Journal of Research on Technology in Education

ISSN: 1539-1523 (Print) 1945-0818 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujrt20

Teaching in a Digital Age: How Educators Use

Technology to Improve Student Learning

Katherine McKnight, Kimberly O'Malley, Roxanne Ruzic, Maria Kelly Horsley,

John J. Franey & Katherine Bassett

To cite this article: Katherine McKnight, Kimberly O'Malley, Roxanne Ruzic, Maria Kelly Horsley,
John J. Franey & Katherine Bassett (2016) Teaching in a Digital Age: How Educators Use
Technology to Improve Student Learning, Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
48:3, 194-211, DOI: 10.1080/15391523.2016.1175856

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2016.1175856

View supplementary material

Published online: 21 May 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 36384

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 76 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujrt20
 JRTE | Vol. 48, No. 3, pp. 194–211 | Ó2016 ISTE | iste.org/jrte
DOI: 10.1080/15391523.2016.1175856

Teaching in a Digital Age: How Educators Use Technology to

Improve Student Learning

Katherine McKnight & Kimberly O’Malley

Pearson Research and Innovation Network

Roxanne Ruzic, Maria Kelly Horsley, & John J. Franey

University of San Diego Mobile Technology Learning Center

Katherine Bassett
National Network of State Teachers of the Year

Abstract

A successful digital conversion for classrooms, districts, and states is not determined by the
technology, but by how technology enables teaching and learning. The purpose of our multisite
case study was to document digital instructional strategies teachers use to enhance and
transform student learning, and align that use with learning research. We conducted focus
groups and interviews, and observed classrooms in seven exemplary schools across the United
States. We surveyed teachers’ familiarity, use, and comfort with technology as well. We document
six common strategies used across the seven sites and identify five roles that technology plays in
enhancing teaching and learning, and discuss how these strategies benefit teachers and learners.
(Keywords: technology integration, digital instructional strategies)

T
he past decade has seen a strong focus in the United States on increasing the use of technology
in the nation’s schools, to spur innovation and foster global economic competitiveness. In
2008, Congress jointly authorized the nonprofit Digital Promise to support comprehensive
research and development to provide Americans with the knowledge and skills needed to compete
in a global economy (Digital Promise, 2014). In June 2013, President Obama announced Con-
nectED, an initiative to connect 99% of U.S. schools to the Internet within 5 years (Slack, 2013).
Additionally, the U.S. Department of Education, together with the Federal Communications Com-
mission and more than 300 educational thought leaders, proposed a blueprint to expand digital
learning into the nation’s K–12 schools through the LEAD commission report (LEAD Commission,
2013). As a result of these policies, school systems are rapidly incorporating technology, as evi-
denced by district and statewide adoptions of digital conversion initiatives such as 1:1 programs.
Access to technology is an important first step in the digital conversion of school systems; how-
ever, for the conversion to be successful, it is critical to move the focus beyond the technology itself,
to how technology enables teaching and learning. Research comparing the effects of digital learning
to traditional classroom instruction has yet to show a consistent, significant advantage for digital
learning (Bernard et al., 2004). Some studies report that digital classrooms outperform traditional
classrooms (Clariana, 2009; Holcomb, 2009; Silvernail & Gritter, 2007; Suhr, Hernandez, Grimes,
& Warschauer, 2010), while others report no difference or the reverse (Cuban, 2006; Gavriel, 2002;
Holcomb, 2009; Penuel, 2006; Silvernail & Lane, 2004; Warschauer & Grimes, 2005).

Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/ujrt.
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2016.1175856

194 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l Volume 48 Number 3

 Teaching in a Digital Age

One potential reason for the lack of consistent findings is the lack of documentation of how
teachers are using technology to improve learning. As Clark and Mayer (2011) observe:

From the plethora of media comparison research conducted over the past 60 years, we have
learned that it’s . . . the instructional methods that cause learning. When instructional methods
remain essentially the same, so does the learning, no matter which medium is used to deliver
instruction. (p. 14)

The authors add that for all the promise technology offers, it also harbors “pitfalls” when used in
ways that fail to align with what we know about how humans learn. In a document that synthesizes
decades of research on human learning, development and motivation, the American Psychological
Association (APA, 1997) put forth a report on learner-centered principles to guide effective teaching
practice. Research-based principles of learning indicate that what and how much is learned are influ-
enced by motivation to learn, which is stimulated by tasks of optimal novelty and difficulty, relevant
to personal interests, and providing for personal choice and control (APA, 1997; Caine & Caine,
2011; McCombs & Vakili, 2005). Allowing students choice and control in their learning process,
taking responsibility in the learning process, and utilizing multiple pathways to individualize learn-
ing are key principles of this learner-centered approach to instruction (Hannum & McCombs, 2008;
McCombs & Vakili, 2005; Reigeluth & Karnopp, 2013). This approach is correlated with higher
student participation and motivation to learn, which in turn correlates with improved learning
(Cornelius-White, 2007).
Teachers play a critical role by organizing the learning environment to provide students with
active, hands-on learning and authentic tasks and audiences for their work (Darling-Hammond,
Austin, Orcutt & Rosso, 2001). Research on learner-centered, active learning strategies supports the
effectiveness of these approaches for increasing student learning and achievement (Michael, 2006;
Prince, 2004). Additionally, in a learner-centered model, teachers build social interactions among
learners and promote learning as a partnership (APA, 1997; McComb & Vakili, 2005). Learning is
influenced by social interactions, interpersonal relations, and communication with others, and learn-
ers need opportunities for positive interactive and collaborative tasks (APA, 1997; Darnon, Butera,
& Harackiewicz, 2007). Research suggests that collaborative learning promotes critical thinking
and helps students retain information longer (Johnson & Johnson, 1986), and helps students to
engage in discussion, take responsibility for their own learning, and become critical thinkers (Toten,
Sills, Digby, & Russ, 1991). More recent research suggests that collaboration online promotes sus-
tained task orientation and advanced knowledge construction (Schellens & Valcke, 2005).
A learner-centered and systems framework guided the development of our research questions,
methods, measures and interpretation of results. A learner-centered approach focuses on how to
adapt technology to support human learning processes, with an emphasis on how people learn and
how technology can enhance those processes (e.g., Mayer, 2009; McCombs, 2008; McCombs &
Vakili, 2005; Reigeluth & Karnopp, 2013). A systems approach focuses on school and community
context, culture, resources, and teacher and student factors and how they impact the success of tech-
nology initiatives. Researchers have found that for technology to make a difference in learning, spe-
cific systems factors such as leadership support, frequency of technology use, and instructional
models must be in place (Greaves, Hayes, Wilson, Gielniak, & Peterson, 2010; Levin & Schrum,
2013; Shapley, Sheehan, Maloney, & Caranikas-Walker, 2010). For example, Greaves et al. (2010)
found that student learning, graduation rates, dropout rates, and disciplinary actions related to the
extent to which nine specific systems factors were implemented.
We designed this study to better understand how teachers use technology for learning, and to
develop a framework for documenting that use that could be incorporated into larger technology
use studies. Our study extends research on educational technology initiatives by focusing on the
digital strategies themselves, linking them to learning science, and accounting for contextual factors
that affect the quality of the integration. Without a clear understanding of these factors, education
Volume 48 Number 3 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l 195
McKnight et al.

technology research will fail to inform implementation of successful technology for learning, and
fail to produce the learning outcomes we intend. For the present study, we focused on three funda-
mental questions:

 How do teachers leverage technology to enhance student learning, and how does that use align
with what we know about how humans learn?
 How do contextual factors impact successful implementation of digital instructional strategies?
 What are the perceived benefits for teachers and students of integrating technology for learning?

Methods
Study Design
To obtain the rich, detailed information needed to document how teachers were using technology for
learning and the school system components thought to influence the use of technology, we used a mixed-
methods, multisite case-study design and collected qualitative and quantitative data. At each site, we held
teacher and administrator focus groups and interviews, observed a sample of classrooms to document and
triangulate the focus-group and interview data, and study teachers completed an online survey measuring
use of and familiarity with technology. We chose the study sites based on the assumption that we could
learn best from committed, successful implementation of technology for learning.

Data Collection
We trained three researchers and one State Teacher of the Year to collect focus-group and interview
data using methods from Krueger and Casey (2009), and to record classroom observations. We
recorded and transcribed all interviews and focus groups. Survey data were collected online.
Teacher participation was voluntary and we offered an honorarium for their time.

Participants
We recruited seven school sites that were chosen because they represented a range of common tech-
nology initiatives, they were thoughtful about their work, and they were willing to share their
insights through research. Additionally, they represented a range of years of implementation,
regions of the country, and student populations (see Table 1). Three sites were part of Digital Prom-
ise’s League of Innovative schools, and six were included as examples of successful technology
integration initiatives as evidenced by district data. The seventh site (Idaho) was included as an
example of a new digital initiative driven by a committed group of teachers, and therefore evalua-
tion data were not yet available.
This group of teachers was generally comfortable using technology, with almost all (>90%) indi-
cating feeling quite to very comfortable, even with new technology. Half (50%) had taken online
teacher preparation or graduate coursework, and 63% had completed online professional development.

Measures
We generated a set of focus-group and interview questions based on the systems framework put
forth by Shapley et al. (2010). Questions targeted the following components, known to have an
impact on the integration of technology for learning:

School factors: for example, leadership support, tech support, innovation culture.
Program/Initiative factors: for example, digital devices, technological and pedagogical support.
Student factors: for example, engagement, technology access and use.
Student learning activities: for example, self-directed learning, projects.
Teacher instructional model/practices: for example, project-based, blended.
Teacher factors: for example, technological proficiency, openness to use of technology.
196 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l Volume 48 Number 3
 Teaching in a Digital Age

Table 1. Participating Study Sites

State and Enrollment Percent Economically Students per

(Number) Disadvantaged Teacher Location Initiative

California (550) 40% 16:1 Urban 2:1 Laptops, school-wide

Michigan (649) 75% 16:1 Suburban Flipped learning, school-wide
Florida (6,600 full-time) Estimated 45% 150:1 max Online Virtual/online school
Idaho (874) 35% 18:1 Rural Blended learning adopted by some
teachers (i.e., not yet school- or
district-wide)
Maine (482) 8% 12:1 Suburban 1:1 Tablets (formerly laptops), school-
and district-wide
Pennsylvania (1056) 18% 17:1 Rural 1:1 Laptops and BYOD (some teachers
implementing a blended model but
it isn’t a full-school initiative), both
school- and district-wide
Virginia (1,969) 14% 23:1 Suburban Transitioning from laptops to BYOD,
district-wide, grades 3–12

For the current report, we address the focus-group and interview items that are relevant to the
three research questions.
The classroom observation instrument focused on instructional strategies the teacher and stu-
dents were using that involved technology. The researchers documented the purpose of the lesson,
the type of technology in use, how it was used, and student behaviors as indicators of engagement
and learning.
The online survey was adapted from the State Educational Technology Directors Association
Teacher Survey (SETDA, 2013), designed to assess effective technology use in schools (see the
online supplemental material). The survey is publicly available, and assesses components of the
SETDA framework. To improve survey completion rates, we deleted items irrelevant to our study.

Data Analysis
For the online survey, we analyzed teacher responses using descriptive statistics. For the focus-
group and interview data, three State Teachers of the Year and eight researchers independently
reviewed transcriptions for recurring themes both within and between sites. The teachers were
included for their expertise in technology integration, to ensure that the themes were relevant and
applicable to K–12 educators. Four of the eight researchers also reviewed classroom observation
data to document specific instructional practices for the different themes. Our coding document con-
sisted of domains from our classroom observation form and the Shapley et al. (2010) framework to
guide the analyses. Each team member reviewed the transcriptions and recorded emerging themes
within each of the categories independently, citing references from the documents as evidence. We
reviewed findings collaboratively, obtained consensus, finalized themes, and identified supporting
evidence for within- and between-site results.
Our final step was to aggregate themes into categories that reflect the role of technology in stu-
dent learning as deployed by teachers and school sites in this study. Figure 4 (shown later; see
Focus-Group Results section) illustrates the five general roles we identified for technology use. We
align these five uses with learner-centered psychological principles documented by the American
Psychological Association Work Group of the Board of Educational Affairs (APA, 1997).

Results
Survey Results
Forty of 44 (91%) participating teachers responded to the online survey. Figure 1 illustrates the
study participants' teaching history, and reflects that the majority had 2–10 years of experience inte-
grating technology into their teaching. Figure 2 reflects teachers’ self-perceptions about technology
Volume 48 Number 3 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l 197
McKnight et al.

Figure 1. Participants’ teaching history.

fluency and beliefs about its impact. Where teachers reported a lack of comfort or fluency with tech-
nology (n D 3), it was those who had taught for 10 or more years.
Regardless of years teaching or technology initiative, 80–100% self-reported “proficiency” or
“advanced” skills with commonly used technologies like word processing, e-mail, Web browsers,
and so on. Fewer (<50%) reported proficiency for field-specific technology (e.g., statistical soft-
ware) and electronic databases like ERIC and Google Scholar. Some technologies commonly found
in schools (e.g., Smart Boards) had never been used by more than half of the teacher sample. The
use of social media did not vary by years teaching or technology initiative context.
According to teacher survey responses, perceived access to a variety of technologies at the
school site was generally “adequate” or better across all seven sites. This was expected, given that
we chose the sample of sites, with the exception of Idaho, due to their experience with and

Figure 2. Technology beliefs.

198 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l Volume 48 Number 3

 Teaching in a Digital Age

Figure 3. Barriers to tech use. “Access at home” refers to student access to technology at their homes for schoolwork.

commitment to technology integration. A small to moderate proportion (from 10 to 25%, depending

on survey item) reported inadequate access. Access problems were not isolated to those sites serving
a higher proportion of economically disadvantaged students.
Similarly, few teachers across all seven sites report major challenges or barriers to using technol-
ogy for learning at their school (see Figure 3), again reflecting the high level of commitment to tech-
nology integration for which these sites were selected. These survey results are consistent with the
focus-group reports of administrative support for the technology initiative and adequate technology
access for students, even in disadvantaged home environments.

Focus-Group, Interview, and Classroom Observation Results

A primary goal of this study was to develop a framework for documenting teacher use of technology. To
do so, we focused specifically on the instructional use of technology from the focus groups, interviews,
and classroom observations. We created a summary document and reviewed it with five State Teachers of
the Year with expertise in technology use for learning, to verify that the themes we extracted were mean-
ingful for educators. The final document appears in Table 2. The table specifies general instructional strat-
egies for integrating technology and the more specific tactics that teachers used to implement those
strategies, along with the learning purpose identified by the teachers. We also cite research that supports
the specific tactics of instruction for enhancing learning. Because the research literature on learning,
instruction, and technology is vast, we provide examples versus an exhaustive list.
To further our understanding of teachers’ use of technology, we took focus-group, interview, and
classroom observation data and derived five general roles for how teachers used technology in this
study (see Figure 4).
Figure 4 illustrates the roles of technology (described next), as well as the importance of the con-
text in which the integration of technology for learning occurs. Within each of these seven sites,
context had a strong impact on teacher perspectives on the use of technology and how to integrate it
effectively for learning purposes. A notable factor that emerged was the role of the instructional
model in the technology initiative. At the flipped learning and virtual school sites, the instructional
model is tied directly to the use of technology. Conversely, the California and Idaho sites had
Volume 48 Number 3 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l 199
McKnight et al.
Table 2. Instructional Strategies and Tactics
Strategy
Communication and
information management
Direct instruction of content
Access and accommodations
Collaboration
Research, exploration,
and creativity
Assessment and feedback
200 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education
Specific Tactic
Share information with students & parents.
Teach and reinforce how to use specific
technology skills (e.g., video editing,
graphing software).
Enhance learning by providing resources or
content to fill in curriculum “gaps,” including
richer or deeper content (e.g., video, online
experiments).
Provide direct instruction/lectures for students
to acquire new knowledge, revisit or review
content anytime, anywhere (e.g., videos,
Web sites).
Use digital representations and information
displays that highlight relationships or
procedures to advance understanding of
concepts or ideas.
Tutor or remediate a student who needs extra
help or additional practice.
Provide enrichment opportunities to challenge
advanced students.
Assist students with special needs to access
learning; encourage participation for those
who otherwise will not or cannot (e.g.,
translation software, tech for visually
impaired or hard of hearing, online forums
for absent or struggling students).
Personalize learning by allowing students
choices and control over the learning event.
Work with others (classmates, teachers, other
schools, countries), on projects utilizing
wikis, blogs, discussion boards, Google
docs, Skype, etc.
Develop digital citizenship/responsible use of
technology.
Promote/facilitate creativity by providing
opportunities to publish across multiple
media/platforms using digital tools (video
production, blogs, wikis, Web quests,
podcasts, etc.).
Conduct Internet research to explore a
question, idea or learn about a topic, and
teach students how to find needed
information.
Conduct ongoing assessment (formative and
summative) to monitor student learning and
growth, inform student grouping, and plan
instruction.
Provide immediate feedback to students about
their learning, growth, misconceptions, and
errors.
Enable self-paced learning using programs
that adapt to a student’s readiness level
(e.g., computer adaptive testing,
educational games, programs differentiated
by student readiness level).
l Volume 48 Number 3
Examples of Supporting Learning Science
Harris & Goodall (2008), importance of
engaging parents in learning
Agarwal, Sambamurthy, & Stair (2000),
computer self-efficacy and use of software
Swan (2003), multiple representations of
complex material
Tullis & Benjamin (2011), self-paced learning;
Hamden, McKnight, McKnight, & Arfstrom,
(2013), review of flipped learning; Love,
Hodge, Grandgenett, & Swift (2014), use of
video for direct instruction
Swan (2003), Clark & Mayer (2011), multiple
representations of complex material
Tallal, Merzenich, Miller, & Jenkins (1998)
Sak (2004); Kulik & Kulik (1992)
Kulik & Kulik (1992), differentiating instruction;
Hasselbring & Williams Glaser (2000),
technology for students with special needs
McCombs & Vakili, (2005); Hannum &
McCombs (2008); Reigeluth & Karnopp,
(2013)
Hiltz & Goldman (2005), online learning
networks; Swan (2003), online learning &
peer interactions; Johnson & Johnson
(1986), Toten et al., 1991), collaborative
learning and critical thinking; Schellens &
Valcke (2005), Darnon et al., (2007), social
interactions and learning
Eisenberg & Johnson (1996), skills for
responsible use
Darling-Hammond et al., (2001), audience and
authentic learning tasks
Prince (2004), Michael (2006), active-learning,
student-centered strategies & student
learning; Eisenberg & Johnson (1996),
skills for online research
Beatty & Gerace (2009), teaching with
classroom response technology; Russell,
Elton, Swinglehurst, & Greenhalgh (2006),
online assessment and learning
Hattie (2012); Fajfar, Campitelli, & Labollita,
(2012); Kettle & Ha €ubl (2010), immediate
feedback & learning; Butler & Winne
(1995), feedback and self-regulated
learning
Tullis & Benjamin (2011), self-paced learning;
Leutner (1993), computer-based simulation
games and adaptive learning
 Teaching in a Digital Age

Figure 4. Roles of technology in learning.

existing school-wide instructional models into which they integrated technology. At the three
remaining sites, teachers incorporated technology into their own teaching styles. At the schools that
emphasized the instructional model first, teachers focused on the importance of pedagogy over the
technology, as evidenced by focus-group results. For example, at the California site, which empha-
sizes a project-based instructional model, one teacher started the focus group with this observation:
“My sense is that a lot of the push for improving schools comes through looking at how can we
increase our integration of technology in the classroom. I think that’s not the point. I think the point
is improving how much we know the kids, improving our pedagogy outside of technology and just
really critically looking at how we’re presenting the information, and how we are creating critical
thinkers in our students, less than improving the actual access to technology in the classroom.”
These kinds of comments and discussion were more prevalent in the schools that started with or
emphasized an instructional model above the technology used to support it, although individual
teachers at the other sites addressed this issue as well.
There were a number of other important contextual factors as well, as evidenced by inter-
views, focus groups, and classroom observations. Students’ demographics and needs and
teachers’ capacities, priorities, and level of autonomy played a critical part. Moreover, school
and district administrators’ vision, communication, capacities, and priorities, including com-
mitment to the initiative, were also important. Consistent with other research (e.g., Greaves
et al., 2010; Levin & Shrum, 2013; Shapley et al., 2010), school resources including funds,
supports, school structure, school climate, and resources within the community mattered, as
did technology resources such as infrastructure, devices, training/coaching for teachers, curric-
ulum integration support, and technical support. According to the teachers and school leaders,
all of these factors influenced what occurred when technology was introduced into the school
or classroom setting. Results from this and other systems-focused studies indicate that it is not
meaningful to describe the use or effects of technology in the classroom without taking these
contextual factors into account.

Volume 48 Number 3 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l 201

McKnight et al.

The following describes each of the five roles of technology that emerged from our study, focus-
ing on the instructional strategies, contextual factors, perceived impact on learning, and supporting
research.

Technology Improves Access

Results suggest that technology improved access for teachers as well as for students, to more up-to-
date learning resources and to materials at anytime and anywhere. Technology also improved access
for students with special circumstances and needs. At sites employing flipped or blended learning
models, teachers observed that access to current and a wider variety of resources provided their stu-
dents the opportunity to develop a deeper and more engaged understanding of the topic, as well as
independence in selecting materials: They were no longer reliant on the teacher or the textbook for
information. Moreover, teachers were able to match student interests to content via online resources
such as YouTube and Pinterest.
Additionally, access at any time and from anywhere was regarded by teachers at four of the
school sites as a key attribute of technology use. Teachers from blended learning sites noted that stu-
dent access to course materials from home prompted student accountability to complete assignments
and participate if they missed class. Access at a time and place convenient to the students allowed
them to keep up with the class, and teachers did not have to spend valuable class time helping absent
students “catch up.” Reports indicated that students access course materials through multiple media
including mobile devices, computers, and even video game consoles.
Through the use of technology, there also emerged a potential for differentiated and individualized
learning for students from special needs populations. At five of the seven sites, educators noted that
through technology, all students could work on the same activity while accessing it at an individual-
ized level that fit their own particular needs, interests, and skills. Teachers described the following ben-
efits: (a) Shy students could record and present on a device, instead of live, in front of the class; (b)
online assessments presenting items individually helped focus easily distracted students; (c) autistic
students remained on task longer via the aid of personalized visual schedule applications; (d) nonvocal
students participated in discussion boards; and (e) special education students improved reading fluency
by recording themselves reading a book. Without technology, these groups of students, whether high
or low achieving, were often challenged by availability of limited and inflexible resources that were
not easily navigable depending on the student’s learning needs and/or the learning format.
Improved access via technology enabled several mechanisms that research tells us improve
learning. As noted earlier, giving students choice and control in their learning process, taking
responsibility in the learning process, and utilizing multiple pathways to individualize learning are
key principles of a learner-centered approach to instruction, which correlates with improved learn-
ing (see Table 2).
The Michigan site is an example of a school that utilized technology as a catalyst for transforma-
tion by providing students with access to content and learning opportunities that were previously
not available. Michigan had seen declining academic performance, and was in danger of being reor-
ganized by the state. Leadership at Michigan decided to invest in researching the reasons for the
site’s failing performance. Data, including student interviews, indicated that many students had
unsuitable after-school learning environments for practicing what they were learning at school.
Results led the school to try a learner-centered, flipped learning approach, where students use
their mobile phones to access short videos of course content outside of school. This allowed them
to receive support at school to practice what they were learning, instead of at home where they often
did not have the needed support. Successful implementation was fostered by a strong school-wide
vision focused on pedagogy over technology. The vision was streamlined, effectively communi-
cated, and emphasized daily. School and district data showed a reduced number of course failures,
increases on state test scores, and reduced disciplinary actions. The teachers and administrator
attributed these changes to students having anytime, anywhere access to differentiated learning
opportunities and on-site support through the flipped learning environment.
202 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l Volume 48 Number 3
 Teaching in a Digital Age

Technology Enhances Communication and Feedback

Another role that emerged from the data was the use of technology to enhance communication and
feedback between students, teachers, and parents. Examples of enhanced communication in this
study include collaborative online work between students, online polling of students during class,
and detailed analytics and progress monitoring. The results were efficient feedback and adjustment
of teaching, and anytime, anywhere communication. Teachers used e-mail, texting, online forums,
Web sites, and virtual classrooms to communicate.
At all seven sites, teachers reported that technology provided students with the means to commu-
nicate and collaborate with their peers on assignments. Collaborations occurred within online writ-
ing and assignment hubs (e.g., Google Docs), virtual classrooms and labs, chat rooms, discussion
boards, and blogs. Through these online platforms students could interact with, support, and engage
with their peers. This usage focuses on building social interactions among learners and promoting
learning as a partnership, which is consistent with learner-centered instruction and supported by
research.
At five sites, teachers reported using technology to provide ongoing, immediate, and just-in-time
feedback to students as they worked at home or in class. An example includes in-class polling to
check for understanding during instruction. We observed science teachers poll students about prior
knowledge of the Columbia Shuttle disaster to focus the day’s lesson, and use games to evaluate
where to focus the day’s chemistry lesson. Research indicates that immediate feedback to students
about their learning status improves learning.
Immediate feedback is also important for teachers to adjust instruction to meet student learning
needs. At five sites, teachers used assessment analytics from software such as Exam View and Data
Director to track student progress on coursework and assignments over time. According to teachers
at six sites, available software helped limit the amount of time they spent grading, provided greater
consistency in grading, and enabled transparency for students and parents regarding student
progress.
The Pennsylvania site provides an example of how technology can be utilized to enhance com-
munication and feedback. Pennsylvania has a long history of technology integration fueled by the
support of local resources. The district’s technology integration strategies evolved over time, as
technology advanced and ideas about technology use changed. Despite the evolving strategies, all
stakeholders within the district shared the overarching goal that students should be tech savvy and
fluent in tech use. As a result, teachers were supported by leadership, a knowledgeable instructional
technologist, and peer educators committed to the effective integration of technology with the
understanding that student learning was their top priority. Dedicated leadership prioritized the
vision, kept faculty focused on student learning, and supported a high degree of teacher autonomy
in the implementation. Participants attributed their effective integration of technology to the focused
yet flexible leadership structure.
To open communication lines, Pennsylvania teachers used collaboration tools like Google Docs
to enable students, their peers, and teachers to work together simultaneously to review, edit, and
provide feedback on projects, and to collaborate across the globe. Teachers reported that student
ability to see peer feedback enhanced the quality of classroom discussion. They also observed that
collaboration through technology strengthened relationships and blurred traditional roles, so that all
collaborators were learners.
Interactions were more frequent outside of school as well, due to technology. Pennsylvania
teachers pushed reminders to student cell phones using Google Remind 101 to keep up with
assignments. They observed that shyer students and those with special needs engaged and
communicated more easily with their teachers and peers through online chat rooms and dis-
cussion boards, posting their responses and reflections online. Through Moodle, teachers
received data as students completed tasks, and the program sent immediate feedback to the
student. Teachers shared this formative assessment data with parents through technology as
well.

Volume 48 Number 3 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l 203

McKnight et al.

Technology Restructures Teacher Time

Through the implementation of technology in the classroom, the time that teachers spend on various
aspects of their work schedule has the potential to change (Levin & Schrum, 2013). Teachers in this
study described traditionally spending a large proportion of their time providing whole-class
instruction and grading papers, assignments, and tests, as well as tracking, reporting, and locating
late or missing student work. Technology decreased the amount of time spent on such tasks. At four
of the sites, teachers observed that technology enabled them to spend more time engaged in side-
by-side coaching, one-on-one support, and providing immediate feedback to the students in the
classroom, all of which are correlated with positive learning outcomes. Teachers at the flipped learn-
ing site, for example, were observed spending more time working side-by-side with students than in
front of the class lecturing. At the five sites using blended or flipped learning programs, teachers
noted that their instruction had changed from focusing on content delivery to instead helping stu-
dents gather information on their own. At two sites, teachers noted a need to shift their own instruc-
tional practices to fit this different instructional model, which required greater skills in guiding and
questioning. Research on these types of student-centered, active learning strategies supports the
effectiveness of these approaches in increasing student learning and achievement (see Table 2).
The Maine site is an example of a district where teachers reported that the use of technol-
ogy changed their work. The district is highly resourced in terms of funding and community
support for the use of technology for learning. Its 1:1 laptop initiative had been state funded
for 3 years. Maine’s community provided additional funding. Maine’s leadership, together
with the community, had high expectations for teacher integration of technology and for con-
tinued improvement. One teacher stated, “You could never be in this school and not embrace
the whole ubiquitous sense of technology.” Through leadership support and community-
spurred accountability, teachers in Maine formed a sustainable culture of innovation at the
school. The administrator shared the belief that this innovation was a result of offering teach-
ers a choice concerning their integration of technology.
Teachers from Maine reported that technology enhanced their efficiency with grading assess-
ments and providing feedback. As one teacher shared, “You don’t have to spend all the time grading
and handing [assignments] back . . . that’s the time that they can be doing more, the meat of the
stuff.” Teachers also spent less time working with absent students to locate missed assignments and
reteach lessons: Students could join the class online or access course content anytime. Technology
tools such as iChat allowed the student to stay connected to the classroom. As one teacher pointed
out, the use of technology “makes you have this level of efficiency and allows you to take time with
the things that you want to take time on.”

Technology Extends Purpose and Audience for Student Work

Using technology, students can authentically extend the purpose and audience of their work. They
can actively find their own information to support the construction of knowledge that can then be
shared with a larger community that extends beyond the walls of the classroom. Teachers at five
study sites described ways in which technology had enabled their students to actively search for
their own answers online, rather than passively waiting for answers from the teacher. They observed
that constructing their own learning helped their students develop critical thinking and questioning
skills. Moreover, students learned valuable research skills, which several teachers noted were cen-
tral to the new Common Core State Standards and critical for college readiness. As a result of this
Internet-enabled approach to learning, students were transformed from passive to active learners,
guided by their own quest for information.
An additional observed benefit of using the Internet for learning was that information was often
more current, “richer,” and more engaging than their textbooks. At three of the sites, teachers
reported that the vast amount of information available on the Internet widened student perspectives
and required skills to evaluate the quality of the information, all of which helped students to build a
deeper understanding of a given topic and provided a stronger foundation for deeper in-class and
204 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l Volume 48 Number 3
 Teaching in a Digital Age

online discussions. At the Virginia site, teachers allowed students to use their mobile devices in
class to look up and share information during class discussions, which facilitated engaged learning.
Technology also extends learning outside the traditional classroom. According to teachers at
three of the sites, students collaborated through virtual labs and classrooms, and shared experiences
and displayed their learning within discussion boards, chat rooms, and blogs. One school had a
clean water project with students in Africa with whom they would Skype regularly. Teachers
observed that students put greater effort into work they were publishing online. Technology pro-
vided an avenue for students to connect with and learn from others they would not normally
encounter and to take virtual field trips to places they could not access otherwise.
The Virginia site exemplified extended purpose and audience for student work. The school is part
of a highly resourced district, led by a principal who had a strong understanding of both technology
and instruction and who had previously served as a technology coordinator for the district. There
was a clear vision for the use of technology for learning, and teachers were well trained and actively
using technology in a variety of ways. This school recently transitioned to a district-wide BYOD
(bring your own device) program. A number of methods were being used to engage students in con-
necting with wider audiences. Through blogging and posting work online, students shared their
work with classmates, parents, and students from other schools. One teacher noted that because stu-
dents knew their work would be seen by strangers, “they wanted to look like they were prepared;
they wanted to look like they knew what they were talking about; and they also cared about the out-
come.” Students shared their own work online and also collaborated on projects with other schools
across the county. They went on virtual field trips to places they could not access otherwise. One
teacher described a virtual field trip to a police department: “We were able to go in and look at some
of the different labs that they have, and they’re able to get a much better sense of really what’s hap-
pening and what they’re doing.” The use of technology “broadens the circle of collaboration,” and
provides the opportunity for students to take their learning “to other schools, to other professionals
that they wouldn’t normally get to talk to, or go and see those things.”

Technology Shifts Teacher and Student Roles

In this study, perhaps the most profound change reported by the teachers, across all seven sites, was
the potential that technology provided for shifting the traditional roles of teachers and students both
within and outside the classroom. Because technology enabled student access to multiple resources
and perspectives, as well as levels of inquiry not otherwise available, it was possible to decrease the
reliance on the teacher to provide answers and content to the class and shift the role toward guiding
students to manage their own learning. Glassett and Schrum (2009) refer to this shift in roles as part
of the transformative use of technology for learning. One teacher at the flipped learning site
described it as a shift from “content specialist” to “learning specialist.”
Teachers in this study reported that these shifting roles required new skills for teachers as well as
students. For teachers, skills for guiding, questioning, and facilitating were required to help students
find their own answers and construct their own knowledge. Teachers at a blended learning site in
this study noted that when students ask questions, rather than providing answers, they now guide
them to find and identify relevant information, and to evaluate the quality and validity of that infor-
mation. For students, the shift was toward active, deeper learning, which aligned well with skills
students need to be successful in college and the workplace. In the research literature, this transfor-
mative shift is characterized as moving classrooms from being “teacher-centered” to student-cen-
tered. As others have reported elsewhere, this shift requires a learner-centered pedagogical model
(e.g., Ertmer, 2005; Glassett & Schrum, 2009; Levin & Schrum, 2013; McCombs & Vasili, 2005;
Wenglinsky, 2005). In the sites in this study, a learner-centered pedagogical model evolved as teach-
ers focused on integrating technology to enhance learning and took advantage of the capabilities
that technology enabled.
A good example of the shift in student and teacher roles occurred at the Idaho site. Idaho differed
from the other sites because its technology initiative was not district- or even school-wide. Rather, a
Volume 48 Number 3 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l 205
McKnight et al.

small group of four teachers (8% of the total teaching staff at the school), operating as a metaphori-
cal island, instigated and designed their version of a blended learning program, with the support of
the school administrator. Participation was voluntary. Each developed his or her unique vision for
the use of technology, and training was self-directed. Despite the successful transformation of
instruction for this small group of teachers, the school administrator expressed dismay that this
innovation had not spread beyond the four teachers: “It hasn’t impacted as much as I’d like. What it
has done, the small group that is working together, they are very committed to each other . . . it has
not spread to the rest of the staff like I would like.” This speaks to the essential role of leadership
and community support for spurring whole-school or whole-district transformation. Faculty must
feel driven by a well-supported, well-communicated need to improve student learning (e.g., Levin
& Schrum, 2013). Teacher empowerment and autonomy, in this case, was sufficient to transform a
handful of classrooms, but transformation was relegated to the reach of individual teachers.
Teachers in Idaho reported that their roles in the classroom and the roles of their students
transformed through the blended learning approach. They described their traditional role as,
“being the star of the show . . . the one up in the front giving all the information,” and as sim-
ply “standing there, just spoon-feeding [the students].” Their new focus for teaching and
learning was depth over breadth, and technology provided the resources needed to facilitate
such an approach. They described their students as more actively engaged in their learning,
and classroom observations confirmed the teacher reports. One teacher explained that the stu-
dents were now “out there researching answers that I normally would give them and so I think
that it’s a better way for them to learn and retain knowledge.” The role of the student in the
learning process was different because students were developing their inquiry skills by learn-
ing how to research answers to their questions. As we observed at the other sites too, the four
Idaho teachers were freed from the traditional “stand and deliver” instructional model and
instead provided more one-on-one and small group guidance.

Discussion
Key Findings
The purpose of this study was to examine in depth how teachers integrate technology for learning in
order to generate a taxonomy of technology use for future research and for enhancing teaching prac-
tice. We found that in the seven exemplary schools in this study, technology provides five broad
functions, some of which serve a transformative role in learning. Teachers highlighted how technol-
ogy provides efficiencies for educators and learners, making daily routines like checking and grad-
ing homework quicker and easier, which in turn helped teachers restructure their time to focus more
on instructional planning and delivery. We also found that teachers used technology to enable access
to a wider range of learning resources, to keep the content current, and to provide greater depth and
“richness” not otherwise available. Improved access also helped teachers to tailor or personalize
instruction to meet a wide range of learning needs, including for students with disabilities.
Our results also showed that teachers used technology to connect people with each other and to
new information, ideas, and perspectives. This in turn enabled students to extend the purpose and
audience of their work in an authentic way. Students actively sought their own information and
shared their learning with a larger community outside of their classroom, which in turn created a
greater sense of pride in and responsibility for their work.
Perhaps most importantly, we found that technology transformed teachers’ roles as educators and
activated cognitive processes that learning science tells us enhance learning. Levin and Schrum
(2013) similarly found that in schools with successful technology initiatives, there was a change in
how teachers teach the curriculum and that changes in teaching practices “appeared to be speeded
up or inevitable.” Glassett and Schrum (2009) describe this use of technology as transforming learn-
ing routines, which includes accessing advanced learning resources and content, igniting cognitive
processes that enhance learning (e.g., active inquiry vs. memorization), and changing teacher roles
from delivery of content to facilitator or learning coach.
206 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l Volume 48 Number 3
 Teaching in a Digital Age

The five roles we identified align and/or overlap with how others have classified the different
roles of technology in teaching and learning. The popular SAMR model (Puentedura, 2014) for
example, addresses the range of technology use in education from enhancement to transformation
via four levels (Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition). Substitution occurs
when technology replaces less efficient tools but with no functional change. In our study, substitu-
tion helped teachers restructure their time by creating efficiencies with tools such as online grade
books, online quizzes, and so forth. Augmentation, where technology acts as a substitute but with
functional improvements, occurred when teachers used technology to enhance communication
between themselves, students, and families, and improved access to resources for students with dif-
ferent learning needs. Modification involves using technology for significant task redesign. This
use overlaps with our findings regarding access to “richer” content, aligned with a wide range of stu-
dents’ unique learning needs, and extending the purpose and audience of their work (e.g., virtual
field trips and collaborative online projects). Significant redesign was also evident when technology
facilitated a shift toward an active-learning, student-centered instructional approach. Lastly, redefi-
nition, where teachers use technology to create new, previously inconceivable learning tasks, aligns
with the most advanced practices in the five roles we identified. For example, projects with students
in Africa via Skype and virtual field trips show advanced use of technology for communication, for
extending the purpose and audience of student work, and for shifting the roles of teachers and stu-
dents. It is important to note that the four SAMR dimensions of technology use are generally not
orthogonal—there is overlap. As our six strategies and 16 tactics illustrate, technology use can
range from the more mundane replacement to the transformative despite the same intended use. It is
the pedagogical model that will dictate the extent to which technology use transforms education.
Another important result, replicating other systems research, is that the context in which technol-
ogy integration takes place in districts and schools matters. A deep analysis of the contextual factors
in this study was not a primary objective for this report, yet we noted where specific factors seemed
to have a noticeable impact on implementation. We learned that when an instructional model is
introduced first, followed by the integration of technology, teachers tended to perceive technology
as an enabler of the pedagogy, versus as an intervention itself. However, we also found that when
technology was introduced, it sometimes changed the pedagogical model. Levin and Schrum
(2013) found similar results in a similarly designed study. The awareness of the importance of the
pedagogy over the technology may reflect the exemplary nature of the sites in this study. As other
researchers have noted, the emphasis on technology over pedagogy is a barrier to successful tech-
nology integration (Clark & Mayer, 2011; Watson, 2001).
We also found, not surprisingly, that technology support and infrastructure matter. Consistent
with Levin and Schrum (2013), educators wanted onsite technology assistance, but it was not com-
mon. In most cases, colleagues and even students helped troubleshoot problems. Interestingly, sites
in this study reported few problems with student access to technology. Even in schools serving low-
income communities, students had smartphones and/or access to computers in the school’s library
or media center. Often this access was due to another contextual factor that was common across
these exemplary sites: strong leadership support for technology integration. Support was evident in
many ways, including garnering community resources (e.g., in Pennsylvania, the district obtained
low-cost Internet), upgrading devices, and providing time and training for teachers to adopt technol-
ogy for learning. As other researchers have noted, leadership support is critical for the success of
technology initiatives (Greaves et al., 2010; Levin & Schrum, 2013; Shapley et al., 2010).
Relatedly, and replicating other research, we found that teacher professional development (PD)
matters. Teachers wanted and needed PD in the use of specific technology, as well as how to inte-
grate it for learning. An unexpected finding was that teachers found informal discussions and dem-
onstrations from colleagues, as well as online videos and websites, to be more helpful than PD the
district or school provided. Teachers were resourceful in creating their own “just-in-time” learning
opportunities outside of the usual district PD offerings, to address immediate technology integration
concerns. In a similar study, Levin and Schrum (2013) found that exemplary schools often had to
enlist their own teachers and other staff to lead PD.
Volume 48 Number 3 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l 207
McKnight et al.

Implications for Practice

The findings from our study have implications for schools and districts currently implementing or
planning to implement technology initiatives to enhance teaching and learning. First, our findings
reinforce that schools should attend to the combination of contextual factors, not the technology
itself, to be successful in improving teaching and learning via technology. Our findings emphasize
attention on supportive leadership, ongoing, teacher-driven PD and technology infrastructure. These
findings could be combined with those of Levin and Schrum (2013), who developed a helpful set of
questions aligned to key contextual factors for schools to design and implement technology integra-
tion. Encouraging teachers to share their knowledge and skills in the use of specific technology and
to compile a list of favorite resources to share with colleagues is one of many examples of ways to
leverage these contextual factor findings.
Another key implication lies in optimizing the five roles of technology use identified in our study
for successful technology integration. As noted earlier, some of those uses result in enhancing teach-
ing and learning, while other uses can transform them. Our list of six broad instructional strategies
and 16 specific tactics summarized in Table 2 can be used in a variety of ways to support technol-
ogy integration. This “taxonomy” of strategies can be used to describe and monitor teacher’s tech-
nology use. In a separate study in preparation, teachers observed that monitoring their own
technology use was helpful in identifying areas for improvement. The taxonomy can be adopted by
teacher teams for examining their own technology integration and making changes toward the more
transformative uses. Additionally, by monitoring the use of these strategies and tactics, teachers can
examine which set of practices correlates with desired teaching and learning outcomes.

Limitations of the Study

This study has several limitations our readers should consider when examining the results. First,
because we selected the seven sites due to their exemplary implementation of technology, the exist-
ing contextual factors may limit the generalizability of our results. Findings regarding the roles of
technology and the specific strategies and tactics may be more challenging to apply in schools
where supportive leadership or adequate technology infrastructure, for example, do not exist. Addi-
tionally, we had limited time in the schools for classroom observations, and therefore we may not
have seen the full range of technology integration at these sites. Similarly, we were only able to
observe a subset of teachers, which, again, may have limited the range of observations and conclu-
sions we could make about technology use.

Recommendations for Future Research

Over the past decade, researchers have conducted studies that examine how teachers use technology
to enhance or transform student learning. To get at the details of technology use, these studies are
often qualitative case study designs with observations and interviews, like this one. Leveraging the
technology use taxonomy developed from this study and others, the field is ready for quantitative
and experimental study designs with larger sample sizes and quantitative measures of instructional
inputs as well as outcomes. A technology use taxonomy such as ours can be used to measure teach-
ing strategies, which can then be correlated with outcomes we care about, including changes in
teaching practices and student learning. If designed and implemented well, such research can con-
tribute to our understanding of which technology use strategies contribute most to student learning.

Received: 7/27/15
Initial decision: 3/4/16
Revised manuscript accepted: 3/21/16

Acknowledgments. We acknowledge the assistance of five State Teachers of the Year in conduct-
ing and reviewing this research: Stefani Cook, Joe Fatheree, Joshua Parker, Josh Stumpenhorst, and
Bob Williams. We also thank the schools and districts that allowed us to observe classrooms,
208 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l Volume 48 Number 3
 Teaching in a Digital Age

interview teachers and principals, and graciously hosted us as we toured their buildings to witness
their excellence in technology integration for learning.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests. The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding. The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publica-
tion of this article.

Author Notes
Katherine McKnight is the Principal Director of Research at Pearson Research and Innovation Net-
work (Fairfax, VA). Her research interests focus on the effective integration of technology for learn-
ing, and more broadly on educator learning and effectiveness and the incorporation of learning
science to enhance teaching and learning. Please address correspondence regarding this article to
Katherine McKnight, 9548 Old Creek Drive, Fairfax, VA 22032, USA. E-mail: kathy.
mcknight@gmail.com
Kimberly O’Malley is Senior Vice President of Research at Pearson, leading the Research and Inno-
vation Network (Austin, TX). Her research interests focus on interpreting assessment data and mea-
suring student growth.
Roxanne Ruzic is Director of Research at the Mobile Technology Learning Center at the University
of San Diego. Her research interests focus on scientific literacy/STEM learning and technology in
education.
Maria Kelly Horsley is a doctoral student in the Department of Leadership Studies at the University
of San Diego. Her research interests focus on education for sustainable development and ICT in
education.
John J. Franey, PhD, is a research associate in the Mobile Technology Learning Center at the Uni-
versity of San Diego. His research interests focus on school leadership, educational reform, educa-
tional innovations, and organizational cultures.
Katherine Bassett is Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer of the National Network of
State Teachers of the Year. Her research interests focus on teacher leadership, continuums of profes-
sional practice, and professional development models.

References
Agarwal, R., Sambamurthy, V., & Stair, R. (2000). Research report: The evolving relationship between general and specific
computer self efficacy—An empirical assessment. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 418–430.
APA Work Group of the Board of Educational Affairs. (1997). Learner-centered psychological principles: A framework for
school reform and redesign. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Beatty, I., & Gerace, W. (2009). Technology-enhanced formative assessment: A research-based pedagogy for teaching sci-
ence with classroom response technology. Journal of Science and Technology, 18(2), 146–162.
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L.,. . . Huant, B. (2004). How does distance edu-
cation compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research,
74(3), 379–439.
Butler, D., & Winne, P. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational
Research, 65(3), 245–281.
Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (2011). Natural learning for a connected world: Education, technology, and the human brain. New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Clariana, R. (2009). Ubiquitous wireless laptops in upper elementary mathematics. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and
Science Teaching, 28(1), 5–21.
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2011). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and design-
ers of multimedia learning (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Cornelius-White, J. (2007). Teachers who care are more effective: A meta-analysis of learner-centered relationship. Review of
Educational Research, 77(1), 113–143.
Cuban, L. (2006). 1:1 laptops transforming classrooms: Yeah, sure. Teachers College Record. Retrieved from http://www.tcre
cord.org/Content.asp?ContentIdD12818

Volume 48 Number 3 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l 209

McKnight et al.

Darling-Hammond, L., Austin, K., Orcutt, S., & Rosso, J. (2001). How people learn: Introduction to learning theories. The
learning classroom: Theory into practice. Retrieved from http://web.stanford.edu/class/ed269/hplintrochapter.pdf
Darnon, C., Butera, F., & Harackiewicz, J. (2007). Achievement goals in social interactions: Learning with mastery vs. per-
formance goals. Motivation and Emotion, 31(1), 61–70.
Digital Promise. (2014). Digital promise: Accelerating innovation in education. Retrieved from http://www.digitalpromise.
org
Eisenberg, M., & Johnson, D. (1996). Computer skills for information problem-solving: Learning and teaching technology in
context (ERIC No. ED392463). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED392463.pdf
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational
Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.
Fajfar, P., Campitelli, G., & Labollita, M. (2012). Effects of immediacy of feedback on estimations and performance. Austra-
lian Journal of Psychology, 64(3), 169–177.
Gavriel, S. (2002). Technology and pedagogy: Why don’t we see the promised revolution? Educational Technology, 42(2),
71–75.
Glassett, K., & Schrum, L. (2009). Teacher beliefs and student achievement in technology-rich classroom environments.
International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 5(2), 138–153.
Greaves, T., Hayes, J., Wilson, L., Gielniak, M., & Peterson, R. (2010). The technology factor: Nine keys to student achieve-
ment and cost-effectiveness. Retrieved from http://www.schooldata.com/pdfs/ProjectRED_TheTechnolgyFactor_Intro.pdf
Hamden, N., McKnight, P., McKnight, K., & Arfstrom, K. (2013). A review of flipped learning. Retrieved from http://
researchnetwork.pearson.com/wp-content/uploads/LitReview_2014_FlippedLearning_vFinal_JK_WEB.pdf
Hannum, W. H., & McCombs, B. L. (2008). Enhancing distance learning for today’s youth with Learner-Centered Principles.
Educational Technology, 48(3), 11–21.
Harris, A., & Goodall, J. (2008). Do parents know they matter? Engaging all parents in learning. Educational Research, 50
(3), 277–287.
Hasselbring, T., & Williams Glaser, C. (2000). Use of computer technology to help students with special needs. The Future of
Children, 10(2), 102–122.
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hiltz, S., & Goldman, R. (Eds.). (2005). Learning together online: Research on asynchronous learning networks. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Holcomb, L. B. (2009). Results & Lessons Learned from 1:1 laptop initiatives: A collective review. TechTrends: Linking
Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 53(6), 49–55.
Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1986). Action research: Cooperative learning in the science classroom. Science and Chil-
dren, 24, 31–32.
Kettle, K. L., & H€aubl, G. (2010). Motivation by anticipation: Expecting rapid feedback enhances performance. Psychologi-
cal Science, 21(4), 545–547.
Krueger, R., & Casey, M. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (4th ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kulik, J., & Kulik, C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(2), 73–77.
Leading Education by Advancing Digital Commission (LEAD). (2013). Paving a path forward for digital learning in the
United States. Retrieved from: http://www.leadcommission.org
Leutner, D. (1993). Guided discovery learning with computer-based simulation games: Effects of adaptive and non-adaptive
instructional support. Learning and Instruction, 3(2), 113–132.
Levin, B., & Schrum, L. (2013). Using systems thinking to leverage technology for school improvement: Lessons learned
from award-winning secondary schools/districts. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(1), 29–51.
Love, B., Hodge, A., Grandgenett, N., & Swift, A. (2014). Student learning and perceptions in a flipped linear algebra course.
International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 45(3), 317–324.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
McCombs, B. L. (2008, April). From one-size-fits-all to personalized learner-centered learning: The evidence. The F. M.
Duffy Reports, 13(2), 1–12.
McCombs, B. L., & Vakili, D. (2005). A learner-centered framework for e-learning. Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1582–
1600.
Michael, J. (2006). Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education, 30, 159–167.
Penuel, W. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal of Research
on Technology in Education, 38(3), 329–348.
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93, 223–231.
Puentedura, R. R.. (2014). Learning, technology, and the SAMR model: Goals, processes, and practices. Retrieved from
http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2014/06/29/LearningTechnologySAMRModel.pdf
Reigeluth, C. M., & Karnopp, J. R. (2013). Reinventing schools: It’s time to break the mold. Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Russell, J., Elton, L., Swinglehurst, D., & Greenhalgh, T. (2006). Using the online environment in assessment for learning: A
case-study of a web-based course in primary care. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 465–478.
Sak, U. (2004). About creativity, giftedness, and teaching the creatively gifted in the classroom. Roeper Review, 26(4), 216–
222.

210 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l Volume 48 Number 3

 Teaching in a Digital Age

Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2005). Collaborative learning in asynchronous discussion groups: What about the impact on
cognitive processing? Computers in Human Behavior, 21(6), 957–975.
Shapley, K. S., Sheehan, D., Maloney, C., & Caranikas-Walker, F. (2010). Evaluating the implementation fidelity of technol-
ogy immersion and its relationship with student achievement. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(4).
Silvernail, D. L., & Gritter, A. K. (2007). Maine’s middle school laptop program: Creating better writers. Gorham: Univer-
sity of Southern Maine.
Silvernail, D., & Lane, D. (2004). The impact of Maine’s one-to-one laptop program on middle school teachers and students,
report #1. Gorham, ME: Maine Education Policy Research Institute.
Slack, M. (2013, June 6). What is ConnectED? The White House Blog. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/
2013/06/06/what-connected
State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA). (2013). Resource document. Retrieved from http://www.
setda.org/search/MetiriCsurveyCmanual
Suhr, K. A., Hernandez, D. A., Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2010). Laptops and Fourth-Grade Literacy: Assisting the
Jump over the Fourth-Grade Slump. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(5). Retrieved from https://www.
learntechlib.org/p/54640/
Swan, K. (2003). Learning effectiveness: what the research tells us. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality
online education, practice and direction (pp. 13–45). Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education.
Tallal, P., Merzenich, M., Miller, S., & Jenkins, W. (1998). Language learning impairments: Integrating basic science, tech-
nology, and remediation. Experimental Brain Research, 123(1), 210–219.
Totten, S., Sills, T., Digby, A., & Russ, P. (1991). Cooperative learning: A guide to research. New York, NY: Garland.
Tullis, J., & Benjamin, A. (2011). On the effectiveness of self-paced learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 64(2), 109–
118.
Warschauer, M., & Grimes, D. (2005). First year evaluation report Fullerton School district laptop program. Irvine, CA:
University of California, Irvine.
Watson, D. (2001). Pedagogy before technology: Re-thinking the relationship between ICT and teaching. Education and
Information Technologies, 6(4), 251–266.
Wenglinsky, H. (2005). Using technology wisely: The keys to success in schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Volume 48 Number 3 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l 211