having a focus on content, (2) giving teachers opportunities for “hands-on” work,
and (3) being consistent with teachers' needs. Similarly, Galanouli et al. (2004) argue that successful ICT professional development needs to
be flexible and should reflect the level of ICT competence of the teachers involved. Valcke, Rots, and van Braak (2007) suggest that ICT
teacher training should be organised during school hours and use the school as the training location. This implies that ICT training has to be
linked with context-specific questions, needs, or problems. BECTA (2004) argues that training activities need to focus on both pedagogical
aspects and teachers' ICT skills. Professional development in the context of ICT integration is not only about taking part in in-service teacher
training courses, but also about experimenting with ICT before using it in the classroom and keeping informed about ICT (Albirini, 2006).

3.3.2. Teachers' ICT competence

ICT competence is an important condition for effective ICT use by teachers (Hew & Brush, 2007; Pelgrum, 2001), and lack of teaching
experience with ICT has been identified as an important factor that prevent teachers from integrating ICT (Mumtaz, 2000). Sinnaeve, van
Braak, Tondeur, and Evers (2008) define ICT competence as a set of knowledge, skills, and attitudes for an integrated and functional use of ICT
in an educational context. Similar to Hew and Brush (2007), these authors further delineate the concept of ICT competence into three
categories: (1) basic ICT knowledge and skills (e.g. how to handle a computer, how to use a spreadsheet, etc.), (2) pedagogical competence to
use ICT in the classroom (e.g. having insight into the effects of ICT on teachers' roles and students' motivation and learning), and (3) class
management skills to integrate ICT in the classroom. The last category refers to skills such as how to organise the class effectively so that
students have equal opportunities to use ICT or how to respond to students' technical difficulties (see Hew & Brush, 2007).

3.4. Teachers' actual use of ICT

Like the model of Kozma (2003), the e-capacity model takes into account teachers' actual use of ICT. Teachers' ICT use is not placed in the
centre of our model, but is considered as an extra mediating layer or process variable. In other words, teachers' actual use of ICT is considered as
an independent instead of a dependent variable. In previous research ICT use has been measured and operationalised in different ways. Some
researchers report the amount of ICT use in the classroom, the time students spend working with ICT, or the use of specific computer
applications. For instance, Smeets (2005) measured both the frequency of ICT use during classes, as well as the frequency of use of specified
types of ICT applications (e.g. word processing, email, etc.). Baylor and Ritchie (2002) state that many researchers operationalise ICT use in
terms of a basic dichotomy whereby ICT is either used as the subject of study or as an instructional tool to teach other content. Niederhauser
and Stoddart (2001) focus on the use of educational software, making a distinction between ‘skill-based transmission software’ and ‘open-
ended constructivist software.’ Nowadays, researchers do not consider ICT use as a monolithic process, but emphasise that ICT can be inte-
grated in many different ways in classrooms. In this sense ICT use is studied as a more complex phenomenon referring to different types of use.
For instance, Tondeur, van Braak, and Valcke (2007) make a distinction between thee types of computer use: (1) the use of ICT as an infor-
mation tool, (2) the use of ICT as a learning tool, and (3) learning basic computer skills. Baylor and Ritchie (2002) describe nine different types of
ICT use, including “the use of ICT for subject-matter content,” “the use of ICT for collaboration,” and “the use of ICT for higher order skills”.

4. Method

4.1. Procedure and instruments

The second purpose of this study is to develop instruments that measure school and teacher level conditions influencing the use of ICT
for instructional purposes. To serve this purpose, all conditions from the e-capacity framework were operationalised and translated into
item statements and a questionnaire was developed. Existing scales were used if available in the research literature, and new items were
generated for conditions which have not yet been described in terms of measurement in the literature.
For the school improvement conditions, the leadership scales of Hoy and Tarter (1995, 1997) were selected after items were carefully
translated into Dutch and adjusted for appropriateness in the Flemish context. More concretely, ‘supportive leadership’ and ‘initiating
 R. Vanderlinde, J. van Braak / Computers & Education 55 (2010) 541e553 547

structure’ were chosen as leadership dimensions. The first dimension is characterised by efforts to motivate teachers by using constructive
criticism and setting an example through hard work. At the same time, the school leader is helpful and genuinely concerned with the
personal and professional welfare of teachers (Hoy & Tarter, 1995, 1997). Initiating structure is related to task- and achievement-oriented
leadership behaviour; the school leader makes his or her attitudes and expectations clear and maintains definite standards of performance
(Hoy & Tarter, 1995, 1997). For the two other school improvement conditions, Staessens' ‘professional relations among teachers’ scale, which
measures teacher communication and cooperation (Staessens, 1990; Staessens & Vandenberghe, 1994), and Geijsels' ‘participation in
decision making’ scale (Geijsel et al., 2001, 2009) were selected. This last scale measures the extent to which teachers feel that they
participate in the schools' decision making process regarding issues of education, innovation, and school improvement.
Based on a comprehensive review of the ICT integration research literature, a number of items were generated and formulated for the ICT
school and teacher level related conditions since no appropriate scales have been described in the literature. Afterwards, these items were
evaluated independently by 11 experts and stakeholders in the field of ICT integration (researchers, teachers and ICT coordinators) to assess
content validity, and clarity of the items. The review process resulted in an item bank of 35 items (see Appendix) with a Likert-type answer
format in order to assess; (1) school related conditions, including the schools' vision of ICT integration, the schools' ICT policy, ICT school
support, ICT coordination, ICT infrastructure, and (2) teacher related conditions, including teachers' ICT competencies and professional
development activities.
‘The schools’ vision of ICT integration’ items assess the extent to which the school has a clear vision of the place of ICT in education (e.g.
‘The schools’ vision on the place of ICT in education is acknowledged by the colleagues'). ‘The schools’ ICT policy’ items assess the extent to
which the school has a policy and policy plan containing different elements of ICT integration in education (e.g. ‘My school has a well
developed ICT policy plan’). The ‘ICT coordination’ items assess the degree to which ICT integration is coordinated at the school, while the
‘ICT support’ items assess the extent to which ICT support is arranged at the school level. The ‘ICT infrastructure’ items assess the availability
and appropriateness of the ICT school and classroom equipment (i.e., hardware, software, and peripheral equipment).
The ‘Teachers’ ICT competence’ items assess the degree to which teachers feel competent integrating ICT into their classroom practice.
These items include assessment of teachers' perceived technical knowledge and skills, organisational skills, and pedagogicaledidactical
skills. Finally, the ‘Teachers’ ICT professional development’ items assess the extent to which teachers keep up with developments in the field
of ICT integration, like taking part in in-service teacher trainings.
The examination of teachers' actual use of ICT is based on revised scales of Tondeur et al. (2007). Three types of ICT use are distinguished:
(1) the use of basic ICT skills, (2) ICT as a learning tool (i.e., the use of ICT to support pupils' learning), and (3) ICT as an information tool (i.e.,
the use of ICT to select, retrieve, and present information).

4.2. Statistical analysis

Previously validated measurement scales, which measure school improvement conditions and teachers' actual use of ICT, were run
through a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to investigate the structural stability of the scales, and then tested for internal consis-
tency by calculating the Cronbach's a (Cronbach, 1951). The scale construction of the ICT school and teacher related conditions
involved three main stages: (a) exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to identify the number of factors, (b) confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) to examine the stability of the exploratory factor structure, and (c) internal consistency to determine the psychometric quality of
the scales.
For the CFA, several fit indices were calculated to provide information on the adequacy of the fitted model, these included: (a) the c2 and
p-value, (b) the goodness of fit index (GFI) and the adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI), (c) the comparative fit index (CFI), and (d) the root
mean square error (RMSEA). Following Brown and Cudeck (1993), values of RMSEA that range between .05 and .08 indicate a fair fit. GFI,
AGFI, and CFI should be above .90 to indicate an adequate fit.
SPSS 15.0 was used for the EFA and reliability analyses and Amos 17.0 (Arbuckle, 2008) was used for the CFA.

4.3. Participants

A representative sample of school teachers in Flanders was selected in order to collect questionnaire data. Teachers were asked to fill in
a questionnaire (see Appendix for a presentation of the items) so scales could be constructed in a next step. As an incentive to participate,
comprehensive school performance feedback was promised if at least 60% of the teachers participated in the survey. Schools could chose
between an on-line survey or a paper-and-pencil version of the questionnaire.
Questionnaire data were collected from a sample of 471 primary school teachers from 62 primary schools in Flanders (Belgium). All
participants teach in grades 1e6 (students' ages 6e12) and are evenly distributed across all primary schools. The sample was 78% female; the
age ranged between 22 and 61 years with an average age of 38. Teachers reported that they have been using their computer at home for the
past 12 years and in the classroom for the past 8 years. This data set was used for the CFA's on the school improvement conditions and the
teachers' use of ICT.
In order to conduct the EFA and CFA of the school and teacher ICT conditions, the sample was randomly divided into two equal groups,
matched for gender and age.

5. Results

5.1. Results of the CFA on the conditions for school improvement

Using a CFA on the complete data set (N ¼ 471) we tested the structural stability of the ‘Leadership’ scales of Hoy and Tarter (1995, 1997),
the ‘Professional relations among teachers’ scale of Staessens (1990) and Staessens and Vandenberghe (1994), and the ‘Participation in
decision making’ scale of Geijsel et al. (2001).
548 R. Vanderlinde, J. van Braak / Computers & Education 55 (2010) 541e553

For Hoy and Tarters' scales the results of the CFA indicate significant factor loadings for all items (ranging between .70 and .90) on
the two latent leadership factors. The results show a good fit between the hypothesised model and the observed data (df ¼ 41,
c2 ¼ 199.1, c2/df ¼ 4.86). The goodness of fit estimates were GFI ¼ .93 and AGFI ¼ .88, CFI ¼ .96 and RMSEA ¼ .09, indicating fairly good
fit. The correlation between the two factors is significant and very high (r ¼ .85). Cronbach's a for these scales indicates good internal
consistency (a ¼ .94 for the 7-item ‘Supportive leadership’ scale; a ¼ .88 for the 5-item ‘Initiating structure’ scale).
For the analysis of Staessens (1990) and Staessens and Vandenberghe (1994) ‘Professional relations among teachers’ scale the results
indicate significant factor loadings which range between .55 and .74. One item was deleted to obtain a good fit: df ¼ 9, c2 ¼ 37.4, c2/df ¼ 4.2,
GFI ¼ .97, AGFI ¼ .94, CFI ¼ .97, and RMSEA ¼ .08. The internal consistency of the 6-item scale is very good with a Cronbach's a of .85.
For the analysis of Geijsel et al.'s (2001) ‘Participation in decision making’ scale the results indicate significant factor loadings which
range between .48 and .81. Two residuals (e) were correlated for one pair of items to obtain a good fit: df ¼ 4, c2 ¼ 19.9, c2/df ¼ 5.0, GFI ¼ .98,
AGFI ¼ .94, CFI ¼ .98, and RMSEA ¼ .09. The internal consistency of the 5-item scale is good with a Cronbach's a of .81.

5.2. Results of the scale construction of ICT related school conditions (EFA and CFA)

An EFA was performed in order to investigate the underlying structure of the 24 ICT related school items. We used maximum likelihood
EFA based on the assumption that the factors were not correlated (orthogonal rotation). Based on the first analysis, four items were deleted
due to loadings across factors or low communality value. The second analysis was conducted on the 20 remaining items. The scree test
suggested a four-factor solution. However, as the scree test depends on the reliability of the researchers' judgment, the interpretation of the
test is not always exact (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Therefore, a parallel analysis and Velicer's MAP test were conducted (O'Connor, 2000).
Both tests suggested a three-factor solution. The theoretically assumed number of factors was not confirmed in the data structure. In the
third analysis, a three-factor solution was forced, resulting in a model accounting for 59.6% of the common variance. The first factor was
labelled ‘ICT school support and coordination’ and refers to the degree to which ICT integration is coordinated at the school level and the
extent to which ICT support is arranged at the school level. This factor also includes the perceived tasks and roles of the schools' ICT
coordinator. The second factor was labelled ‘Schools’ ICT vision and policy’ and comprises (a) the extent to which a school has a clear vision
on the place of ICT in education, and (b) the extent to which a school has a policy and policy plan containing different elements of ICT
integration in education. Indeed, Hew and Brush (2007) also combine these components as strategies fostering the integration of ICT into
the curriculum. Furthermore, this factor assesses whether teachers are involved in the process of building an ICT vision and developing an
ICT policy plan. The third factor is labelled ‘ICT infrastructure’ and assesses the perceived availability and appropriateness of the ICT school
and classroom equipment (i.e., hardware, software and peripheral equipment).
Next, a CFA was conducted to examine the stability of the three-factor structure of the ICT school related items. Based on the first CFA, two
items were removed due to low factor loadings. The final model comprises 7 items for ‘ICT school support and coordination,’ 7 items for
‘Schools’ ICT vision and policy,’ and 4 items for ‘ICT infrastructure (see Fig. 2). The results show a good fit between the hypothesised model

Fig. 2. Results of the CFA: Structure coefficients for ICT school related items, **p < .001.
 R. Vanderlinde, J. van Braak / Computers & Education 55 (2010) 541e553 549

Table 2
Cronbach's alphas, descriptive statistics, and correlation coefficients for the ICT related school scales.

Alpha M SD (1) (2) (3)

(1) ICT school support and coordination .91 64.40 20.12 1.00
(2) Schools' ICT vision and policy .93 51.69 18.92 .65 1.00
(3) ICT infrastructure .83 58.65 23.11 .46 .43 1.00

and the data obtained (df ¼ 130, c2 ¼ 219.5, c2/df ¼ 1.69). The goodness of fit estimates were GFI ¼ .88 and AGFI ¼ .84, CFI ¼ .95 and
RMSEA ¼ .06, indicating fair fit. The results indicate that all items load significantly onto the three latent factors (all coefficients were
between .44 and .83 and significantly different form zero at the .001 level). Correlations between the three latent factors are significant.
None of the items from the ‘ICT school support and coordination’ factor and the ‘ICT infrastructure’ factor had cross-loadings. As can be
seen in Fig. 2, we allowed the residuals (e) to correlate for two pairs of items in the ‘Schools’ ICT vision and policy’ factor, e08 and e09 and e10
and e11. This led to a decrease in c2 (from 252.6 to 219.5) compared to the model without correlated residuals. Correlated residuals suggest
a substantial overlap between two items. Items 8 and 9 assess the existence of the schools' ICT vision and policy, while items 10 and 11 assess
whether the teachers know the meaning of the schools' vision of ICT and know the content of the schools' ICT policy plan.
At the last stage of these analyses, a reliability test was performed on the complete data set (N ¼ 471) to examine the internal consistency
of the three factors. Cronbach's alphas were calculated and are presented in Table 2. Items of the three scales were summarised into a sum
scale, ranging from a minimum score of 0 to a maximum score of 100. Table 2 further presents the Pearson's product-moment correlations
between the newly constructed scales. The results show significant positive correlations between the three ICT related school scales.
All items of the newly constructed ICT related school scales are presented in Appendix A.

5.3. Results of the scale construction of ICT related teacher conditions (EFA and CFA)

In the first step, a maximum likelihood EFA was performed on 11 items of the split data set to investigate the underlying structure of the ICT
related teacher items. These analyses were conducted based on the assumption that the factors were not correlated (orthogonal rotation). The
results of the scree test (Cattell, 1966), parallel analysis, and Velicer's MAP test (O'Connor, 2000) indicated a two-factor solution. Based on the
first analysis, two items were deleted due to loadings across factors. The second analysis was conducted on the remaining 9 items and
confirmed the two-factor structure accounting for 55.7% of the common variance. These two factors represent the two ICT teacher conditions
from the e-capacity framework and were labelled ‘Teachers’ ICT competencies' and ‘Teachers’ ICT professional development.’
In the next step, a CFA was conducted to examine the stability of the two identified factors and to assess how well the data fit the
hypothesised structure. Five items were hypothesised as indicators for ‘Teachers’ ICT competencies' and four items were hypothesised as
indicators for ‘ICT teachers’ professional development.’ The CFA confirmed the two-factor structure (see Fig. 3) with all items loading
significantly on the two latent factors (all coefficients were between .44 and .84 and different from zero at the .001 level). The results show
a good fit between the hypothesised model and the observed data (df ¼ 24, c2 ¼ 54.87, c2/df ¼ 2.29). The goodness of fit estimates were
GFI ¼ .95 and AGFI ¼ .91, CFI ¼ .96 and RMSEA ¼ .07, indicating good fit.
For both the ‘ICT teachers’ professional development’ factor and ‘Teachers’ ICT competencies' factor, two pairs of residuals (e) were
allowed to correlate: e01 and e02 for ‘ICT teachers’ professional development’ and e05 and e06 for ‘Teachers’ ICT competencies.’ This led to
a significant decrease in c2 (from 153.7 to 54.9) compared to the model without correlated residuals. The correlated residuals suggest
a substantial overlap between the items. Item 1 and item 2 assess the extent to which teachers take part in ICT related in-service training.
Item 5 and item 6 both measure teachers' technical knowledge and skills to integrate ICT into classroom practice.
Furthermore, the result of the CFA indicates a significant correlation between these two factors (r ¼ .75). Because of this strong relation,
a one-factor CFA was carried out. However, a test of this model indicated a poor fit (df ¼ 23, c2 ¼ 238.27, c2/df ¼ 10.34, GFI ¼ .80, AGFI ¼ .67,
CFI ¼ .75 and RMSEA ¼ .19). Nevertheless, a strong relation between these two latent factors is not surprising as it can be assumed that
teachers who participate in ICT related professional development feel more competent in integrating ICT into education. It can also be
assumed that such teachers keep up to date with developments in the field of ICT integration (see also BECTA, 2004).
At the last stage of these analyses, a reliability test was performed on the complete data set (N ¼ 471) to examine the internal consistency
of the two factors. Cronbach's alphas were calculated and are presented in Table 3.
Items of the three scales were summarised into a sum scale, ranging from a minimum score of 0 to a maximum score of 100. The
Pearson's product-moment correlation between the scales was .62. All items of the newly constructed ICT related school scales are pre-
sented in Appendix B.

Fig. 3. Results of the CFA: Structure coefficients for ICT teacher related items, **p < .001.
550 R. Vanderlinde, J. van Braak / Computers & Education 55 (2010) 541e553

Table 3
Cronbach's alphas, descriptive statistics, and correlation coefficients for the ICT related teacher scales.

Alpha M SD (1) (2)

(1) ICT teachers' professional development .82 43.04 19.64 1.00
(2) Teachers' ICT competencies .85 58.09 19.51 .62 1.00

5.4. Results of the CFA of ICT use

The results of the CFA of the revised scales of Tondeur et al. (2007) show significant factor loadings on the three latent structures of ICT
use. These results are presented in Fig. 4.
The results show a good fit between the hypothesised model and the observed data (df ¼ 99, c2 ¼ 294.0, c2/df ¼ 2.97). The goodness of fit
estimates were GFI ¼ .92 and AGFI ¼ .89, CFI ¼ .95 and RMSEA ¼ .06, indicating good fit. Error terms were allowed to correlate for e13 and
e14 of the ‘Basic ICT skills’ scale and for e10 and e12 of the ‘Learning tool’ scale as these items both measure the use of ICT as a remedial tool.
This lead to a significant decrease in c2 (from 400.8 to 294.0). Because of the significant correlations between the three latent factors (r ¼ .58
for Basic ICT skills and Information tool, r ¼ .68 for Basic ICT skills and Learning tool, and r ¼ .35 for Information tool and Learning tool),
a one-factor CFA was carried out. A test of this model revealed very poor model fit (df ¼ 105, c2 ¼ 3249.41, c2/df ¼ 30.95, GFI ¼ .93,
AGFI ¼ .21, CFI ¼ .18, and RMSEA ¼ .27). Cronbach's alphas for the three types of computer use indicate good internal consistency (a ¼ .87 for
the scale measuring ‘ICT as a learning tool,’ a ¼ .88 for the scale measuring ‘ICT as an information tool,’ and a ¼ .88 for the scale that assesses
basic ICT skills). All items of the revised scales are presented in Appendix C. In contrast to the scales described in the e-capacity model, these
scales measure frequency rather than perception.

6. Conclusion and discussion

The present study aimed to develop a conceptual framework from a school improvement perspective to better understand the complex
process of ICT curriculum implementation. Within this framework the central concept was the e-capacity of a school, understood as the
schools' ability to create and optimise sustainable school level and teacher level conditions to bring about effective change through ICT. Two
main elements were acknowledged in the design of this framework; the significance of school level conditions as contributing factors for the
use of ICT in education and ICT integration as a special case of educational innovation. We believe that this e-capacity framework fills a gap in
the current literature on ICT integration.
In our development of this conceptual framework, we designed a model which incorporates the conditions that supports both ICT inte-
gration and the implementation of innovations. These conditions are presented within four mediating concentric circles that represent school
improvement conditions, ICT related school conditions, ICT related teacher conditions, and teachers' actual use of ICT (see Fig. 1). These four
conditions surround a twofold core element of ICT curriculum implementation, which refers to the transformative nature of ICT. All of these

Fig. 4. Results of the CFA: Structure coefficients for ICT use items, **p < .001.
 R. Vanderlinde, J. van Braak / Computers & Education 55 (2010) 541e553 551

conditions were translated into valid and reliable measurement scales which indicate good goodness of fit estimates and good internal
consistency. The scales that we have developed are of particular importance for future quantitative research on ICT integration in schools. As
there are no available scales to measure ICT school and teacher level conditions, our study is useful for empirical progress in this field.
However, our e-capacity model is limited in that it does not describe general teacher conditions, such as teacher self-efficacy, teacher
commitment or teachers' feelings of uncertainty. Similar to the general school improvement conditions, an extra layer could be added in the
e-capacity model referring to more general and teacher related psychological factors influencing the implementation of innovations.
Moreover, the model can be strengthened by adding pupil related variables like general computer attitudes or pupils' ICT competencies. In
further research we intend to use the conditions outlined in the e-capacity model to study factors that influence the implementation process
of the Flemish ICT curriculum. We intend to further operationalise the core of our model and construct a scale that measures teachers'
implementation of ICT for teaching and learning. This new measurement scale will take the Flemish ICT curriculum into account as the
current frame of reference, but also stress the meaning of ICT as a lever for instructional change. The different conditions and variables
described in this article will be related to this newly constructed dependent variable.

Appendix A e Newly constructed scales (ICT related school conditions)

Scale ‘ICT school support and coordination’

Item 1: In our school, we can receive technical support while working with ICT
Item 2: In our school, we can receive pedagogical support when working with ICT
Item 3: In our school, colleagues help each other when facing problems with the ICT-equipment
Item 4: In my school there is a clear contact person for everything that has to do with ICT integration
Item 5: The schools' ICT coordinator has a clear overview of the ICT-activities performed at school
Item 6: It is clear which tasks the ICT coordinator has at my school
Item 7: The ICT coordinator controls and monitors the schools' ICT policy
Scaling ¼ (0) completely disagree, (1) disagree, (2) disagree/agree, (3) agree, (4) completely agree

Scale ‘Schools’ ICT vision and policy’

Item 8: My school has a clear vision on the role and place of ICT in education
Item 9: My school has a well developed ICT policy plan
Item 10: The schools' vision on the place of ICT in education is well-known by all colleagues
Item 11: Teachers at my school know the content of the schools' ICT policy plan
Item 12: The schools' vision on the place of ICT in education is acknowledged by the colleagues
Item 13: The ICT policy plan of my school starts from a shared vision on ‘good’ education
Item 14: The schools' ICT policy plan gives me concrete assistance for working with ICT
Scaling ¼ (0) completely disagree, (1) disagree, (2) disagree/agree, (3) agree, (4) completely agree

Scale ‘ICT infrastructure’

Item 17: The schools' hardware infrastructure (computers, laptops, computer class, etc.) is sufficient to integrate ICT in classroom
practices
Item 18: I am satisfied about the schools' software (CD-ROMS, computer programmes, etc.) I can use with my pupils
Item 19: The ICT infrastructure in my class is appropriate for the ICT-activities I do with my pupils
Item 20: I am satisfied about the schools' ICT peripheral equipment (digital projector, digital camera, etc.) I can use
Scaling ¼ (0) completely disagree, (1) disagree, (2) disagree/agree, (3) agree, (4) completely agree

Appendix B e Newly constructed scales (ICT related teacher conditions)

Scale ‘ICT teachers’ professional development’

Item 1: I attend frequently in-service teacher trainings about the educational use of ICT
Item 2: I attend frequently technical ICT in-service teacher training courses
Item 3: I try to keep informed about everything that has to do with ICT in education
Item 4: I take initiatives to learn about everything that has to do with ICT in education
Scaling ¼ (0) completely disagree, (1) disagree, (2) disagree/agree, (3) agree, (4) completely agree

Scale ‘Teachers’ ICT competencies'

Item 5: I have sufficient technical knowledge and skills to use ICT in classroom
Item 6: I can easily fix technical problems when being confronted with it
Item 7: I have sufficient organisational skills to integrate ICT in my classroom
Item 8: I have sufficient background to use ICT in my classroom for instructional purposes
552 R. Vanderlinde, J. van Braak / Computers & Education 55 (2010) 541e553

Item 9: I have shortcomings to use ICT in a pedagogical and didactical way (reversed item)
Scaling ¼ (0) completely disagree, (1) disagree, (2) disagree/agree, (3) agree, (4) completely agree

Appendix C e Revised scales of Tondeur et al. (2007)

Scale ‘ICT as an information tool’

Item 1: My pupils use ICT to store information

Item 2: My pupils use ICT to write texts and/or to control for spelling errors
Item 3: My pupils learn about ICT because I use ICT during classical instruction
Item 4: In my class pupils use ICT to look up and select information (e.g. Google, Yahoo, etc.)
Item 5: My pupils use ICT to present information to each other, for instance by a powerpoint presentation
Item 6: In my class pupils learn to use ICT to send an email in an efficient way
Item 7: My pupils use ICT to save and to share files with each other
Scaling ¼ (0) never, (1) every term, (2) monthly, (3) weekly, (4) daily

Scale ‘ICT as a learning tool’

Item 8: My pupils use educational software and instructional computer programmes to learn
Item 9: My pupils use educational software and instructional computer programmes to make exercises
Item 10: Pupils in my class use ICT for remedial assignments
Item 11: In my class pupils use ICT for tasks and assignments
Item 12: In my class, pupils with learning problems use appropriate educational software and instructional computer programmes
Scaling ¼ (0) never, (1) every term, (2) monthly, (3) weekly, (4) daily

Scale ‘Basic ICT skills’

Item 13: My pupils use ICT to learn to type

Item 14: My pupils learn to use ICT in a safe manner
Item 15: Pupils in my class learn to use the computer machine and other ICT peripheral equipment
Item 16: Pupils in my class learn the basic skills to use ICT
Scaling ¼ (0) never, (1) every term, (2) monthly, (3) weekly, (4) daily

References

Albirini, A. (2006). Teachers' attitudes toward information and communication technologies: the case of Syrian EFL teachers. Computers & Education, 47, 373e398.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2008). Amos 17.0 user's guide. Chicago: SPSS Inc.
Baylor, A. L., & Ritchie, D. (2002). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and perceived student learning in technology-using classrooms? Computers & Education,
39, 395e414.
BECTA. (2002). Final report on the roll out of the NGfL programme in ten pathfinder LEAs. Retrieved online 27.08.08, from: http://partners.becta.org.uk/upload-dir/
downloads/page_documents/research/final_report.pdf.
BECTA. (2004). A review of the research literature on barriers to the uptake of ICT by teachers. Retrieved online 30.06.09, from: http://partners.becta.org.uk/upload-dir/
downloads/page_documents/research/barriers.pdf.
BECTA. (2007). Evaluation of the test bed project. Retrieved online 2.01.2010, from: http://www.google.be/firefox?client¼firefox-a&rls¼org.mozilla:nl:official.
van den Berg, R., Vandenberghe, R., & Sleegers, P. (1999). Management of innovations from a cultural-individual perspective. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10,
321e351.
Bowman, J., Newman, D., & Masterson, J. (2001). Adopting educational technology: implications for designing interventions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25,
81e94.
Brown, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen, & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136e162). Newbury Park:
Sage.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245e276.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297e334.
Devos, G., Bouckenooghe, N., Engels, N., & Aelterman, A. (2007). An assessment of well-being of principals in Flemish primary schools. Journal of Educational Administration,
45, 33e61.
Dexter, S. (2008). Leadership for IT in schools. In J. Voogt, & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology (pp. 543e554). New York: Springer.
Dexter, S., Anderson, R. E., & Ronnkvist, A. (2002). Quality technology support: what is it? Who has it? And what difference does it make? Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 26, 287e307.
Drent, M., & Meelisen, M. (2008). Which factors obstruct or stimulate teacher educators to use ICT innovatively? Computers & Education, 51, 187e199.
Fishman, B. J., & Pinkard, N. (2001). Bringing urban schools into the information age: planning for technology vs. technology planning. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 25, 63e80.
Fishman, B. J., & Zhang, B. H. (2003). Planning for technology: the link between intentions and use. Educational Technology, 43, 14e18.
Galanouli, D., Murphy, C., & Gardner, J. (2004). Teachers’ perceptions on the effectiveness of ICT-competence training. Computers & Education, 43, 63e79.
Geijsel, F., van den Berg, R., & Sleegers, P. (1999). The innovative capacity of schools in primary education: a qualitative study. Qualitative Studies in Education, 12, 175e191.
Geijsel, F., Sleegers, P., van den Berg, R., & Kelchtermans, G. (2001). Conditions fostering the implementation of large-scale innovation programs in schools: teachers’
perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37, 130e166.
Geijsel, F. P., Sleegers, P. J. C., Stoel, R. D., & Krüger, M. L. (2009). The effect of teacher psychological, school organizational and leadership factors on teachers’ professional
learning in schools. The Elementary School Journal, 109, 406e427.
Goodison, T. (2002). Enhancing learning with ICT at primary level. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33, 215e228.
Granger, C. A., Morbey, M. L., Lotherington, H., Owston, R. D., & Wideman, H. H. (2002). Factors contributing to teachers’ successful implementation of IT. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 18, 480e488.
Gülbahar, Y. (2007). Technology planning: a roadmap to successful technology integration in schools. Computers & Education, 49, 943e956.
 R. Vanderlinde, J. van Braak / Computers & Education 55 (2010) 541e553 553

Hadjithoma, C. (2009). The role of principal's leadership style in the implementation of ICT policy. British Journal of Educational Technology. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8535.2009.01014.x.
Hadjithoma, C., & Karagiorgi, Y. (2009). The use of ICT in primary schools within emerging communities of implementation. Computers & Education, 52, 83e91.
Harris, A. (2002). School improvement. What's in it for schools? London and New York: Routledge Falmer.
Hayes, D. N. A. (2007). ICT and learning: lessons from Australian classrooms. Computers & Education, 49, 385e395.
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, 1499e1509.
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, 223e252.
Hopkins, D. (2001). School improvement for real. London: Routledge Falmer.
Hoy, W. K., & Tarter, C. J. (1995). Administrators solving the problems of practice: Decision-making cases, concepts and consequences. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Hoy, W. K., & Tarter, C. J. (1997). The road to open and healthy schools: A handbook for change. Thousand Oaks: Corwinn Press.
Hughes, M., & Zachariah, S. (2001). An investigation into the relationship between effective administrative leadership styles and the use of technology. International Electronic
Journal for Leadership in Learning, 5, 1e10.
Johson, L., & Maddux, C. D. (2006). Information technology: four conditions critical to integration in education. Educational Technology, 46, 14e19.
Kozma, R. B. (2003). ICT and educational change: a global phenomenon. In R. B. Kozma (Ed.), Technology, innovation, and educational change: a global perspective (pp. 1e18).
Eugene: International Society for Technology in Education.
Lai, K. W., & Pratt, K. (2004). Information and communication technology (ICT) in secondary schools: the role of the computer coordinator. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 35, 461e475.
Lim, C. P. (2002). A theoretical framework for the study of ICT in schools: a proposal. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33, 411e421.
Malen, B., & King Rice, J. (2004). A framework for assessing the impact of education reforms on school capacity: insights from studies of high-stakes accountability schools.
Educational Policy, 18, 631e660.
Marcovitz, D. (2000). The roles of the computer coordinators in supporting technology in schools. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8, 259e273.
Mumtaz, S. (2000). Factors affecting teachers’ use of information and communications technology: a review of the literature. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher
Education, 9, 319e341.
Niederhauser, D. S., & Stoddart, T. (2001). Teachers’ instructional perspectives and use of educational software. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 15e31.
O'Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer's MAP test. Behavior Research Methods,
Instruments, & Computers, 32, 396e402.
Owston, R. (2007). Contextual factors that sustain innovative pedagogical practice using technology: an international study. Journal of Educational Change, 8, 61e77.
Pelgrum, W. J. (2001). Obstacles to the integration of ICT in education: results from a worldwide educational assessment. Computers & Education, 37, 163e178.
Selwyn, N., & Brown, P. (2000). Education, nation states and the globalization of information networks. Journal of Education Policy, 15, 661e682.
Sinnaeve, I., van Braak, J., Tondeur, J., & Evers, M. (2008). ICT competence: what's in a name? Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research (ECER),
Sweden, Gothenburg, 10e12 September 2008.
Smeets, E. (2005). Does ICT contribute to powerful learning environments in primary education? Computers & Education, 44, 343e355.
Somekh, B. (2007). Pedagogy and learning with ICT: Researching the art of innovation. London and New York: Routledge.
Staessens, K. (1990). De professionele cultuur van basisscholen in vernieuwing: Elke school heeft haar verhaal. [The professional culture of primary schools in innovation: each school
has its story]. Leuven: Universitaire Pers.
Staessens, K., & Vandenberghe, R. (1994). Vision as a core component in school culture. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26, 187e200.
Staples, A., Pugach, M. C., & Himes, D. (2005). Rethinking the technology integration challenge: cases from three urban elementary schools. Journal of Research on Technology
in Education, 37, 285e311.
Stoll, L. (1999). Realising our potential: understanding and developing capacity for lasting improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10, 503e532.
Strudler, N., & Hearrington, D. (2008). Quality support for ICT in schools. In J. Voogt, & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology (pp. 579e596). New
York: Springer.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Pearsons Education Inc.
Tearle, P. (2004). A theoretical and instrumental framework for implementing change in ICT in education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 34, 331e351.
Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2007). Towards a typology of computer use in primary education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 197e206.
Tondeur, J., Coenders, A., van Braak, J., ten Brummelhuis, A., & Vanderlinde, R. (2009). Using online tools to support technology integration in education. In R. Subramaniam
(Ed.), Handbook of research on new media literacy at the K-12 level: Issues and challenges. Hershey: IGI Global.
Tondeur, J., Van Keer, H., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). ICT integration in the classroom: challenging the potential of a school policy. Computers & Education, 51, 212e223.
Underwood, J., & Dillon, G. (2004). Capturing complexity through maturity modelling. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13, 213e225.
UNESCO. (2008). ICT competency standards for teachers. Retrieved 15.10.08, from: http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID¼25740&URL_DO¼DO_TOPIC&URL_
SECTION¼201.html.
Valcke, M., Rots, I., & van Braak, J. (2007). ICT teacher training: evaluation of the curriculum and training approaches. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 795e808.
Vanderlinde, R., van Braak, J., De Windt, V., Tondeur, J., Hermans, R., & Sinnaeve, I. (2008). Technology curriculum and planning for technology in schools. TechTrends, 52(2),
23e26.
Vanderlinde, R., van Braak, J., & Hermans, R. (2009). Educational technology on a turning point: curriculum implementation and challenges for schools. Educational Technology
Research & Development, 57, 573e584.
Vanderlinde, R., Hermans, R., & van Braak, J. (2010). ICT research and school performance feedback: a perfect marriage? Educational Studies. in press, doi:10.1080/
03055690903425441.
Watson, D. (2006). Understanding the relationship between ICT and education means exploring innovation and change. Education and Information Technology, 31, 307e320.