Convincing teachers that the technology does not challenge the way they are already doing things, add to their additional workload (within reason), and that it is actually a "tool" to assist in their current methods is essential to a thriving technological environment (Sappey & Relf, 2010).

Teachers should be encouraged to think of the changes as the opportunity for evolution in teaching pedagogy, and shown evidence of success and benefits that result from such endeavors (Earle, 2002). As Stephen Ehrmann (2010) notes, "a teaching idea or resource becomes even more attractive if its results are likely to be timesaving and easy to see" (p. 20).

Teachers should be encouraged to see new pedagogical opportunities and tools as a positive endeavor which offers new benefits to students, particularly in how they learn (Mapuva & Muyengwa, 2009). "It is necessary to change the fundamental teaching and learning process if we want to take advantage of the new technologies" in education (Su, 2009, p. 3).

Teachers who are given the time and resources to learn the technology and how to best utilize it in their classroom activities, and who are able to collaborate with other teachers, parents, and even the community, are more amenable to the use of technology in teaching and learning (Su, 2009; Abadiano & Turner, 2007).

The use of a mentoring system when introducing teachers to new technology is particularly beneficial. In this mentorship arrangement, opportunities exist for more collaborative learning, relief from some of the fear of learning and teaching something in a new way, and the possibilities for team teaching (Duran, Brunvand, & Fossum, 2009). Any mentoring effort is enhanced by a combination mentorship, involving both technological experts and teaching experts familiar with technology-utilizing pedagogy.

Continued training and professional development for teachers are crucial pieces of the implementation puzzle, so much so that the National Committee on Science Education Standards Assessment and the National Research Council (1996) recommend training and development activities that provide support in the use of technological tools such as databases, lab tools, and data interpretation (Keeler, 2008).

Plans must include a continuous budget to cover not only upgrades to the machinery, but also support for infrastructure including network wiring, software upgrades, licenses, and new purchases, continued professional development and training, and support staff to address any issues that arise (Lu & Overbaugh, 2009).

School leaders can actively support or limit the success of technology integration and use by teachers (Hew & Brush, 2007). Lack of leadership is one of the most significant barriers to successful technology implementation and use (Mapuva & Muyengwa, 2009). Support cannot only exist as an initial push, particularly if it's one in a resistant culture, but must be continued, vocalized, evidenced, and adapted on a continuous basis. It cannot be simply lip service. Administrators must make it evident that they not only support technology use in the classroom, but encourage it.

It cannot be an individual, independent effort to establish a technology-friendly and effective environment in colleges. One person may be able to drive parts of the process, but no implementation will succeed without leadership from all levels and a detailed plan of action and preparation for this level of change (Dessoff, 2010). Put succinctly by Schnechenberg (2009), "institutional strategies require the strong commitment of senior management and sustainable funding schemes... to foster changes in pedagogy, process, and work patterns" (p. 418).

Technology implementation in schools is buoyed by connecting the implementation to the institution's mission and overall strategic planning process (Cary & Cartwright, 1996).

Successful plans should consider the involvement of key stakeholders, the training needs of te staff, tying the intended results to national and local education goals and plans, relationship to the curriculum, and the incorporation of technology which has been evidenced to positive impact educational benefits (Cradler, 1996; Mupuva & Muyengwa, 2009).

"No technology can fix bad educational philosophy, policy, or practice, nor can it compensate for a lack of political commitment (Jaiswal & Kumar, 2010, p.250).

Create an ongoing evaluation plan to continuously consider outcomes (Cradler, 1996). Most assessment is accountability-driven, currently revolving around how technology contributes to the state goals and benchmarks. Unfortunately, this focus presents an obstacle to schools in that "many educators do not feel they have the ability to develop rigorous, integrated, technology-based projects while still working towards the goals of [the state]" (Groff & Mouza, 2008, p. 25).