"Education is not preparation for life: Education is life itself." - John Dewey (1897) in My Pedagogical Creed
The Research that Supports the Triple E Framework
The Triple E Framework is based on a considerable amount of research that has been conducted over the past decade about what works and does not work when it comes to technology in learning. While based on all the research listed in the references, in particular it emphasizes...
- At the core of any technology-enhanced lesson should be the learning goals (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003).
- Meaningful use of technology in the classroom requires teachers to integrate technological affordances with pedagogical approaches for the specific subject matter to be taught (Mishra & Khoeler, 2006).
- The importance of time-on-task active engagement (Wartella, 2015)
- The quality of technology use rather than quantity (Wenglinsky, 2006; Wenglinsky, 2008; OECD, 2015)
- The type of use--avoiding "drill and practice" which can have negative effects on learning outcomes and integrating more real world problem-solving and creating (Vaala et al., 2015)
- Helping students connect existing knowledge with new knowledge (Wartella, 2015)
- Co-use of technology devices and software (Darling-Hammond et al., 2014; Zach & Barr, 2016)
- Significance of a "human" as part of co-use (Zach & Barr, 2016)
- Value-added strategies such as promoting student self-reflection, self-assessment, and self-explanation (Means et al. 2009).
- Social aspect of learning through technology tools (Vaala et al., 2015; Guernsey, 2012)
- Learning should be situated in authentic contexts (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Lave & Wenger, 1990)
- “the degree of success teachers have in using technology for instruction could depend in part on their ability to explore the relationship between pedagogy and technology.” (Okojie et al., 2006)
Bebell, D., & O'Dwyer, L. (2010). Educational Outcomes and Research from 1:1 Computing Settings. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(1), 1-16. Retrieved from http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/jtla/article/view/1606/1463
Becker, H. J. (2000). Findings from the teaching, learning, and computing survey: Is Larry Cuban right? [PDF file]. Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations. Retrieved from http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc
Beetham, H. (2007). Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age : designing and delivering e-learning. London ;;New York: Routledge.
Brantley-Dias, L., & Ertmer, P.A. (2013). Goldilocks and TPACK: Is the Construct "Just Right?". A Journal of Research on Technology in Education; Winter 2013/2014; 46, 2; ProQuest Research Library pg. 103
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18 (1), 32-42.
Bruner, J. S. (1966) Toward a Theory of Instruction, Cambridge, Mass.: Belkapp Press.
Chen, P.S.D., Lambert, A.D., & Guidry, K.R. (2010). Engaging online learners: The impact of Web-based technology on college student engagement. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1222-1232.
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Darling-Hammond, L., Barron, B., Pearson, D.P., Schoenfeld, A.H., Stage, E.K., Zimmerman, T.D., Cervetti, G.N., Tilson, J.L., & Chen, M. (2008). Powerful learning: What we know about teaching for understanding. (1st ed.) Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L., Zielezinksi, M.B., & Goldman, S. (2014). Using Technology to Support At-Risk Students’ Learning. SCOPE. Retrieved: https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/scope-pub-using-technology-report.pdf
Donovan, L., Green, T., & Hartley, K. (2010). An Examination of One-to-One Computing in the Middle School: Does Increased Access Bring about Increased Student Engagement? Journal of Educational Computing. 42(4), 423-441.
Ertmer, P.A. (1999). Addressing first and second order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research & Development 47(4), 47-61.
The Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2011) "Framework for 21st Century Learning." The Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/1.__p21_framework_2-pager.pdf
Filer, D. (2010). Everyone’s answering: Using technology to increase classroom participation. Nursing Education Perspectives, 31(4), 247-250. Retrieved from http://www.nlnjournal.org/
Firek, H. (April 2003). One order of ed tech coming up… You want fries with that? Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 596-597.
Fuchs, T., & Woessmann, L. (2004). Computers and student learning: Bivariate and multivariate evidence on the availability and use of computers at home and at
school. CESifo Working Paper No. 1321. [On-line]. Retrieved from http://www.cesifo-group.de/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/1188938.PDF
Guernsey, L. (2012). Can your preschooler learn anything from an iPad App? Slate. Retrieved: http://www.lisaguernsey.com/articles&volume=1&issue=can-preschoolers-learn-anything-from-an-app
Halpern, R. (2012). It takes a whole society: Opening up the learning landscape in the high school years. Quincy, MA: Nellie Mae Education Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.nmefoundation.org/getmedia/747d8095-748b-4876-a3dd-ebc763796e1d/358NM-Halpern-Full
Jimoyiannis, A. (2010). Designing and implementing an integrated technological pedagogical science knowledge framework for science teachers professional development. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1259-1269.
Jonassen, D. H. (Ed.). (2004). Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Kirkwood, A. & Price, L. (2014). Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher education: what is ‘enhanced’ and how do we know? A critical literature review. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(1) pp. 6–36.
Kirkwood, A. (2009). E-learning: you don't always get what you hope for. Technology, Pedagogy and Proceedings ascilite Sydney 2010: Concise: Price & Kirkwood 781 Education, 18(2), 107-121
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1990). Situated Learning: Legitimate Periperal Participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, E., Brown, M. N., Luft, J. a, & Roehrig, G. H. (2007). Assessing Beginning Secondary Science Teachersʼ PCK: Pilot Year Results. School Science and Mathematics, 107(2), 52- 60.
Leh, A. S. (2005). Learned from service learning and reverse mentoring in faculty development: A case study in technology training. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(1), 25-41.
Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 119-137.
Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, Hilda. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. Lederman (Eds.), PCK and Science Education (pp. 95-132). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Martinez, M., & Schilling, S. (2010). Using technology to engage and educate youth. New Directions For Youth Development (127), 51-61. doi:10.1002/yd.362
Means, B., Toyama, Y.; Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009) Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Center for Technology in Learning. US Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidencebased-practices/finalreport.pdf.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
Mouza, C. (2008). Learning with laptops: Implementation and outcomes in an urban, under-privileged school. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(4),
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
NEA Education Policy Brief (2008). Closing the Gap through Extended Learning Opportunities. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/HE/mf_PB04_ExtendedLearning.pdf
Neiss, M. L. (2005). Preparing Teachers to Teach Science and Mathematics with Technology: Developing a Technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 509-523.
Nelson Laird, T.F., & Kuh, G.D. (2005). Student experiences with information technology and their relationship to other aspects of student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 211-233.
OECD (2015), Students, Computers and Learning: Making the Connection, OECD Publishing, Paris. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264239555-en
Okojie, M. C. P. O., Olinzock, A. A., & Okojie-Boulder, T. C. (2006). The pedagogy of technology integration. Journal of Technology Studies, 32(2), 66-71.
Oppenheimer, T. (2003). The flickering mind: The false promise of technology in the classroom and how learning can be saved. New York: Random House.
Pasek, K., Zosh, J., Golinkoff, R.M., Gray, J., Robb, M.B., & Kaufman, J. (2015). Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 16(1) 3-34
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.
Pike. G.R., Kuh, G.D., & McCormick, A.C. (2008, November). Learning community participation and educational outcomes: Direct, indirect, and contingent relationships. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education. Jacksonville, FL.
Price, L., Kirkwood, A. (2010). Technology enhanced learning: where’s the evidence? Proceedings ascilite Sydney 2010: Concise: Price & Kirkwood, 772. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney10/procs/Price-concise.pdf
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223-231.
Project Tomorrow Speak Up Survey, “From Chalkboard to Tablets: The Emergence of the K-12 Digital Learner”, June, 2013, p. 12.
Roblyer, M. D. (2005). Educational technology research that makes a difference : Series introduction. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(2), 192-201.
Roblyer, M. D., & Knezek, G. A. (2003). New millenium research for educational technology : A call for a national research agenda. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(1), 60-71.
Roschelle, J., Pea, R., Hoadley, C., Gordin, D. & Means, B. (2000). Changing how and what children learn in school with computer-based technologies. The Future of Children, Children and Computer Technology, 10(2), 76-101.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Spires, H., Lee, J., Turner, K., & Johnson, J. (2008). Having our say: Middle grade student perspectives on school, technologies, and academic engagement. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(4), 497-515. Retrieved from http://www.unc.edu/world/
Swanson, C.B. (2006). Tracking U.S. trends. The Information Edge: Using Data to
Accelerate Achievement, 25(35), 50-53.
Vaala, S., Ly, A., & Levine, M. (2015). Getting a Read on the App Stores: A market scan and analysis of children’s literacy apps. Joan Ganz Cooney Center. Retrieved: http://www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/jgcc_gettingaread.pdf
Warschauer, M. (2006). Laptops and literacy: Learning in the wireless classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Wartella, E. (2015). Educational apps: What we do and do not know. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 16(1), 1–2.
Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does it compute? The relationship between educational
technology and student achievement in mathematics: A policy information report.
Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Wenglinsky, H. (2005/06). Technology and Achievement: The Bottom Line.
Educational Leadership, 63(4), 29-32.
Zach, E., & Barr, R. (2016). The role of interactional quality in learning from touch screens during infancy: Context matters. Frontiers in Psychology. Retrieved: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01264