sustainability
Review
Integration of Technology to Learning-Teaching Processes and
Google Workspace Tools: A Literature Review
Umut Akcil 1 , Huseyin Uzunboylu 2






Citation: Akcil, U.; Uzunboylu, H.;
Kinik, E. Integration of Technology to
Learning-Teaching Processes and
Google Workspace Tools: A Literature
Review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5018.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095018
Academic Editors: Teen-Hang Meen,
Charles Tijus and Jui-Che Tu
Received: 27 March 2021
Accepted: 28 April 2021
Published: 29 April 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5018. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095018
and Elanur Kinik 1, *
1 Faculty of Education, Near East University, Near East University Blvd, Mersin 10, TR-99138 Nicosia, Turkey;
u.akcil@neu.edu.tr
2 Higher Education Planning, Supervision, Accreditation & Coordination, Mersin 10, TR-99138 Nicosia, Turkey;
huseyin.uzunboylu@gmail.com
* Correspondence: elanurkkanbul@gmail.com
Abstract: During the pandemic, educators around the world were unexpectedly encouraged to
switch to online and distance learning. They tried to integrate face-to-face learning–teaching pro-
cesses in the classrooms into the technological environment and to sustain this process in the best
way. In this research, it is aimed to examine the current results in the current studies on technol-
ogy integration into the teaching–learning processes in the literature. In order to collect data, a
descriptive compilation pattern was used within the frame of the Literature Search method based
on the qualitative method. The data obtained by examining the current articles obtained with the
keyword “Technology Integration” were used in the research. As a result of the study, it was seen that
technology integration is a complex and multidimensional process with several dynamics, and full
integration cannot be achieved. As a result, recommendations were made in the context of various
models and Google Workspace tools to help ensure technology integration in line with the obstacles
specified in the studies.
Keywords: sustainable technology integration; TPACK; Gagne’s teaching activities model; google
workspace tools
1. Introduction
Due to the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic that influenced the world, effort
has been paid to integrate education and training to digital media in several countries.
Institutions have embarked on an effort to sustain the distance learning of students with
maximum efficiency using the infrastructures they developed and the digital tools and
equipment they employed [1–3]. Infrastructures and enriched digital content established
for the academic success of students are highly important. Besides, the theories and models
on which this structure and content is based are also critical [4]. One of the requirements
for teachers in the 21st century is being prepared to integrate instructional technology into
teaching practices effectively. Despite great technology investments in schools, teacher
training and development around technology integration and pedagogical implementation
may lag behind [5].
There are reasons why there is no clear definition of technology integration in the
learning and teaching processes. First of all, technology integration is a complex, multi-
dimensional process that involves various dynamics such as several technological tools,
teachers, students, school management and education programs [6–8]. In addition, different
technology integration models are introduced according to the learning theory adopted by
researchers [9–11]. Finally, due to the technology–education interaction, constant changes
in the technology integration process make it difficult to define the process [12,13].
A technology integration to be established, as learning–teaching processes must be
sustainable, in other words, it must be constantly updated. However, one of the insufficient
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5018 2 of 13

conditions is not using technology tools that support sustainable innovative teaching
practices [14,15].
The results of a study examined the obstacles preventing systemic, effective and
sustainable technology integration within schools, and the three main obstacles to the
sustainability of the program are—(1) schools do not take advantage of the opportunity to
review their current vision, (2) schools do not use data to make changes, and (3) limited
access to technology [16].
We are faced with an environment where educators try to master all technologies, and
the more web 2.0 tools they know, the better educational environments they will create.
Trying and learning dozens of web 2.0 tools to design an interactive lesson is exhausting
for both educators and students. In addition, it creates security gaps especially in terms of
online assessment and takes education away from the target [17].
In this context, in the study, the integration of technology into the courses is discussed,
and related articles in the last four years are examined. As a result, it has been determined
that Google Workspace tools, which can be accessed with an interactive and single account
instead of independent web 2.0 tools/systems, are advantageous, and recommendations
are made as to the stage of the course where they should be used.
At the beginning of the study, the justification, purpose and sub-goals of the research
are stated. After the basic method is given, the articles on technology integration included in
the research are examined. Subsequently, technology integration and models are analyzed,
and Gagne’s Teaching Activities Model and Google Workspace Tools are explained as a
solution. The paper is finalized with results and recommendations.
In the research, it is aimed to examine the current results in the present studies on
technology integration into the teaching–learning processes in the literature. Answers were
sought for the following sub-goals related to this purpose.
• What problems have been encountered in the studies on technology integration?
• Who is the work on technology integration aimed at? And
• What kind of a way should be followed to overcome the obstacles mentioned in the
studies on technology integration?

2. Materials and Methods

In the research, a descriptive compilation pattern was used within the frame of
the literature-based resource review method to collect data with a qualitative method.
In addition to the useful recovery of a particular subject, review articles are also very
important for researchers to follow the innovations in their fields of expertise [18]. In the
explanatory compilation pattern, current studies selected according to author preferences
are listed. In this context, 20 current articles written in Turkey found with the “technology
integration” keyword search in the Turkish version of Google Scholar have been examined
and the obtained data have been used.
All articles that can be accessed via Academic Google can be found in DergiPark Ac-
ademic. DergiPark Academic is an electronic database that provides electronic hosting and
editorial process management services for all academic refereed journals (2048 jour-nals)
published in Turkey. Within the framework of the main problems revealed in this study,
the proposed model is planned to be applied experimentally on students in Turkey. For
this reason, the studies in DergiPark Academic were chosen in order to form the basis for
the scientific research planned with quantitative methods in the future.
In order to examine in detail the studies on Technology Integration into Learning-
Teaching Processes in the last four years, the articles published in 2016–2020 were surveyed.
The criteria such as the article being written in Turkey and conducted by Turkish researchers,
and data being provided by teachers, pre-service teachers and researchers, were taken into
account as the selection criteria.
The articles selected based on the aforementioned criteria were tabulated based on
headings such as title, publication year, sample group and top results obtained. In the study,
the results obtained in the articles were discussed, their relevance was explained, the data
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5018 3 of 13

were compared, and recommendations were made in the context of Google Workspace tools
that would facilitate the integration of technology in parallel with the specified obstacles.

2.1. Studies on Technology Integration Included in the Research

Of the 20 studies included in Table 1, 20% were published in 2016, 10% were published
in 2017, 35% were published in 2018, 15% were published in 2019 and 20% were published
in 2020. Documents/content/tools were examined in 16% of the studies, whereas 28% were
conducted on teacher candidates and 56% on educators. In Table 1, it is clearly seen that studies
conducted on different teachers/pre-service teachers in different institutions have similar
deficiencies, especially in terms of ICT (Information and Communication Technologies).

Table 1. Selected Studies on Technology Integration.

Publish
ID Title
Year
Investigation of the Usage Status of Digital
Materials at Primary School Level in the
1 2020
Process of Technology Integration to
Learning and Teaching Environments
Secondary School Teachers’ Uses of ICT
2 Resources and the Problems they Face:
Kocaeli Case
Competencies of Prospective Teachers be able
3 to Integrate into Web 2.0 Technologies to
Learning Environment
The Relationship between Pre-Service
4 Teachers’ Technology Competencies and
Technology Perspectives
Assessment of Pre-service Mathematics
5 Teachers’ Lesson Plans in Terms of
Technology Integration
Teachers’ Opinions on Technology that They
6 Want to Integrate into the Learning-Teaching
Process
Examining Technology Integration in
7 2019
Primary School Curriculums
A review of technology integration in ELT:
8 2018
From CALL to MALL
A Descriptive Content Analysis of Research
9 on Technology Integration in Science
Education: The Case of Turkey
Sample Group Top Results
(Lack of ICT competencies) Pre-service teachers’
48 pre-service teacher
levels of using digital tools for educational
candidates
purposes are not sufficient.
(Insufficient in-service training & Inadequate
technological infrastructure) It was seen that the
ICT resources that teachers use the most are
computers and projection, and the material they
2020 250 teachers use the most is presentation. Teachers mostly
experience problems such as access to qualified
material, lack of technical infrastructure, and
need a material network, in-service training and
technical support.
(Lack of ICT competencies) In terms of
47 ICT teacher integrating web 2.0 tools into the learning
2020
candidate environment, only 12.77% of the teachers were
found sufficient.
(Lack of ICT competencies) It is concluded that,
although the attitudes of the participants towards
2020 339 teacher candidates technology are positive, they do not consider
themselves sufficient in terms of using
technology for educational purposes.
(Lack of ICT competencies) While pre-service
40 mathematics teachers developed course plans, they had
2019
teacher candidates difficulty in adaptation of the field, pedagogy
and technology.
(Lack of ICT competencies) Since the teachers did
not have sufficient knowledge, they could not
2019 1680 teachers address the pedagogical problems they faced
while integrating technology with the learning
and teaching process.
(Lack of ICT competencies) It has been observed
that the level of technology integration is low in
the curriculum, technology is not included in some
document analysis courses, and the expressions related to the
technology in the curriculum are generally for
superficial use only or in the form
of recommendation.
(Lack of ICT competencies) It is stated that
pedagogues are the main responsible persons for
adapting information and communication
review
technologies in an innovative way and making
the choices that best suit their educational
situation.
(Insufficient in-service training) It was shown
that almost all technologies used in the study
content analysis were non-interactive and the technological tools
2018
35 articles used were mostly animation. In technology
integration studies, it was determined that the
cooperation among students was low.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5018
Publish
ID Title
Investigation of Technology Integration
10 Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Pre-service Teachers’
Who Attend Pedagogical Formation Training
Technological Integration into
11 Learning—Teaching Process of the
Instructors in the Faculty of Education
Teacher Training Using Technology in
12
Education: A Case Study
Experiences of Teacher Candidates Using
Web 2.0 Tools In The Scope of Field
13
Competences In Information Technology
Education
Examining Pre-Service Mathematics Teachers’
14 Views about Technology and their Integration
Processes of Technology into Lessons
Use of QR Codes in Science Education:
15 Science Teachers’
Opinions and Suggestions
Evaluation of Teaching Technologies and
16 Material Design Course ın terms of
Contribution to Technology Integration
E-Content Development Under
School-University Collaboration: A Case
17
Study Analysis Based on Technology
Integration Planning Model
Teachers’ Opinions about Digital Storytelling
18
in Preschool Education
Technology Integration in the Learning and
19
Teaching Process of Mathematics: Tools
4 of 13
Table 1. Cont.
Sample Group Top Results
Year
(Lack of ICT competencies) It was determined
4174 teacher that as the age levels of pre-service teachers
2018
candidates increased, technology integration self-efficacy
belief scores decreased.
(Lack of ICT competencies & Inadequate
technological infra-structure) It has been
determined that faculty members experience
2018 29 faculty members problems arising from lack of technical
infrastructure, insufficient technology knowledge,
and technical problems while using technology in
their lessons.
(Lack of ICT competencies & Inadequate
technological infra-structure) Education was
2018 610 teachers
generally found satisfactory, and Microsoft
applications were the most learned ones.
(Lack of ICT competencies) Pre-service teachers
complained that there was no internet or
necessary equipment and that web 2.0 tools could
25 ICT teacher not be used in learning environments. However,
2018
candidate they stated that the use of such tools would give
more harm than benefits for both the teacher and
the student if they require prior knowledge and if
appropriate integration strategies are not used.
(Lack of ICT competencies) Although they are
aware of the software that can be used in
mathematics courses, it has been determined that
50 mathematics
2018 they have expressed their inability to use this
teacher candidates
software. In the research, it was concluded that
pre-service teachers had difficulties in integrating
technology into mathematics education.
(Lack of ICT competencies & Inadequate
technological infra-structure) It has been revealed
that teachers classify the barriers to integration of
QR code applications into science lessons as
2017 24 science teachers follows: external factors (such as technological
infrastructure deficiencies in schools, internet
access, mobile device deficiencies) and internal
factors (such as teachers’ lack of information to
use this technology).
(Insufficient in-service training) While training
and research is conducted on the use of
interactive boards, tablets, smartphones, QR
codes, touch computers, smart televisions, cloud
2017 document analysis
technologies, interactive teaching software in
education in the international arena, it is
emphasized that there is no curriculum for the
use of existing technologies in Turkey.
(Lack of ICT competencies) It was observed that
10 secondary schools
teachers generally are in need of e-content;
2016 teacher and 51 ICT
however, lack of time and technology knowledge
teacher candidate
to prepare e-content is an important obstacle.
(Lack of ICT competencies) The teachers stated
10 preschool teacher
that they found digital useful, but they
2016 candidates and
experienced difficulties in the process due to the
3 teachers
lack of theoretical and technological knowledge.
(Insufficient in-service training) The possibility
that the tools included in the study could be
2016 Survey, Web Tools outdated in a few years was reminded, and it was
stated that the study was limited in terms of
reflecting the technology of the future.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5018 5 of 13

Table 1. Cont.

Publish
ID Title Sample Group Top Results
Year
(Insufficient in-service training & Inadequate
technological infrastructure) It has been stated
that the in-service training program in
Evaluation of in-Service Training Program Technology Usage Course is partially successful,
20 Named Technology Usage Course in 2016 146 formatter teachers and there are problems such as time,
Education infrastructure, practice, and trainer quality.
According to the results of the research, it was
observed that this in-service training program
was not at the desired level.

The results of the studies carried out in the last 4 years included in the scope of
the research constitute the following—when the problems encountered are examined
in general, the in-service trainings/training programs provided are not sufficient, the
educators are inadequate in integrating the technology into their courses, and they lack
knowledge about technology.
Among the results of the studies carried out in the last 4 years included in the scope
of the research, when the problems encountered are examined in general, three main
deficiencies come to the forefront. These were found to be inadequate ICT competencies,
insufficient in-service training and inadequate technological infrastructure. Failure to in-
clude the aforementioned in-service trainings/training programs to achieve relevant goals,
inability of educators to integrate technology into their lessons, and lack of knowledge
about technology are factors that affect each other.
It can be said that the variety of web 2.0 tools/systems used in the studies, in-service
training deficiencies and hardware-infrastructure deficiencies affected these results [19].
Inadequate ICT competencies rank first among all the main conclusions and it is the most
influential factor in the inability to fully realize the integration of technology into teaching–
learning processes. In addition, no technology integration model was used in the studies.
In addition to all these factors, it is seen that the lack of infrastructure in educational
institutions has a negative effect on the process. Another factor that negatively affects the
process is that teachers do not have adequate time.
In this study, it is believed that teachers and pre-service teachers need simple tools
that can be integrated with each other, which are simple-to-use, free and accessible with a
single account in order to integrate technology into their courses. In that way, it is projected
that the integration process will become easier, more effective and simpler in terms of both
management and achievements.

2.2. Technology Integration and Its Models

Technology integration in education was originally defined as the use of technology
only in classrooms. Today, it is defined as a permanent and sustainable process that
contributes to student learning. However, at this point, the problem of how the integration
process that can contribute to student learning can be realized is at the center. It is not easy
to understand and implement a complex, multi-dimensional, dynamic process such as
technology integration, and different models have been developed to date [20].
When examining the integration models in Figure 1, it can be seen that many of them
deal with integration from different perspectives, and that indicators of integration for each
model show difference in terms of objectives and elements [21].
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5018 6 of 13

Figure 1. Technology Integration Models.

In this section, the models and definitions in the literature regarding technology
integration into learning–teaching processes are examined, and their similarities and
differences are revealed.
On the other hand, in the 5W1H Unified Integration Model, the focus is on student
learning, and it is based on analyzing and planning the process to increase learning of
students the numbers in the model are as follows;
• What: Required ICT resources and applications;
• Why: Displaying the goal of the integration process and determining the reasons for
using ICT;
• How: How will appropriate teaching and learning strategies be used?
• Where: Preparing suitable environment;
• When: Planning of the application; and
• Who: Properties of target audience [22].
In the Generic Model of Pedagogy, Social Interaction and Technology, the emphasis is
not on students and teachers, but on the tool in the process and what the tool provides in
various contexts. The crux of the point in this model is how to use the tools to complete the
task in an effective and useful way, satisfying the user. The model is theoretically based
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5018 7 of 13

on constructivist theory, interaction design, and utility dimensions [23]. In this model,
pedagogy and social interaction are seen as the basic building blocks in the integration
process, while technology is accepted as a component that supports these building blocks.
Vanderlinde and Braak examined technology integration from the perspective of the school,
and examined the factors affecting ICT integration and the application of ICT in curriculum
within the framework of the e-capacity model they developed [24].
The E-capacity Model addresses the integration process from a broader perspective,
and emphasizes schools as institutions where education is essentially realized. It assumes
that as students, teachers and tools are sub-units of school system, and they can be sup-
ported only if the whole is developed. In this model, contrary to many studies, teachers’
use of ICT is not seen as a dependent variable; on the contrary, it is taken as a process or an
independent variable that leads to other results.
Similarly, the Concentric Ring Model assumes that the characteristics of schools and
teachers as educational institutions in general will be effective in integration. This model
is important as it addresses integration both at the individual and corporate level by the
interaction of factors. It also clarifies the complex structure of factors affecting integration
process using internal and external factors by examining the structural and cultural features
of teachers as well as schools separately. The purpose of using technology, which is
the dependent variable in the model and is placed in the center, is examined in three
dimensions, namely gaining basic technology skills, using technology as an information
tool, and using technology as a learning tool.
On the other hand, Systematic Planning Models were developed not in order to
describe the factors affecting the integration process, and individuals or roles in the process,
but to define the process, level or stage of the integration. These models are more useful in
terms of determining the level and points that can be improved by revealing the existing
integration level and showing the possible steps to achieve the highest level of integration.
Wang and Woo stated that ICT integration will take place at three levels according to the
content discussed [25]:
• Curriculum (Macro level): Integrating ICT into all content and learning experiences in
an entire course process;
• Topic (Meso level): The use of ICT to support student learning in specific topics; and
• Course (Micro level): Using ICT to explain the subject better in one or more courses.
In the Activity System Model, Demiraslan and Usluel discussed the integration of ICT
into education and training processes within the framework of the Activity Theory and put
forward an activity system model related to integration within the framework of Activity
Theory elements [26]:
• Tools: ICT and non-ICT tools, methods used;
• Subject: Teacher (teaching experience, teaching approach);
• Rules: Evaluation criteria;
• Community: Students, teachers, school management, ICT coordinator;
• Object: Purposes of using ICT in the learning-teaching process;
• Division of Labor: The roles and responsibilities of teachers and students; and
• Output: Reflections of the use of ICT in the learning and teaching process on student
learning and teaching.
The integration model created within the framework of activity theory is very impor-
tant in that it includes all the individuals involved in the integration process and clearly
defines the tools, rules, duties of individuals, objectives and the output of the process, and
emphasizes the interaction between these elements. It can be stated that the integration
process, which we can define as a rather complicated process, is effective in terms of
revealing the relationships in the activity system by providing the opportunity to clarify
the multi-dimensional dynamic structure and to examine these dynamics together [27].
The Five-Stage Model for Computer Technology Integration was developed by Toledo
for teacher training programs to help educational institutions such as schools, universities
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5018 8 of 13

or departments and their sub-units have a better understanding of their place in integration
and guide them in moving forward from their current status [28]. There are five stages of
technology integration in the model:
• Pre-integration: Lack of university pioneering;
• Transition: Changing institutional leadership at the university, school or department level;
• Development: Educational institutions such as schools, universities or departments
begin to complete tasks that will integrate technology into their curriculum;
• Dissemination: Developments are made to meet the hardware, software and system-
atic training needed for the school to be successful in technology integration; and
• Integration within the scope of the entire system: Integration of required competency
standards for students, the integration of computer technologies in every teacher
education course, the interest of teachers and students in increasing integration [28].
In the Technology Integration Planning Model, developed by Mishra and Koehler,
the key point is teachers, and teacher roles and teacher competencies for integration are
emphasized [29].
When the definitions, indicators and models of technology integration in learning-
teaching processes are examined, it is seen that integration is generally structured on one
or more different aspects such as the student, instructor, institution, technology, infra-
structure, support systems, and sustainability.
As for the modeling studies conducted to explain the process and integration elements,
it was noted that some of the models dealt with technology integration in the con-text of the
school, while others focused on the context of the instructor, the socio-cultural context, and
the interaction of various elements in the process. On the other hand, it can be stated that
the proposed models of integration differ in terms of examining various environmental and
external factors such as equipment, management, infrastructure, technology, government,
culture as well as individual factors such as attitude, belief, intention, skill, and perception.
Finally, the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) describes effec-
tive technology integration elements by planning the integration process step by step and
revealing the important elements at each stage. The TPACK model is proposed in this
study due to its mentioned characteristics.

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Model

In this model developed by Mishra and Koehler [30], the basic knowledge structure
needed by educators in the fields of teaching with technology and teaching of technology
in their own study areas and at the level that they will deliver teaching is defined.
The model in Figure 2 shows how the teacher’s understanding of technology, peda-
gogy and content interact with each other in providing effective discipline-based technology-
supported teaching. The fact that an educator has these three skills at a sufficient level
paves the way to create the most efficient course environment. If the educator does not
have any of these skills, we cannot be located in the dark green area on the chart, which
reduces efficiency and quality in both physical classes and distance education [30].
Teaching technology integration requires teacher educators to grapple with constantly
changing, politically impacted professional requirements, continuously evolving educa-
tional technology resources, and varying needs across content disciplines and contexts [31].
Teacher educators cannot foresee how their students may be expected to use educational
technologies in the future or how technologies will change during their careers. Therefore,
training student teachers to practice technology integration in meaningful, effective, and
sustainable ways is a daunting challenge [32].
 The model in Figure 2 shows how the teacher’s understanding of technolog
gogy and content interact with each other in providing effective discipline-based
ogy-supported teaching. The fact that an educator has these three skills at a suffic
paves the way to create the most efficient course environment. If the educator
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5018 9 of 13
have any of these skills, we cannot be located in the dark green area on the cha
reduces efficiency and quality in both physical classes and distance education [3

Figure
Figure 2. Technological
2. Technological Pedagogical
Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Content Knowledge Model (TPACK).
Model (TPACK).

As pointed out by Cviko et al., [33], the participation of teachers in the design of
Teaching technology integration requires teacher educators to grapple w
ICT-based practices in schools would lead to the development of a sense of ownership and,
stantly changing,
eventually, politically
ICT-based practices that impacted professional requirements, continuously
are sustainable.
educational technology
The educator’s knowledgeresources, and varying
about technology, pedagogy needs
and across
content content
should bedisciplines
pro-
texts [31]. Teacher educators cannot foresee how their students may be expecte
vided by themselves or through in-service trainings provided by their managers in accor-
dance with the TPACK
educational model [34].
technologies Later,
in the educators
future or how will technologies
need only a fewwill
technological
change during
tools that can be integrated with each other and are extremely simple to use to design an
reers. Therefore, training student teachers to practice technology
interactive lesson. Learning and practicing more than they are comfortable with exhausts
integration in m
ful, effective, and
educators/students andsustainable ways from
distances education is a daunting challenge
the target, and can cause[32].
several security
As pointed
gaps especially outofby
in terms Cviko
online et al., [33],
assessment. Whattheisparticipation
more importantof teachers
than knowing inthe
the desig
names of web tools and applications is the stages where they should be
based practices in schools would lead to the development of a sense of ownersused in the course.
At this point, we come across Gagne’s nine-stage teaching model [35].
eventually, ICT-based practices that are sustainable.
The Teaching
2.3. Gagne’s educator’s knowledge
Activities Model and about technology,
Google Workspace Tools pedagogy and content should
vided by themselves or through in-service trainings
Teaching activities consisting of nine stages that Gagne developed provided by and
in 1974 theirre-manage
cordance
viewed with
in 1985 are the TPACK
given in Table model
2 [36,37].[34]. Later, educators will need only a few tech
tools that can be integrated in
Teaching activities are given the default
with order.and
each other Therefore, it is not compulsory
are extremely simple totouse to d
perform the order exactly. Sometimes one or more events can trade places. For example,
interactive lesson. Learning and practicing more than they are comfortable with
after drawing attention, students may be reminded to learn the prerequisite first. After
educators/students
these and distances
procedures, the student education
can be informed about from the and
the target target, and can
motivation cancause
be seve
rity gaps
provided. especially
Sometimes, insome
even terms of online
steps assessment.
can be skipped. Whatifisstudents
For example, more important
are aware than
ofthe
the names
target, this step can be skipped without giving it to the students.
of web tools and applications is the stages where they should be us
Activities and appropriate Google Workspace tools are defined across this model.
course. At this point, we come across Gagne’s nine-stage teaching model [35].
These tools can be increased and used in different stages. Google Workspace plans provide
a private email and include several collaboration tools such as Gmail, Calendar, Meet, Chat,
Drive, Docs, Sheets, Slides, Forms, and Sites.
 Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 15
Sustainability 2021,
Sustainability 2021, 13,
13, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 11
11 of
of 15
15
Sustainability
Sustainability 2021,
2021, 13,
13, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 11
11 of
of 15
15
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 15
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 15
Table 2.
Table 2. Teaching
Teaching Activities
Activities Model
Model of
of Gagne
Gagne and
and Google
Google Workspace
Workspace Tools.
Tools.
Table 2.
Table 2. Teaching
Teaching Activities
Activities Model
Model of
of Gagne
Gagne and
and Google
Google Workspace
Workspace Tools.
Tools.
Table 2. Teaching Activities Model of Gagne and Google Workspace Tools.
Table 2. Teaching Activities Model of Gagne and Google Workspace Tools.
Table
Table 2.Teaching
2. Teaching Activities
Teaching Activities Model of
Model of Activities
Gagne and
Gagne and Google
Google Workspace Tools.
Workspace Tools.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5018
Stage 999 Stages
Stages
Stages of
of
Table
Table Teaching
of2.
2. Teaching
Teaching
Teaching
Gagne’s
Gagne’s
Activities Logo
Gagne’s Model
Activities Logo
Model of
of Activities
Gagne
Gagne and
Activities
and
to
to be
to be
Google
Google
Conducted
be Conducted
Workspace
Conducted
Workspace
and
and Appropriate
and Appropriate
Tools.
Tools.
Web
Appropriate Web
Web Tools
10 ofTools
13
Tools
Stage
Stage 9 Stages
9 Stages of
Table
of Teaching
2. Teaching
Teaching
Model Gagne’s
Activities
Gagne’s Logo
Model
Logo of Activities
Gagne and
Activities to be
Google
to be Conducted
Workspace
Conducted and Appropriate
Tools.
and
(Sample) Appropriate Web
Web Tools
Tools
Stage 99 Stages of Model
2.Teaching
Teaching Gagne’s Logo of
of Activities to (Sample)
Stage
Stage 9
Table
Table
Stages
Stages of2.
Table
of
Table
Model
Teaching
Model
Teaching
2. Teaching
Teaching
Model
2. Teaching
Activities Model
Activities
Gagne’s
Activities
Gagne’s
Activities
Model
Logo
Model
Logo
Model of
of
Gagne and
Gagne
Activities
Gagne
Gagne and
Activities
and to be
be Conducted
and Google
Google
Google
to be
Google
Workspace
Workspace
Conducted
Workspace
Conducted
Workspace
and
Tools.Appropriate Web Tools
(Sample)
Tools.
(Sample)
and Appropriate Web
Tools.
and
(Sample) Appropriate
Tools. Web Tools
Tools
Stage
Stage 99 Stages
Stages of
Table
of Teaching
2. Teaching
Model
Teaching Gagne’s
Activities
Gagne’s Logo
Model
Logo of Activities
Gagne and
Activities to be
Google
to be Conducted
Workspace
Conducted and Appropriate
Tools.
(Sample)
and Appropriate Web
Web Tools
Stage
Stage
Table 2. Teaching
Model
9 Stages of Model Activities Model
Logo of Gagne
Teaching Gagne’s Logo Activities to and Google
Visual
Workspace Tools.
(Sample)
be Conducted and Appropriate
(Sample)
presentation—Google Photo Web Tools
Tools
Stage 999Table
Stages Model
of Teaching
Teaching
2. Teaching
Stages of Model Gagne’s
Activities ModelLogo
Gagne’s of GagneActivities
and Google
Activities to
Visual
to be (Sample)
be Conducted
VisualConducted and Appropriate
Appropriate
presentation—Google
presentation—Google
Workspace Tools.and
(Sample) Photo
Photo Web Tools
Web Tools
Stage 99 Stages of Stages of Teaching
Model Gagne’s
Teaching Gagne’s Logo Activities
Activities to be Conducted and Appropriate
Visual presentation—Google Photo
(Sample) Web Tools
Stage
Stage
Stage Stages
1.
1. of Model
Teaching
Model
Attraction
Attraction Gagne’s
attention
attention Activities to
Logo
Logo
Logo to be
be Conducted
Visual
Visual
presentation—Google
Conducted (Sample)
presentation—Google
(Sample)
and
and AppropriatePhotoWeb
Appropriate
Photo Web Tools
Tools
Stage9 Stages
1. of Teaching
Model
Attraction
Model Gagne’s
attention Activities
Logo to be
Visual Conducted (Sample)
presentation—Google
(Sample)and Appropriate
Photo Web Tools
9 Stages
Stage
Stage
1. Attraction
of Teaching
Model
1. Attraction attention
Gagne’s
attention Logo Visual
Activities
Visualto bepresentation—Google
Conducted(Sample)
presentation—Google and Photo
Appropriate Web
Photo Tools
1. Model VisualShowing videos—YouTube
(Sample)
presentation—Google Photo
INTRODUCTION
2.
2.
2. 1. Attraction
Model
Informing
Informing
Attraction
Informing
1. Attraction
about
about
about
attention
the
the target
the target
attention
target
attention
Showing
VisualShowing
Showing
videos—YouTube
(Sample)
videos—YouTube
presentation—Google
videos—YouTube Photo
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION 2. Informing
1. Attraction
2. Informing about
about the
attentiontarget
the target Visual
Visual presentation—Google
Showing videos—YouTube
presentation—Google Photo
Photo
INTRODUCTION 2. 1. Attraction
Informing
1. Attractionabout attention
the target
attention Visual
Visual presentation—Google
Showing videos—YouTube
presentation—Google
Showing videos—YouTube Photo
Photo
INTRODUCTION 3.
3.
2. Associating
Associating
Informing with
with
about previous
previous
the target MakingVisualuse
Visualpresentation—Google
Showingof videos—YouTube
simulation—Google Photo
AR & VR
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION 2.
INTRODUCTION
2.
3. 1. Attraction
1. Attraction
3. Informing
Associating
Informing
Associating
1. Attractionabout
about attention
with previous
the target
attention
with previous
the target
attention Making
Making
Making
Visualuse
Showing
use
Showing
use ofpresentation—Google
of
of
simulation—Google
videos—YouTube
presentation—Google
simulation—Google
videos—YouTube
simulation—Google
PhotoAR
AR &
Photo
AR & VR
& VR
VR
INTRODUCTION 3.
2. 1.
1. Attraction
Associating
Informing learning
about
learning
Attraction attention
with previous
the target
attention Making use Showing
of videos—YouTubeAR
simulation—Google & VR
INTRODUCTION 3.
2.1.Associating
3. Informing
1. Attraction
Associating with
about
learning
learning previous
the target
attention
with previous Making Showing
use of videos—YouTube
simulation—Google AR & VR
INTRODUCTION 2. 2.
3. Attraction
Informing
Associating
Informing attention
about
with
learning
about the target
previous
the target Making use
Making Showing
use
Showing
of
Showing videos—YouTube
of simulation—Google
simulation—Google
videos—YouTube
videos—YouTube AR &
AR & VR
VR
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION 2. 3.
2.
2.
3. Associating
Informing
Informing
Associating
Informing about with
about
learning
about
with
the previous
the
the target
target
previous
target Showing
Making
Showing use Showing
information
of
Showing
information videos—YouTube
card—Google
simulation—Google
videos—YouTube
card—Google AR Keep
&
Keep VR
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION 2. Informing
3. Informing learning
Associating about
learningwith the target
previous Making
Showing
Showing
Making use
use of simulation—Google
information
Showing
information
of card—Google
videos—YouTube
card—Google
simulation—Google AR
AR &
Keep
Keep
& VR
VR
INTRODUCTION 3.2.
3.Associating
Associating about
learning
with the
previous
with target
previous Showing
Making use information
of card—Google
simulation—Google AR Keep
& VR
INTRODUCTION 3. 3.
3. Associating
Associating with
learning
with
learning previous
previous Showing
Making
Making use
use information
of
of card—Google
simulation—Google
simulation—Google AR
AR Keep
&
& VR
VR
3. Associating
learning
Associating with
with previous
learning
learning previous Making
Showing
Making
Showing
Making
Showing
use use
of
useinformation
of
information simulation—Google
card—Google
simulation—Google
of Google card—Google
simulation—Google
AR &
AR VR
Keep
ARKeep&
& VR
VR
3. Associating with
learning
learning previous Making
Showing useinformation
Research:
Research:
Research: of Google card—Google
Scholar—Chrome
simulation—Google
information
Google card—Google
Scholar—Chrome
Scholar—Chrome ARKeep& VR
Keep
learning Showing
Research: information
Google card—Google
Scholar—Chrome Keep
learning Showing
Research:
Showing
Showing information
information
information card—Google
Google Scholar—Chrome
card—Google
card—Google Keep Keep
Keep
Showing
Research: information
Google card—Google Keep
Showing
Research:
Showing
Research: Google Scholar—Chrome
information
information
Google
card—Google
Scholar—Chrome
card—Google
Scholar—Chrome
Keep
Keep
Research:
Showing
Preparing
Research:
Preparing a Google
information
a Scholar—Chrome
card—Google
presentation—Google
Google Scholar—Chrome
presentation—Google Keep
Slides
Slides
Preparing
Research:
Preparing a presentation—Google
Google Scholar—Chrome Slides
Research:
Preparing
Research:
Research:aa presentation—Google
presentation—Google
Google
Google Scholar—Chrome
Google Scholar—Chrome
Slides
Slides
Scholar—ChromeSlides
Research:
Preparing
Research:
Preparing Google
Google Scholar—Chrome
aa presentation—Google
Scholar—Chrome
presentation—Google Slides
Research:
Preparing
Preparing Google Scholar—Chrome
aaa presentation—Google
presentation—Google Slides
Slides
Interaction Research:
in
Preparing the virtualGoogle Scholar—Chrome
classroom—Google
presentation—Google Classroom
Slides
Interaction
Interaction in
Preparing
in the
the virtual
a
virtual classroom—Google
presentation—Google
classroom—Google Classroom
Slides
Classroom
Interaction
Interaction in
Preparing
in the virtual
the
Preparing virtual classroom—Google
a presentation—Google
presentation—Google
classroom—Google
a presentation—Google Classroom
Slides
Slides Classroom
Preparing
Preparing
Interaction in
Preparing the a
a
virtualpresentation—Google
classroom—Google
aa presentation—Google Slides
Slides
Classroom
Slides
Interaction in the
Preparing
Interaction in the virtual
virtual classroom—Google
presentation—Google
classroom—Google Classroom
Slides
Classroom
Preparing
Interaction
Bringing
Interaction in the
together
in the a presentation—Google
virtual
virtualthe classroom—Google
course Slides
contents—Google
classroom—Google Classroom
Sites
Classroom
Bringing
Bringing
Interaction together
together
in the virtualthe course
the course
course contents—Google
contents—Google
classroom—Google Sites
Sites
Classroom
Bringing
Bringing together
Interaction
Interaction in in the
the
together virtual the
virtual
the contents—Google
classroom—Google
classroom—Google
course Classroom
contents—Google Sites
Classroom
Sites
4. Presenting the content Interaction
Interaction
Bringing
Interaction in
in the
the
together
in virtual
virtualthe classroom—Google
classroom—Google
course contents—Google Classroom
Classroom
Sites
4.
4. Presenting
4. Presenting the
Presenting the content
the content
content Interaction
Bringing in the
Bringing togetherthe virtual
together virtualthe course
the
classroom—Google
course contents—Google
classroom—Google
contents—Google
Classroom
Sites
Classroom
Sites
4. Presenting the content Bringing
Interaction
Making
Bringing together
inuse
the
together ofvirtualthe course
infographics—Google
the course contents—Google
classroom—Google Drawing
contents—Google Sites
Classroom
Sites
4. 5.Presenting
Providing the content
guidance Making
Bringing
Bringing
Making use
use of
together of infographics—Google
together the course contents—Google
the course contents—Google
infographics—Google Drawing
Sites
Drawing Sites
4.5.
4. 5. Providing
Presenting
Providing
Presenting guidance
the
the content
guidance
content Making
Bringing
Making use
together
use of
of infographics—Google
the course
infographics—Google Drawing
contents—Google
Drawing Sites
DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT 4. 5.
5. Providing
Presenting
Providing guidance
the content
guidance Bringing
Bringing
Making
Bringing together
together
use
together of the
the course
course
infographics—Google
the contents—Google
contents—Google
Drawing Sites
Sites
DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT 4.
4.5.
6.
Presenting
Providing
Presenting
Revealing
the content
guidance
the content
performance Making
Bringing
Making use of
together
use the course
course contents—Google
of infographics—Google
infographics—Google Drawing
contents—Google
Drawing
Sites
Sites
DEVELOPMENT 4.6.
4.
6.
4. Revealing
5. Providing
Presenting
Revealing
Presenting
5. Providing
Presenting the performance
guidance
the content
performance
content
guidance
the content Bringing
Making together
Makinguse of
use the
of course contents—Google
infographics—Google
infographics—Google Drawing
Drawing Sites
DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT 6.
4.
4.
6. Revealing
5. Providing
Presenting
Presenting
Revealing performance
guidance
the
the content
content
performance Making
Making use
Live
Live
use of
of infographics—Google
lecturing—Google
lecturing—Google
infographics—Google Meet
Meet Drawing
Drawing
DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT 4.5.
5.
6. Providing
Providing
Presenting
Revealing
5.
7. Providing
guidance
guidance
the content
performance
guidance
feedback Making use Liveoflecturing—Google
Live
use lecturing—Google
infographics—Google MeetDrawing
Meet
DEVELOPMENT 4.
6. 5.Presenting
7. Providing
Revealing
Providing the content
feedback
performance
guidance Making
Making Live
use of
of infographics—Google
lecturing—Google
infographics—Google Meet Drawing
Drawing
DEVELOPMENT 6.6. 6.Revealing
7.
5.
7.
Revealing
7. 5.
5.
7.
performance
Providing
Revealing
Providing
Providing
Providing
feedback
performance
guidance
feedback
performance
guidance
guidance
feedback
Making
Making use use
Live
Live
of infographics—Google
lecturing—Google
oflecturing—Google
infographics—Google
lecturing—Google Meet
Meet
Drawing
Drawing
DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT 6.
6. Revealing
Providing
5.
7. Providing
Revealing performance
feedback
guidance
feedback
performance Making Live
use of
Live infographics—Google
lecturing—Google Meet
Meet Drawing
DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT 6. 5.
7. Providing
Revealing guidance
feedback
performance Live
Live lecturing—Google
Messaging—Gmail
Messaging—Gmail
lecturing—Google Meet
Meet
DEVELOPMENT 6.
6. 7.
7. Providing
Revealing
Providing
Revealing feedback
performance
feedback
performance Messaging—Gmail
Live Messaging—Gmail
lecturing—Google Meet
DEVELOPMENT 6. Revealing
6. 7. Providing
Revealing performance
feedback
performance Messaging—Gmail
Live Messaging—Gmail
lecturing—Google Meet Meet
7. Providing feedback Live
Live lecturing—Google
lecturing—Google
6. 7.
Revealing
7.
performance
Providing feedback
Providing feedback Live Messaging—Gmail Meet
lecturing—Google
Messaging—Gmail
Messaging—Gmail
Live Messaging—Gmail
lecturing—Google Meet
Meet
7.
7. Providing feedback Using mind maps—Google
Live Messaging—Gmail
lecturing—Google Mindmap (Chrome
Meet Add-on)
7. Providing
Providing feedback
feedback Using
Using
Using
mind
mind
mind
maps—Google
maps—Google
maps—Google Messaging—Gmail
Mindmap
Mindmap
Mindmap
(Chrome
(Chrome Add-on)
(Chrome Add-on)
Add-on)
7. Providing feedback Using mind maps—Google Messaging—Gmail Mindmap (Chrome Add-on)
Using mind
Using
Using mind maps—Google
mind Messaging—Gmail
Messaging—Gmail
maps—Google
mind maps—Google
maps—Google Mindmap
Mindmap (Chrome
(Chrome
Mindmap (Chrome Add-on)
Add-on)
(Chrome Add-on)
Add-on)
Using Messaging—Gmail
Messaging—Gmail Mindmap
Using
Using mind
mind maps—Google
Having
Having discussions—Google
maps—Google Messaging—Gmail
discussions—Google Mindmap
Mindmap (Chrome
Groups
Groups
(Chrome Add-on)
Add-on)
Using mind Having
Having discussions—Google
maps—Google
discussions—Google Mindmap (ChromeGroups Add-on)
Groups Add-on)
Using mind
Using mindHavingHaving discussions—Google
maps—Google
maps—Google MindmapGroups
discussions—Google
Mindmap Groups
(Chrome
(Chrome Add-on)
Using
Using mind
mindHaving discussions—Google
maps—Google
maps—Google
Having discussions—Google Mindmap
Mindmap Groups
(Chrome
(Chrome Add-on)
Add-on)
Groups Add-on)
Using mind Having discussions—Google
maps—Google
Having discussions—Google Groups
Mindmap (Chrome
Groups
UsingInteractive
mind
Interactivemaps—Google
Having practice
practice Mindmap (Chrome
papers—Google
discussions—Google
papers—Google Jamboard
Groups
JamboardAdd-on)
Interactive
Having
Interactive
Interactive
practice
practice papers—Google
discussions—Google
papers—Google
practicepapers—Google
papers—Google Jamboard
Jamboard
Groups
Jamboard
Having
Interactive
Having discussions—Google
practice
discussions—Google Groups
Jamboard
Groups
Having
Interactive
Having discussions—Google
practice papers—Google
discussions—Google Groups
Jamboard
Groups
Interactive
Interactive practice
Havingpractice papers—Google
discussions—Google
papers—Google Jamboard
Groups
Jamboard
Having
Interactive
Storing
Interactive discussions—Google
practice
education
practice papers—Google
content—Google
papers—Google Groups
Jamboard
Drive
Jamboard
Storing
Interactive
Storing education
practice
education content—Google
papers—Google
content—Google Drive
Jamboard
Drive
Storing
Interactive
Storing education
Storing education
practice
education content—Google
content—Google Drive
papers—Google
content—Google Drive
Jamboard
Drive
Interactive
Interactive
Storing practice
practice papers—Google
papers—Google Jamboard
Jamboard
Storing education
Interactive
Interactive
Storing
practice
education
content—Google
practice papers—Google
education content—GoogleJamboard
papers—Google
content—Google
Drive
Drive
Jamboard
Drive
Interactive
Storing
Commons practice
education papers—Google
content—Google
studies—Google Jamboard
DocumentsDrive
Storing
Commons
Commons
Storing education
education
Commons
content—Google
studies—Google
studies—Google
content—Google
studies—Google Documents
Documents
Documents
Drive
Drive
Commons
Storing
Commons education studies—Google
content—Google
studies—Google Documents
DocumentsDrive
8.
8. Performance
Performance evaluation
evaluation Storing
Storing
Commons
Storing education
education
education content—Google
content—Google
studies—Google
content—GoogleDocumentsDrive
Drive
Drive
8. Performance
8.Performance
Performance evaluation
evaluation Commons
Storing education studies—Google
content—GoogleDocumentsDrive
8.8. Performance evaluation
evaluation Commons
Storing
Commons education studies—Google
content—Google
studies—Google Documents
DocumentsDrive
9. 9. 8.
Ensuring
9. Performance
Ensuring
Ensuring the the
permanence
the evaluation
permanence
of the of Commons studies—Google
Questionnaire/—Google Documents
Forms
EVALUATION
EVALUATION
EVALUATION 9.
8.
9. 8.
EVALUATION learned
Performance
Ensuring
8. Performance
Ensuring
Performancethe permanence
the
evaluation of
permanence
evaluation
permanence
evaluation of
of
Commons
Commons
studies—GoogleForms
Questionnaire/—Google
Questionnaire/—Google
Questionnaire/—Google
studies—Google Documents
Documents
Forms
Forms
Documents
EVALUATION 9.
the8. and strengthening
Ensuring
learned
Performancethe
and their
permanence
strengthening
evaluation of Commons
CommonsQuestionnaire/—Google
studies—Google
studies—Google
Questionnaire/—Google Forms
Documents
Forms
EVALUATION the
9.
the8. learned
Ensuring
Performance
learned and
the
transfer strengthening
permanence
evaluation
andpermanence
strengtheningof Commons
Commons studies—Google
Questionnaire/—Google
studies—Google Documents
Forms
Documents
EVALUATION
EVALUATION 9. the
9.
9.
the learned
Ensuring
8. Performance
Ensuring
learned and
the
the
and strengthening
permanence
strengthening of
evaluation of
of CommonsQuestionnaire/—Google
studies—Google Documents Forms
EVALUATION the8.
8. Performance
Ensuring
8. learned their
Performancethe
their
and
their
Performance evaluation
transfer
permanence
evaluation
transfer
strengthening
transfer
evaluation Questionnaire/—Google
Questionnaire/—Google Forms
Forms
EVALUATION
EVALUATION 9.
the
9. Ensuring
8. learned
Performance
Ensuring the
their
and
the permanence
transfer
strengthening
evaluation
permanence of
of Questionnaire/—Google
Creating
Creating online online test—Google
test—Google Forms
Edulastic
Edulastic
EVALUATION 9. the8.
the learned
Performance
learned
Ensuring and
their
and
the strengthening
transfer
evaluation of
strengthening
permanence Creating
Creating online
online test—Google
Questionnaire/—Google test—GoogleForms Edulastic
Forms
Edulastic
EVALUATION 9. the
9. Ensuring
learned
Ensuring their
the
and
the
their transfer
permanence
strengthening
permanence
transfer of
of Creating
Creating online
Questionnaire/—Google
online
Questionnaire/—Google test—Google
test—Google Edulastic
Edulastic
Forms
EVALUATION
EVALUATION
EVALUATION the
9. learned
Ensuring and
the
their strengthening
permanence
transfer of Questionnaire/—Google
Questionnaire/—Google
Creating online test—Google Forms
Forms
Edulastic
EVALUATION 9. theEnsuring
theEnsuring
learned
learned the
their
and
and
their permanence
transfer
strengthening
strengthening
transfer of Questionnaire/—Google
Creating online test—Google
test—GoogleForms Forms
Edulastic
EVALUATION 9. the
the learned
the learned
learned
the
and
their
and
and
permanence
strengthening
transfer
strengthening
strengthening
of Creating
Creating
Giving homework
Creating
online
Questionnaire/—Google
online
online and test—Google
feedback
test—Google —Google
Edulastic
Edulastic
HomeWorks
Edulastic
the learned their
their
and transfer
transfer
strengthening Giving
Giving homework
homework
Creating
Giving homework
homework and
and
online feedback
feedback
test—Google
and feedback
feedback —Google
—Google
—Google HomeWorks
HomeWorks
Edulastic
HomeWorks
their
their transfer
transfer Giving Creating onlineand test—Google —Google HomeWorks
Edulastic
their transfer Giving homework
Creating
Creating online
onlineand feedback
test—Google
test—Google —Google HomeWorks
Edulastic
Edulastic
their transfer Giving homework
Creating
Creating online
Giving homework
homework and
online feedback
test—Google
test—Google
and feedback
feedback —Google HomeWorks
Edulastic
Edulastic
—Google HomeWorks
Giving
Giving Creating online
homework and
and test—Google
feedback —Google HomeWorks
Edulastic
—Google HomeWorks
Giving
Giving homework
homework and
and feedback
feedback —Google
—Google HomeWorks
HomeWorks
The introduction part of the course
Giving canhomework
be plannedand in 5–10
feedbackmin, —Google
development part in
HomeWorks
Giving
Giving
Giving homework
homework
homework and
and
and feedback
feedback
feedback —Google
—Google
—Google HomeWorks
HomeWorks
HomeWorks
15–20 min, and conclusion and evaluation part in 10–15 min. One
Giving homework and feedback —Google HomeWorks of the unsuited points
here is that the instructors deliver theGiving
lecturehomework
through the and feedback —Google
presentation for 40 minHomeWorks
after they
welcome the students. It is recommended that the presentation section should be held for a
maximum of 15 min and that the tools specified should be employed thereafter. In addition
to the Google Workspace tools, there are Google Chrome plugins and many applications in
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5018 11 of 13

the Google Workspace Marketplace, and it is stated with which Google tool works with the
integration [38].
Thus, the use of hundreds of Google tools and add-ons, which are integrated with
each other, tools that can be accessed from a single account, where the needs of the day can
be met and continuously updated, enable a sustainable technology integration.
Google For Apps Education enables students to gain skills when technology is con-
figured to support educational programs and courses and supports them. While Google
applications continue to transform classroom environments with several educational fea-
tures, it has provided integration of Classroom and Meet according to the different distance
education alternatives used by schools due to pandemic events [39].

3. Conclusions and Recommendations

The teaching and learning environment is one of many that have been positively
influenced by technological developments [40]. In this study, which aims to examine the
current results of the present studies on integration of technology into the teaching–learning
processes, the problems encountered among the results of the studies performed in the
last 4 years are generally examined. It was observed that the in-service training/training
programs provided in the study did not reach their exact goals, the trainers were inadequate
in integrating the technology into their course, and that they lacked knowledge about
technology. It can be said that the variety of web 2.0 tools/systems used in the studies, in-
service training deficiencies and hardware-infrastructure deficiencies affected these results.
In the study, it is thought that teachers and prospective teachers need simple, simple-to-
use, free and accessible tools that can be integrated with each other instead of independent
web tools/systems in order to integrate technology into their lessons [41]. Thus, it is
envisaged that the integration process will become easier, more effective and simpler in
terms of both management and success. These tools are also mobile-friendly and suitable
for a sustainable education [42].
In this context, it is important to organize Google Workspace Tools within the frame-
work of the TPACK Integration Model and Gagne’s Teaching Activities Model, which
are integrated with each other, can be accessed with a simple, single account instead of
commissioning a wide variety of web 2.0 tools/systems [43–45].
Researchers are advised to work on technology integration using Google Workspace
tools, and more studies on teaching programs that integrate technology are encouraged.
From this point of view, it is believed that the research will create awareness in terms
of tools that can be used for sustainable technology integration, will provide grounds for
new research on the subject, and contribute to the relevant literature.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, E.K. and U.A.; methodology, E.K.; validation, E.K., U.A.
and H.U.; formal analysis, E.K.; investigation, E.K.; resources, H.U.; data curation, U.A.; writing—
original draft preparation, E.K.; writing—review and editing, U.A.; visualization, E.K.; supervision,
U.A. and H.U. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Išoraitė, M.; Gulevičiūtė, G. A Study of Online Entrepreneurship Education under Conditions of a Pandemic. Entrep. Sustain.
Issues 2021, 8, 179. [CrossRef]
2. Moorhouse, B.L. Adaptations to a Face-to-Face Initial Teacher Education Course Forced Online Due To the COVID-19 Pandemic.
J. Educ. Teach. 2020, 46, 609–611. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5018 12 of 13

3. Sutiah, S.; Slamet, S.; Shafqat, A.; Supriyono, S. Implementation of Distance Learning during the Covid-19 Pandemic in Faculty of
Education and Teacher Training. Cypriot J. Educ. Sci. 2020, 15, 1204–1214. [CrossRef]
4. Dulamă, M.E.; Ilovan, O.R. Online University Education during the COVID-19 Pandemic. How Efficient Are the Adapted
Instruction Models? J. Educ. Sci. Psychol. 2020, 10, 92–111.
5. Avci, Y.Z.; O’Dwyer, L.M.; Lawson, J. Designing Effective Professional Development for Technology Integration in Schools. J.
Comput. Assist. Learn. 2020, 36, 160–177. [CrossRef]
6. Askar, P.; Usluel, Y.K. A Longitudinal Study Related to the Rate of Adoption of Computers: Comparison of Three Schools. Hacet.
Univ. J. Educ. 2003, 24, 15–25.
7. Askar, P.; Usluel, Y.K.; Mumcu, F.K. Logistic Regression Modeling for Predicting Task-Related ICT Use in Teaching. Educ. Technol.
Soc. 2006, 9, 141–151.
8. Teo, T. Modelling Technology Acceptance in Education: A Study of Pre-Service Teachers. Comput. Educ. 2009, 52, 302–312.
[CrossRef]
9. Ma, W.W.; Andersson, R.; Streith, K.O. Examining User Acceptance of Computer Technology: An Empirical Study of Student
Teachers. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2005, 21, 387–395. [CrossRef]
10. Shiue, Y.M. Investigating the Sources of Teachers’ Instructional Technology Use through the Decomposed Theory of Planned
Behavior. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2007, 36, 425–453. [CrossRef]
11. Velazquez, C.M. Testing Predictive Models of Technology Integration in Mexico and the United States. Comput. Sch. 2008, 24,
153–173. [CrossRef]
12. Roblyer, M.D. Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching, 2nd ed.; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2006.
13. Wang, Q.; Woo, H.L. Systematic Planning for ICT Integration in Topic Learning. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2007, 10, 148–156.
14. Owston, R.D. Contextual Factors that Sustain Innovative Pedagogical Practice Using Technology: An International Study. J. Educ.
Chang. 2007, 8, 61–77. [CrossRef]
15. Todorova, A.; Osburg, T. Professional Development Program for Technology Integration: Facilitators and Barriers to Sustainable
Implementation. Lit. Inf. Comput. Educ. J. 2010, 1, 59–66. [CrossRef]
16. Daniels, J.; Jacobsen, M.; Varnhagen, S.; Friesen, S. Barriers to Systemic, Effective, and Sustainable Technology Use in High School
Classrooms. Can. J. Learn. Technol. 2013, 39, 1–14.
17. Başal, A.; Eryılmaz, A. Engagement and Affection of Pre-Service Teachers in Online Learning in the Context of COVID 19:
Engagement-Based Instruction with Web 2.0 Technologies vs. Direct Transmission Instruction. J. Educ. Teach. 2020, 1–47, 131–133.
[CrossRef]
18. Herdman, E.A. Guidelines for Conducting a Literature Review and Presenting Conference Papers. J. Educ. Res. Nurs. 2006, 3, 2–4.
19. Careaga-Butter, M.; Quintana, M.G.B.; Fuentes-Henríquez, C. Critical and Prospective Analysis of Online Education in Pandemic
and Post-Pandemic Contexts: Digital Tools and Resources to Support Teaching in Synchronous and Asynchronous Learning
Modalities. Aloma Rev. Psicol. Ciències Educ. Esport Blanquerna 2020, 38, 23–32.
20. Sumba Nacipucha, N.; Cueva Estrada, J.M.; Conde, E.L.; Mármol Castillo, M. Higher Education in Ecuador in Times of COVID 19
within the Framework of the TPACK Model. Rev. San Gregor. 2020, 71–186. [CrossRef]
21. Shaw, H.; Ellis, D.A.; Ziegler, F.V. The Technology Integration Model (TIM). Predicting the Continued Use of Technology. Comput.
Hum. Behav. 2018, 83, 204–214. [CrossRef]
22. Kuşkaya, M.F.; Koçak, U.Y. Designing a Networked Learning Process about ICT. Integration for Preservice Teacher. J. Fac. Educ.
Sci. 2015, 48, 19–47.
23. Wright, B.; Akgunduz, D. The Relationship between Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) Self-Efficacy Belief
Levels and the Usage of Web 2.0 Applications of Pre-Service Science Teachers. World J. Educ. Technol. Curr. Issues 2018, 10, 52–69.
[CrossRef]
24. Vanderlinde, R.; van Braak, J. The e-Capacity of Primary Schools: Development of a Conceptual Model and Scale Construction
from a School Improvement Perspective. Comput. Educ. 2010, 55, 541–553. [CrossRef]
25. Wang, Q. A Generic Model for Guiding the Integration of ICT into Teaching and Learning. Innov. Educ. Teach. Int. 2008, 45,
411–419. [CrossRef]
26. Demiraslan, Y.; Usluel, Y.K. Analyzing the Integration of Information and Communication Technologies into Teaching-Learning
Process According to Activity Theory. J. Educ. Res. 2006, 23, 38–49.
27. Tondeur, J.; Petko, D.; Christensen, R.; Drossel, K.; Starkey, L.; Knezek, G.; Schmidt-Crawford, D.A. Quality Criteria for Conceptual
Technology Integration Models in Education: Bridging Research and Practice. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2021, 1–22. [CrossRef]
28. Toledo, C. A Five-Stage Model of Computer Technology Integration into Teacher Education Curriculum. Contemp. Issues Technol.
Teach. Educ. 2005, 5, 177–191.
29. Koehler, M.J.; Mishra, P. Teachers Learning Technology by Design. J. Comput. Teach. Educ. 2005, 21, 94–102.
30. Mishra, P.; Koehler, M.J. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A New Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teach. Coll.
Rec. 2006, 108, 1017–1054. [CrossRef]
31. Guo, P. Integrated Practice Effect Analysis of Teaching Design Pattern on TPACK. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 2020, 29, 385–393.
[CrossRef]
32. Kimmons, R.; Graham, C.R.; West, R.E. The PICRAT Model for Technology Integration in Teacher Preparation. Contemp. Issues
Technol. Teach. Educ. 2020, 20, 176–198.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5018 13 of 13

33. Cviko, A.; McKenney, S.; Voogt, J. The Teacher as Re–Designer of Technology Integrated Activities for an Early Literacy
Curriculum. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2013, 48, 447–468. [CrossRef]
34. Koehler, M.J.; Mishra, P.; Hershey, K.; Peruski, L. With a Little Help from Your Students: A New Model for Faculty Development
and Online Course Design. J. Technol. Teach. Educ. 2004, 12, 25–55.
35. Ilie, M.D. An Adaption of Gagne’s Instructional Model to Increase the Teaching Effectiveness in The Classroom: The Impact in
Romanian Universities. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2014, 62, 767–794. [CrossRef]
36. Gagne, R.M. The Conditions of Learning and Theory of Instruction, 4th ed.; Wadsworth Pub Co: New York, NY, USA, 1985.
37. Senemoglu, N. Gelişim Öğrenme ve Öğretim Kuramdan Uygulamaya; Spot Matbaacılık: Ankara, Turkey, 1997.
38. Mollov, M.; Stoitsov, G. G Suite for Education–The Challenge that Has Become a Reality in a Bulgarian School. Math. Inform. 2020,
63, 601–607.
39. Romero, E.; Artal-Sevil, J.; Mir, J.; Artacho, J. Improving Learning through G Suite for Education. Use of ‘Google Universe’ Apps
in the Classroom. In Proceedings of the 12th International Technology, Education and Development Conference, Valencia, Spain,
5–7 March 2018; pp. 7719–7728.
40. Ifinedo, E.; Kankaanranta, M. Understanding the Influence of Context in Technology Integration from Teacher Educators’
Perspective. Technology. Pedagog. Educ. 2021, 1. [CrossRef]
41. Singh, K.; Srivastav, S.; Bhardwaj, A.; Dixit, A.; Misra, S. Medical Education during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Single Institution
Experience. Indian Pediatrics 2020, 57, 678–679. [CrossRef]
42. Viberg, O.; Andersson, A.; Wiklund, M. Designing for Sustainable Mobile Learning–Re-Evaluating the Concepts “Formal” and
“Informal”. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2021, 29, 130–141. [CrossRef]
43. Sriphong, L. Innovative problem-based learning integrated with G suite for education. In Proceedings of the 10th International
Conference on E-Education, E-Business, E-Management and E-Learning, Tokyo, Japan, 10 January 2019; pp. 163–167.
44. Atabek, O. Experienced Educators’ Suggestions for Solutions to the Challenges to Technology Integration. Educ. Inf. Technol.
2020, 1, 5669–5685. [CrossRef]
45. Francom, G.M. Barriers to Technology Integration: A Time-Series Survey Study. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 2020, 52, 1–16. [CrossRef]