Master Final Project For Submission

RUNNING HEAD: Using Technology to Enhance the Curriculum in B.C.
Using Technology to Enhance the Curriculum in the B.C. Education System
Lena Marie Palermo

University of Ontario Technical Institute
Author Note
Lena M. Palermo, Master of Education Student
Contact: [email protected]
Submitted to Dr. Bill Muirhead, University of Ontario Technical Institute in partial fulfillment of
the Master of Education (In Education and Digital Technologies) degree
2
Table of Contents
Abstract 5
Acknowledgements 6
Part One: Project Objective
Introduction 7
Pedagogy and Instructional Technology 9
Use of Technology by K-12 Teachers 11
Barriers to Integration of Instructional Technology 13
Part Two: Review of Related Literature

Policy Change in Education in the 21st Century 14
Teachers working in
Canada 17
US 19
Europe 20
B.C. Curriculum 22
Instructional Technology Integration in the B.C. Curriculum
Alternate Learning Spaces 24
Theoretical Implementation 26
Adoption
Integration
Classroom Engagement Techniques 29
Flipped Classroom 31
Enhancing Engagement in the Classroom through Instructional Technology 34
Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) 36
Differentiated Instruction and Blended Learning 39
Effects of Technology on Mental Health of Students 41
Barriers and Advantages of Instructional Technology Implementation in Schools
Infrastructure 44
Policy and Communication 46
Funding 47
Desktops 50
Laptops 51
iPads 52
3
Cloud-Based 53
Part Three: Process

Processes for Identifying Literature 54
Discussion of Teacher Personal Observations 56
Theoretical Frameworks 58
Web-Based Learning Tools and Applications 63
Web-Based Tech Tools for Teachers 64
Tools for Assessment 65
Freshgrade 65
Google Forms 66
Mentimeter 67
Tools for Presentation 68
Google Slides 68
Adobe Spark 69
Weebly 70
Powtoon 70
Screencastify 71
YouTube 72
Tools for Collaboration 72
AnswerGarden 73
Padlet 74
FlipGrid 74
Google Docs 75
Google Drawings 76
Tools for Game-Based Learning 76
Kahoot 77
Quizlet 78
Socrative 79
Second Life 80
Roblox 81
Part Four: Discussion 82
Part Five: Recommendations 83

Appendix 86
Definitions
References 87
4
List of Figures 107
Appendices - Website Links and Images 115

5
Abstract
This paper investigates and analyzes many aspects of the influence technology has on K-12
education to better understand and suggest best practices for implementation in an effort to
improve student learning, achievement, and participation in the classroom. Key elements
reviewed have included support for technology from policy and stakeholders, teaching practices
with regards to both pedagogy and enhanced student engagement by educators. As well,
potential barriers to the integration of instructional technology were also considered. Issues of
security, infrastructure, the comfort level of teachers, teaching resource and student materials
were also reviewed. Research has generated the creation of a website for teachers which includes
strategies and justifications for twenty-seven web-based tools to use in the classroom that
accompanies this paper.
Keywords: Instructional Technology, ICT, Student Engagement, Technology
Implementation, Teacher and Student Best Practices

6
Acknowledgements
I want to express my most profound appreciation to my Project Supervisor, Dr. Bill
Muirhead, who has taken time to advise and guide me in the development of this paper. His
constructive suggestions and willingness to share his time and knowledge through this project
and previous Masters coursework have been invaluable. I would also like to acknowledge and
thank Dr. Rob Power as the second reader of this project. His advice, assistance and teaching in
other parts of my Master’s course work at UOIT are much appreciated as well. Also, I would like
to extend thanks to Dr. Robin Kay for conveying his expertise in the creation of useful
web-based learning modules. The work with Dr. Kay on web-based learning modules has greatly
influenced the website that accompanies this project.
Finally, I would like to thank my family for their never-ending support and
encouragement. My husband, Steve, who has acted as editor and proved constant support
throughout this Master's Program. My parents who always mandated that "no education was
wasted" and have supported me spiritually and financially through undergraduate and graduate
degrees. Also, a special thank you to my beautiful daughter, Izzy (Isabella), who will always be
encouraged to follow her dreams.

7
Part One: Project Objective
Introduction
Twenty-first-century learners engage much differently in the world than the students of
previous generations because of their immersion in a technology-rich environment (Taylor &
Parsons, 2011). Learners share a desire for constant connection and communication. It is
therefore imperative that educators employ techniques and strategies to meet these changing
desires and retain student engagement. In the past twenty years, the classroom and how students
learn has seen significant change. One of the most prominent changes in the classroom has been
the implementation and the use of instructional technology in the classroom (Sangra, A. &
Gonzalez-Sanmamed, M., 2010).
In many cases instructional technology has dramatically expanded access to education.
Kumar, M. (2017) in his article about improving communication between student and teacher,
observed that technology assists teachers to engage learners by exploring multimedia and
interactive web-based learning tools rather than just text on a page. Kumar (2017) maintained
that these additional learning opportunities using instructional technology have made learner
performance more effective. Instructional technology in the classroom also can differentiate the
learning pace and style for students and promote collaboration between learners.
David Blunkett who became the UK Minister for Education and Employment observed
in 2001 that the use of instructional technology for improving the delivery of education could
have enormous potential to raise academic standards and increase future employability (Watson,
2001). In the past eighteen years, it is evident that instructional technology has changed the way
8
education is distributed in the classroom and how students are prepared for employability. Gabe
Soumakian, Oxnard Union High School District Superintendent, describes technology as a
language rather than a tool (Peterson, D. 2019). Soumakian identified this language as being
crucially important for both academic success and real-world preparation. Throughout Canada,
the United States and Europe, similar statements have been made in favour of making
instructional technology implementation a top priority. In Canada, a 21st-century learning
framework through Shifting Minds for Canadian Public Education Systems was developed. The
reference to 21st-century learning included core competencies such as digital literacy,
collaboration, problem-solving and critical thinking. These are thought of as relevant skills for
our current world (Rich, E., 2010). The genesis of C21 Canada: Canadians for 21st-Century
Learning and Innovation is the shared belief of its members that public education in Canada must
be transformed to position Canadians for success. The goal of C21 Canada is to accelerate the
pace of 21st-century competencies, instructional practices, and digital resources and services
being integrated into Canada’s learning systems as shown in Figures 1-3 (Shifting Minds, 2012)
The determination to increase the engagement of students in the classroom is a theme that
is common to most educators. While there are varied opinions in the academic literature about
what student engagement means and how to measure this phenomenon, most agree that the goal
of student engagement is to increase participation from all students in order to improve student
learning and achievement (Wilms, Friesen and Milton, 2009). Affan Chowdhry from the
Canadian national newspaper, the Globe and Mail suggests that we know that instructional
technology can enhance good teaching, but the critical ingredient in instructional technology use
in the classroom is good teaching (Chowdhry, 2015). Chowdry (2015) also warned that
9
instructional technology is more of an amplifier and it is a tool for good teaching rather than a
magic wand which transforms bad teachers into good ones.
This paper will investigate and analyze many aspects of the influence instructional
technology has on education to better understand and suggest best practices for its
implementation in an effort to improve student learning, achievement and participation in the
classroom.
Pedagogy and Instructional Technology
To better understand the influences of instructional technology on education, it is
essential to look at the connection between instructional technology, and pedagogy has on each
other. Instructional technology in the classroom, according to (Becker, 2000, p.29), stated that
computers served as valuable and well-functioning instructional tools in schools and classrooms.
Becker (2000), attributed key elements of effectiveness to convenient access, teacher
preparation, teachers using an individualized approach based on their practice and using tools
and activities which actively engage learners in meaningful knowledge construction as part of
the learning process. Ertmer (2005) reported that even though conditions for the implementation
of technology have improved with training, favourable policy, accessible technology, and
high-level technology is still shockingly low. She attributed this to the teacher’s pedagogical
beliefs (Ertmer, 2005). Renwick (2016) suggested that while it is common practice for teachers
to lead with pedagogy and embellish with instructional technology, there are times when we can
let technology be the driver and let pedagogy come in later. Renwick (2016) discussed the
possibility of new learning experiences created when students are forced to inquire, collaborate
with others and construct their ideas.The combination of Pedagogy, described as the study,
10
theory, methods and principles of teaching by Harper Collins (2019) and instructional
technology must be considered to determine the role instructional technology plays in education.
There is a distinct difference between learning and inquiring with computers and teaching people
about computers. The fine line between learning about (vocational) and learning with
“pedagogic” (Hawkridge, 1990) has been reflected in four policy documents that lie at the core
of the current perspectives of instructional technology that now influence schools in the UK. The
four policy documents include an economic rationale which referred to job and career skills, a
social rationale supporting computer knowledge as skills to create well-informed citizens, an
educational rationale referring to teaching and learning, and a catalytic rationale promoting the
acceleration of innovation. Instructional technology should be delivered through subjects. The
pedagogic and vocational purposes should be reflected in the detailed goals which enrich and
extend learning throughout the curriculum and help young people acquire confidence and
pleasure using instructional technology through regular use (Watson, 2001).
In Canada, Fullan (2012) observed that three main themes that were considered necessary
considerations for 21st Century learning: Pedagogy, Technology and Change. Fullan described
pedagogy as, student engagement and achievement. In Fullan’s discussion of pedagogy the
training of teachers and teachers practice were also highlighted. Kitchenham (2006) advocated
that it is the responsibility of teacher programs to train prospective teachers and allow them to
gain experience in teaching with instructional technology.
While, policymakers, teachers, students and parents mandate that the skills instructional
technology provides are essential, some critical pedagogical links are missing. The instructional
technology used for teaching and learning should be considered an integral part of instruction
11
and not as an object exclusive to itself. Okojie et al. (2006) maintained that examining
instructional technology integration from a broad perspective will give teachers the foundation
required to implement instructional technology into the classroom more successfully. The Action
Canada (2013) document echoed this perspective and encouraged the active use of instructional
technology and 21st Century learning competencies.
Use of Instructional Technology by K-12 Teachers
To critically analyze the use of instructional technology by educators this paper examines
studies conducted in Canada and the United States which demonstrate instructional technology
use in the classroom. The Learning Partnership completed a Canada wide study of school
leaders, teachers, students and parents on the Impact of Integrating Technology on Teaching and
Learning in 2015. Forty Schools in Canada which included representation from every province
and territory, were given $20,000 from Samsung Canada to purchase technology of their choice
to use in the classroom. These choices included laptops, tablets, interactive whiteboards and
cameras. Also, Samsung contributed $200,00 to provide training to teachers and to conduct this
research study on the impact of technology. Five thousand seven hundred and fifteen surveys
were submitted by students, teachers, administration and parents. The study reported very
positive responses from the Canadian education community. Nearly 90% of school leaders and
teachers and 77% of students in this study believed that they are ready to embrace future
instructional technologies in the classroom. In addition, 99% of teachers believed that
instructional technologies could enhance teaching and learning, 86% believe that instructional
technology increases students’ social and intellectual engagement in the classroom and 90%
believe that it improves student achievement (The Learning Partnership, 2015).

12
In 2015 The Canadian Teachers’ Federation and Media Smarts, Canada’s centre for
digital and Media Literacy, conducted a mixed method study of 4,043 K-12 teachers about how
they used instructional technology in the classroom (Canadian Teachers Federation, 2015). The
first section of the report was quantitative, which demonstrated a measure of quantity. The
second part asked qualitative questions which gave meaning and shape to the numbers. The
study revealed that teachers feel that digital literacy is important and many educators feel
comfortable teaching it. Most teachers have access to instructional technology and are already
incorporating it into their lessons. And, where Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) is a permitted
option teachers are using smartphones, iPads, laptops and mp3 players to enhance their lessons.
The Peel Board of Education in Ontario describes BYOD as students bringing their own devices
to school for educational purposes as shown in Figure 4. The expectation is that during
classroom time, student use of devices will be responsible, and only used when permitted by the
teacher or another staff member. The teacher participants in the Canadian Teachers Federation
(2015) study wanted more support for instructional technology and more autonomy in how they
use it. Finally, Canadian teachers indicated that technology is used in two different ways, either
to deliver content to students or for students to create content see Figure 5 (Canadian Teachers’
Federation, 2015).
Janelle Cox (n.d.), a contributing writer for TeachHub, and Washington Governor’s
University observed, in her article about how teachers embrace technology in the classroom, that
teachers are using instructional technology for almost everything. Computer games, digital
textbooks, tablets, videos, podcasts, blogs, and the Internet can all be used to complement
lessons. Cox (n.d.) suggests that utilizing these new technological advances will help students be
13
able to adapt to this technological world that we live in without having them be the center of the
lesson.
In the United States, researchers for Edgenuity, a leading provider of K-12 Online
curriculum and blended learning solutions, found that a majority of the teachers surveyed believe
instructional technology helps facilitate learning and improves classroom instruction. Seventy
percent of the teacher participants reported feeling that it enriches the classroom experience for
both students and teachers. MacNeil (2016) acknowledged that instructional technology creates
more opportunities for research projects, helping students learn through a combination of direct
instruction and learning on their own, and being able to personalize learning for each student.
Barriers to Integration of Instructional Technology
Reflecting on the aforementioned data which supports instructional technology and its
importance in the classroom, one might ask why an educator would choose not to use it. ICT or
(information communication technology) described by Vijayalakshimi (2016) as a diverse set of
technological tools and resources used to communicate, create, disseminate, store, and manage
information can cause some significant barriers to implementation within the education system.
The College of Applied Sciences in Oman created a study to investigate the perceived barriers to
adopting instructional technologies. One hundred faculty members from four different
departments at the College participated. Five factors were withdrawn from the survey: lack of
equipment, lack of institutional support, disbelief of ICT benets, lack of condence, and lack of
time (Al-Senaidi, Lin & Poirot, 2008). Hyndman (n.d.) Director of Postgraduate Studies at
Charles Sturt University and writer for the Conversation substantiated the Oman Study by
suggesting that the issues of lacking resources, lack of training and confidence and lack of
14
teacher belief in technology as an effective tool are critical obstacles to instructional technology
implementation in the classroom.
Similarly, the Learning Partnership study, mentioned earlier, states that the three critical
challenges to integrating instructional technology in the classroom are lack of adequate training,
Information Technology (IT) infrastructure complications (e.g. internet connection, privacy,
security); and lack of time to learn and adopt new methods (Learning Partnership, 2015)
Changes in instructional technology happen so quickly that it is difficult for educators to
keep up. The Canadian Teachers Federation reported that 50% of educators feel they receive
sufficient support using instructional technologies to meet curricular goals (Canadian Teachers
Federation, 2015). That leaves the other 50% of educators struggling with implementation.
In terms of the infrastructure Matt Britland (2013), an educational writer for The
Guardian observed that the future of instructional technology would be determined by the cloud
and anywhere access not specific devices. In his article which discussed the future of technology
in education, Britland (2013) suggested that schools, would need only one major platform to be
prepared for the future. They would not need software installed, servers or local file storage.
They would need a fast, robust internet connection and compatible devices(Britland, M., 2013).
Part Two: Review of Related Literature
Policy Change in Education in the 21st Century
By definition, the education policy in each province is meant to ensure that a structure is
in place which will allow for the development of the personal capacities of each individual. The
15
educational structure will also facilitate the development of those skills needed by society, and
inculcate and foster those values advocated by the community.
Advocates for innovation in the Canadian Education system created a document called
Shifting Minds: A 21st-Century Vision of Public Education for Canada in (2012). The Shifting
Minds document was created to provide a framework for instructional technology and accelerate
the pace of adopting 21st-century learning for the public education system in Canada. Shifting
Minds (2012) observed that Canada's high standard of public education is respected and sought
after worldwide. As the pace of change is shifting at unparalleled levels, Canadians appreciated
that their youth must be positioned for success. The framework was created based on seven
principles. Three principals include skills that rely on instructional technology. Principle three
outlines literacy, numeracy, science, life skills and 21st-century competencies as crucial.
Principle five states the importance of access to teachers highly skilled in 21st century learning
skills and research-based learning environment as the right of every Canadian learner (Shifting
Minds, 2012). The final principle declares the importance of modern learning experiences and
environments. One year later Action Canada (2013) created a framework with the primary
purpose of equipping students with knowledge and skills required to prosper in the world based
on 21st Century competencies. Digital and computer literacy, creativity, innovation and critical
thinking were all identified as skills required to handle resiliency and rapid change.
In an earlier report, A Nation at Risk, (1983) which was the report of President Ronald
Reagan’s National Commission on Excellence in Education, advocated that five new basics
should be part of graduation requirements for high school. Computer Science was one of the
five. In 2003 it was reported by McMillan, Culp, Honey, & Mandinach, that public and private
16
investments had assisted American schools to make substantial improvements in their
technological capacity. In ten years more than 40 billion dollars in infrastructure, professional
development and technical support was financed (Culp, Honey & Mandinach, 2003).
Nearly twenty years after A Nation at Risk was published, the No Child Left Behind Act
of 2001 (NCLB) included a recommendation that by the eighth grade all students should be
technologically literate and repeatedly referenced instructional technology as an essential source
of support for teaching and learning across the curriculum. There was great emphasis placed on
instructional technology in the legislation which reflects an increasing consensus within
educators and the public at large surrounding the importance of technological literacy. This was
defined as the ability to use computers and a range of technologies not yet anticipated in 1983.
Dickard (2003) observed that this literacy included the ability to communicate, locate and
manage information, and use these tools effectively to support learning the content of core
subjects.
The British Columbia Ministry of Education mandated in the new curriculum that in
order for learners to establish and advance the competencies needed to use current and emerging
technologies effectively for both learning and life, opportunities should be offered to enhance
these skills. The curriculum implementation which has taken place from 2016-2019,
acknowledges that instructional technology can facilitate collaboration between students,
educators, parents, and classrooms while also providing schools with rich online resources.
Current technology enables classrooms, communities, and experts around the world to share
digitally in a learning experience, wherever they may be (BC Curriculum Document, 2017)
17
The policy changes in the United States and Canada in the past thirty years reflect the
importance policymakers and stakeholders place on instructional technology in the classroom
and the belief that youth require these 21st-century skills to be effective, meaning productive or
acute digital citizens in the real world. An examination of teachers working in North America
and Europe will provide a lens to determine the effectiveness and potential obstacles of those
policies.
Teachers working in
Canada
Teachers in Canada advocate that the primary reason that education systems exist is to
meet the learning needs of students. The Century 21 (2012) document recognized that Canadian
society places a high value on its education systems, praising its contribution to personal
empowerment, economic competitiveness and social progress C21( 2012). Similarly, that
emphasis on personal empowerment is witnessed in the new BC curriculum documents where
flexibility and personalization of the curriculum are prominent (BC Curriculum, 2017). The
revised Ontario curriculum from 2009, mandated that a critical focus in a students technological
education should be developing a students' ability to work creatively and competently with
technologies that are central to their lives (Ontario Curriculum, 2009). In Alberta, Boudrealt et
al. (2013), observed that the provincial strategy emphasizes critical thinking, computer and
digital technologies as a separate subject, creativity and importance on innovation. Alberta has
also implemented Career and Technology Foundations for Grade 5-9 students and Career and
Technology Studies for high school students to support the growing need for real world skills to
be productive citizens in the workplace (Alberta Curriculum, 2015). Boudrealt et al. (2013) also
18
reported that New Brunswick introduced a technology focussed learning plan in 2010 but argued
that the policy on skills is not clear. In Quebec, the Policy on Education Success indicated in
2017 an emphasis on integrating 21st Century competencies and digital technology effectively
and mentions the competencies of critical thinking, communication, problem-solving,
entrepreneurship and cooperation.
In terms of instructional technology, British Columbia leads Canada with 85% of its
population using the internet on a regular basis (BC Education Plan, 2013). A Statistics Canada
report (2009) determined that while only 40% of Canadian students surveyed reported frequent
use of computers at school, the ratio of students to computers in Canadian high schools is 1.4
students to one computer. As Hicks (2011) recognized, whether it be a desktop computer to
smart device or software to cloud-based tools, technology has changed how the world functions.
In Canada the current trends in education place students at the centre of their learning by
promoting inquiry-based learning. The Century 21 document suggests that students have a
meaningful voice in the design of learning outcomes, in resources, tools and learning
environments at their school, in levels in the education governance model and with
student-driven project-based learning opportunities. Learners themselves have an vital role to
play and are responsible for ensuring their voices are heard, and their learning needs are met.
C21 (2012) urges students and their associations and organizations to get actively involved in the
debate on what Canada’s learning framework should be in the 21st Century.
The aforementioned Canadian Teachers’ Federation Survey (2015) revealed, when
Canadian teachers were asked if technology integration in the curriculum supports their teaching
and their students’ learning, two-thirds (67%) only somewhat agreed with this statement. This
19
indicates that although there is support for instructional technology and its’ benefits, there is
room for improvement in the synthesis of curriculum and technology in this area.
United States
In the last three decades, the advancements in computer technology and how people use
that technology has changed extensively. Examining historical data in the United States, in 1982
there were approximately 100,000 computers in schools. That number had changed to nine
million by 1998 according to Willis, (2003). Also, by 2005 close to 100% of public schools in
the U.S. had access to the internet (Keengwe, Schnellert, & Mills, 2012). Dobo (2016) in her
article about the use of technology in U.S. schools reported that the number of devices used in
schools had increased 71% from 1999-2012. This is double the increase noted in other
non-residential buildings.
Davis (2003) when writing about sustainable practices for educational technology in the
United States stated that education in the United States is primarily controlled by individual
states and funding for kindergarten to 12th-grade schools is, to a large extent, dependent on the
local community and culture. The individual states, therefore, inform both national and local
direction and funding of education.
The United States Department of Education described instructional technology as
ushering in necessary structural changes that are essential to achieving significant improvements
in productivity of delivering lessons to learners. It also mandated that 21st Century skills
increase student engagement, accelerate learning and have the power to transform teaching
through modelling connectedness (US Department of Education, n.d.).

20
While there is substantial evidence that supports instructional technology use in the
classroom, studies from the United States show that many students have yet to experience the
full benefit of effective instructional technology integration (Lowther, Inan, Strahl, & Ross,
2008). Lowther et al. (2008) observed that data from 10,000 schools and over 90,000 teachers
revealed that teacher classroom activities continue to include mainly direct instruction and
independent student seat work.
Based on the literature mentioned above it would appear from the reading of the articles
that there is a growing belief that technology access is no longer an issue as stakeholders have
made it a priority within the American education system (Keengwe, Schnellert, & Mills, 2012).
Notwithstanding, the more significant issue now would appear to be teaching practice as opposed
to technology availability. According to Lowther et al. (2008) teachers are still relying on
traditional teaching practices. Hyndman (2018) recognized that teachers are still uncomfortable
or not feeling confident enough using instructional technology to embellish lessons. Hyndman
(2018) argued that teachers require more professional development to transfer current teaching
strategies into digital forms while also requiring support to keep up with frequent technological
advances.
Europe
While education institutions and policymakers in Canada and the United States rush to
bring technology in and keep up with the ever-changing web of technology in schools, Roberts
(2017) from the Globe and Mail informed that a report by the Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development (2008) said the impact of communication and information
technologies on student performance is mixed, at best. The OECD report test results from 31
21
countries did not reveal enhancement in reading, mathematics or science achievement for the
students in the countries that had invested heavily in ICT for education. The main complaint
observed by the authors was that technology could become a distraction. The instructional
technology was reported to be more effective when used once or twice a week for specific
learning projects.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Programme for
International Student Assessment (2015) results which poll teachers and school leaders through a
Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) suggested that limiting computer use at
school may be better than not using computers at all and that intense use tends to be associated
with significantly poorer student performance. Conversely, it also indicated that when students
use computers instead of writing by hand, they write more and their writing skills are notably
better. Computer use from the OECD report points to its efficacy in terms of writing however it
also points to other, more detrimental effects and perhaps more research is needed.
As Europe tries to remain competitive, transform the current economic crisis and grasp
new opportunities, their 2020 strategy, A Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth,
recognizes that a fundamental transformation of education and training is required to implement
the skills and competencies that will be required. It is suggested in Innovating Learning: Key
Elements for Developing Creative Classrooms in Europe that being innovative in education and
training is of prime urgency in many flagship initiatives of the Europe 2020 strategy. The Europe
2020 strategy document includes an Innovation Union Agenda, an Agenda for New Skills and
Jobs, a Digital Agenda and Youth on the Move. The educational stakeholders acknowledge the
value of instructional technology, and it’s enabling effects on innovation and creativity in
22
Education and for learning in general. The European Science Hub (2017) reported that the
European Commission piloted a trial of a new web-based tool to support Schools in Europe to
use instructional technology. The web-based tool is called SELFIE and will help European
Schools to better understand how well they are using instructional technology. The European
Science Hub (2017) article acknowledged that critical focus must be placed on student learning
in the area of digital skills to support future employability in the workforce.
Concerns raised by Bocconi, Panagiotis. Kampylis and Punie (2012), that only a few
innovative projects survive beyond the early adopter stage and become a part of educational
practice. Adoption theories must therefore be considered to evaluate effective implementation of
instructional technology. Theories of Adoption are discussed later in this paper.
B.C. Curriculum
To create the B.C. Curriculum, teams of B.C. educator subject area specialists work with
members of the ministry of education to define the desired learning outcomes and offer ideas for
implementation and additional resources which then inform the Ministry created curriculum in
British Columbia. The curriculum is created with sound research, consultation with educators,
and the observation of classroom successes from around the world. The Ministry of Education
document defines the specifics of what content must be covered but not how to organize the
time, space or methods to teach it. The document leaves flexibility for teachers to personalize
learning (BC Curriculum Document, 2015).
The Education system in British Columbia has seen significant changes both in the
province mandated curriculum and the structure of classrooms or learning spaces. The most
23
notable changes are in the learning commons previously known as the library. The library has
seen changes both in its role, use of instructional technology and its thinking space within the
schools and therefore more often than not teachers in schools refer to libraries as learning
commons as opposed to libraries. These modern and flexible learning spaces share space for
information technology, remote or online education, tutoring, collaboration, content creation,
meetings and reading or study.
Liesel Knaack (2017), Director of the Centre for Innovation and Excellence in Learning
for Vancouver Island University, identifies and clarifies the five fundamental changes in BC’s
new K-12 curriculum and relating those changes to the potential impacts on post-secondary
education.
One of the changes is the inclusion of Core Competencies which are sets of personal,
intellectual, social and emotional proficiencies that students are encouraged to develop in order
to grow and become lifelong learners. Concept-Based Competency-Driven Framework:
Know-Do-Understand Mode is another critical change. This framework is a model that suggests
that the three elements Know, Do and Understand work cohesively to support more meaningful
learning. Assessment is another key change. Assessment As Learning is the directive in the new
B.C. curriculum. Assessment As Learning gives more focus to classroom instruction and
advocates for Student Learning through Competency-Based Assessment. Competency-Based
Assessment allows students to master skills and progress at their own pace. The new B.C.
Curriculum also sites Literacy and Numeracy Foundations: Graduation Assessments and
Aboriginal Knowledge and Perspectives as fundamental changes.

24
These changes are meant to transform student learning and help students engage in more
meaningful and life-long learning experiences. Students will become more aware of the learning
process and how to apply skills and knowledge while grasping an understanding of the bigger
ideas and principles of learning. One of the most prominent changes in assessment is the
elimination of the provincial exam which historically was responsible for 40% of a graduating
student's grade (Knaack, 2017). The view of assessment has also changed. Rather than the
assessment of learning, the curriculum mandates assessment for learning. The idea of students
practicing reflection on their work and learning is integral in the learning process. The
integration of the First Peoples Principles of Learning and the authentic inclusion of Aboriginal
content has been another important part of the curriculum transformation. The inquiry-based,
collaborative nature of this new document in B.C. Education is allowing innovative ways for
instructional technology to assist and engage students in their classrooms through slideshow
summative projects, videos for summative assessment and web-based tools that allow students to
collaborate on research, create and share.
Alternate Learning Spaces
One of the ways inquiry-based, collaborative and innovative learning can be realized is
by a reconceptualization of where and how learning takes place. Not only has the physical
learning space changed for 21st-century learning as shown in Figure 6 , but also the way a
learning space is defined. The notion of a learning space being physical or virtual has opened the
possibility of Alternate Learning Spaces. The concept of Alternate Learning Spaces is learning
that is in a different form than that of a traditional classroom. Whether it differs in geographical
location or method of delivery (such as online learning or static environment versus the fluid
25
virtual world) these Alternate Learning spaces are creating innovative ways for students, teachers
and communities to learn, collaborate and inquire. These alternative ways of providing learning
opportunities come in the form of Distance Education, Technological Integration (like the
flipped classroom), accommodation for Special Needs and exciting new methods of content
delivery in the form of virtual worlds. Experts say 21st-century learning must take place in
contexts that promote interaction and a sense of community that enables formal and informal
learning (Cornell, P., 2002)
According to Warburton (2009), the emergence of virtual worlds is one which cannot be
separated from technological change. With increasing maturity and convergence in broadband,
wireless computing, video and audio technologies; immersive virtual environments becoming
more practical and usable. The multi-user virtual environments of today share common features
which reflect their roots in the gaming worlds of multi-user dungeons and massively multiplayer
online games, through titles such as NeverWinter Nights and World of Warcraft, both based on
the Dungeons and Dragons genre of role-playing game.
Twining (2010) has documented a growing interest of virtual worlds within education.
Twining argued that virtual worlds may provide opportunities to engage learners in activity
which are "more real" than anything they typically would experience in their brick and mortar
environment (p. 120). Twining suggested that "learning by becoming" incorporates a greater
depth of engagement on the Pedagogy Dimension. Consequently, Savin-Baden et al. (2009)
suggested that virtual worlds may challenge traditional pedagogical relationships between
educators and learners. A pedagogical challenge experienced by educators in determining the
most appropriate method to support learners in achieving their goals within various contexts.
26
Furthermore, this includes consideration for establishing an appropriate technology to utilize.
Whether the alternate learning space is a change in furniture or working in a virtual
world, alternate learning spaces are providing an engaging and collaborative way for the student
to learn.
Theoretical implementation (theories of adoption, integration)
When considering instructional technology implementation, an important consideration is
how adoption will be received. Will individuals resist or welcome these new resources?
Technology adoption is a complex, suggested Straub, (2017) in his document regarding
directions for adoptions and informal learning. Individuals create specific and personal yet
adaptable views of technology that affects their adoption decisions. He observed that addressing
cognitive, emotional and contextual concerns were instrumental to facilitate technology adoption
successfully.
Rogers Innovation Diffusion Theory (1962), identifies specific personality traits that help
us identify how people will accept an innovation.
Source: http://blog.leanmonitor.com/early-adopters-allies-launching-product/
The smallest but first group who tend to adopt an innovation are called Innovators (2.5%)
Innovators are described as the youngest, risk takers and the highest social class. They are also
27
very social and are financially lucid (Rogers 1962). The Early Adopters, at 13.5%, follow and
have a high level of opinion leadership. Similar in class to the Innovators, they are highly
educated and willing to take risks. The Early Majority and Late Majority each hold 34% of the
population. The Early Majority takes longer in the adoption process, they have above average
social status and often have contact with early adopters. The Late Majority approach innovation
with skepticism and will accept an innovation after the majority of society has adopted it. The
final group comprising 16% of the population is called the Laggards by Rogers. They are
described as focussed on tradition, advanced in age, lower social status, lower income and have
an aversion to change. Understanding these personality types and how they react to innovation
and change could be crucial to understanding or predicting the response to something like
instructional technology and implementing it in schools. Rogers (1962) theory is easily applied
to teaching staff, and it is likely that this description might mirror how teaching staff feel about
new instructional technology. There will be innovators and teachers that are willing to try new
things, and there will be traditional teachers that are resistant to change.
To better understand the theories of human’s acceptance of technology it is essential to
review the Technology Acceptance Model as shown in ( Davis, Bagozzi & Warshaw 1989).
28
The technology acceptance model or (TAM) is an information systems theory that
demonstrates how users accept and implement instructional technology. TAM suggests that
when users are given new technology, many factors that influence how and when they will use it.
The theory is divided into two main categories. One is Perceived usefulness (PU) defined by
Davis as to how strongly a person believes that using a specific system would enhance his or her
job performance. The other is Perceived ease-of-use (PEOU) which Davis defined as how
strongly a person believes that using a specific system would be free from the effort (Davis
1989).
The third theory which is worth investigating is the unified theory of acceptance and use
of technology (UTAUT). This theory, formulated by Venkatesh is a technology acceptance
model. UTAUT intends to explain user intentions for using an information system and
subsequent usage behaviour. The UTAUT suggests four key constructs: 1) performance
expectancy, 2) effort expectancy, 3) social influence and 4) facilitating conditions (Venkatesh,
V., Bala, H., 2008).

29
Rogers Innovation Diffusion Theory, TAM and UTAUT are essential to examine to
predict acceptance of instructional technology implementation in schools. If teachers are
accepting of new instructional technologies and pedagogy, the project is more likely to be
productive and successful. Resistance will make implementation much more difficult. This
project is an attempt to understand and recommend best practices for implementation for which
theories of adoption and acceptance are vital aspects and require significant consideration.
Classroom Engagement Techniques
Instructional technology adoption theories help prepare for successful implementation

from the perspective of the teachers. For students, the subject of classroom engagement and the
interactivity instructional technology provides is critical.
There is an excellent interest in the subject of student engagement in the classroom (Kahu
et al., 2017). Fredricks, J. et al. (2003) discussed lack of engagement as often being equated with
low achievement and classroom boredom and suggested that student engagement can be affected
by variations in the environment. To establish instructional technology implementation as a
viable route to enhance student engagement in the classroom, we must first determine how
student engagement is measured. An educator must be able to evaluate the level of increased or
decreased engagement. Fredricks et al. (2011), writing about student engagement in high schools
discussed three key instruments that could be used to assess engagement in the classroom. They
monitored Behavioral Engagement, Emotional Engagement and Cognitive Engagement. The
results are displayed in Figure 8. These critical factors used to assess student engagement were
modelled after another study by the National Research Council and Institute of Medicine in
2004. Behaviour engagement included persistence, effort, attention and the students challenging
themselves. Emotional engagement evaluates the pride a student takes in their success and
general interest. Finally, the mental or cognitive aspects of engagement were included and
defined as the ability to solve problems and use metacognitive strategies. The study also
30
distinguished between social and academic engagement in the discussion of cognitive
engagement.
After clarifying the factors that will determine student engagement, we must know how
and what to measure. The use of student responses will vary based on the instructional
experiences of the student. Therefore DeMonbrun, R. M. et al. (2017), have developed items to
ensure that many different instructional styles are captured. These styles range from traditional
lecture to more complex forms of active learning. They incorporated Chi and Wylie’s (2014)
Interactive-Constructive-Active-Passive (ICAP), Model. The differentiation between passive
instruction, where students passively accept information and active instruction, where the student
experiences interactivity and ask questions, is of crucial importance. Other concepts of learning
structures include interaction with peers or creating knowledge together. The final group of
complex activities include active learning that is self-directed and created from one’s
self-discovery. The image below shows the path from passive to interactive learner using the
ICAP model.
31
Following the framework of ICAP using the indicators of behaviour, cognitive and
emotional, DeMonbrun, R. M. et al. (2017) divided the student’s responses using four subscales.
Value included student seeing activity as necessary; positivity is the feelings exhibited toward an
activity, participation clarified participation versus resistance and evaluation of the instructor at
the end of the term.
Harris, S., and Lane, E. (2015), use descriptions of behaviours for engaged and
disengaged students that observers can follow and determine student engagement as shown in
Figure 9. For instance, an engaged student shows listening through eye contact and appropriate
facial expressions where a disengaged student may have eyes closed and may be slouched or
sleeping. The chart suggests that engaged computer use would have the student taking notes and
the screen matching the lecture content. Conversely, a disengaged student would have a screen
with game playing, surfing the internet or checking email.
The combination of the ICAP model and the framework descriptors assist in determining
if students are engaged in a lesson or course topic and therefore help inform whether
instructional technology would enhance that engagement or not.
Flipped Classroom and Video Conferencing
In search of relevant literature that can inform best practices for instructional technology
implementation for teachers in British Columbia, one example is the Flipped Classroom. The
Flipped Classroom can be described as a classroom where students are introduced to content at
home, and practice working through it at school (TeachThought Contributors, 2016). One
example is Khan Academy.
Established in 2008, The Khan Academy is a non-profit educational organization created
with the goal of developing free modules of online tools that would help educate students. Sal
Khan was inspired to create his sequenced video tutorials by trying to tutor his twelve-year-old
32
niece from a distance. Khan (2012) discussed the value of flipped teaching and learning and
emphasized the benefits including the ability to access content when and how students want it
and to be able to repeat a concept as many times as necessary. Everyone learns concepts at a
different rate, and these video tutorials create a self-paced learning environment. Today Khan
delivers video tutorials to six million students worldwide each month. The program also allows
the learner to complete exercises that encourage the learner to apply the concepts and use the
learning in a real context. From a teaching standpoint the ability for students to repeat concepts
and have features to play and pause give the students learner control. The immediate feedback
and ability to self-test and practice is extremely valuable as it allows the student to ladder their
learning and build comprehension. Khan (2012) reported that Khan Academy is meant to
empower teachers and that research conducted by the academy indicates that it is meeting its
expectations.
In analyzing the flipped classroom, it is essential to consider structural changes in the
way content for classroom material is organized to enhance the student learning experience and
improve student engagement in the classroom. Adding elements of constructivism or active use
of knowledge and more instructional technology could engage the students even further and give
them greater responsibility for their growth and learning. Laura McMullen (2012), discussed the
importance of proper implementation of instructional technology. She suggested three steps.
Plan, Try something new and Become an Educational Designer (McMullen, L. 2012). The
communications staff at the Alliance for Education in Washington, D.C. (2014) suggested that
the successful implementation of instructional technology in any class can engage even at-risk
33
students from dropping out. It can close achievement gaps and improve learning, which is a great
reason to consider the flipped classroom as a viable instructional platform.
Gomez (2015) observed and shared new strategies for learning and engagement in the
instrumental classroom. In her article, Gomez discussed that the flipped classroom incorporates
both group work and online technology. She has found that it fosters logistics, builds community
and makes it possible for her students to find materials (Gomez 2015). She also discussed how
the flipped classroom empowers the students to become their own best teachers and encourages
self-paced learning. The system houses the music required and empowers the student to find the
materials online. The concept of the flipped classroom requires refinement and further research,
but it provides a broadened view of possibilities for the 21st-century music classroom.
Another instructional technology that can pair with the flipped classroom or operate as a
stand alone tool is Video Conferencing in Education. The literature review in Images of the
Future for Education Comber et. al (2010) discusses the steady increase of educational contexts
as the capabilities of video communication has emerged. The original intent for video
conferencing was to be used in higher education, but now it is used for many learning purposes
in schools. While a considerable body of literature exists describing the experience of video
conferencing and the use of traditional pedagogies, much less has been published on the
contextual factors that lead to effective learning outcomes and innovative uses of video
conferencing (Comber et. al 2010). The review by Comber et al. (2010). discussed the qualities
of video conferencing used in both higher education and mainstream schooling as well as the
barriers and suggested that further research on the many possibilities of this platform is still
required.
34
Montgomery & King (2011) suggested that v ideo conferencing is one tool helping to
crack open the classroom door and allow geographically separated students to experience sights,
sounds, and interactions with real people in real time. The paper mentions effective uses of this
technology are full course instruction to remote students, as curriculum enhancement, to allow
professional development and to assist administrative uses.
Video conferencing is a group endeavour, a network of equipment and people. Being a
member of this group brings some constraints, but it also allows the combining of resources to
create something that is bigger than the resources of the individuals—a gestalt. (Montgomerie,
T., & King, C., 2011).
While a potential barrier of this learning platform is the technical support it requires;
hardware, wifi infrastructure, technical support personnel and training for instructors the benefits
of video conferencing could be worth persevering through the obstacles. Video conferencing as
described by Montgomerie & King (2011) is one way educators can enhance students
engagement through instructional technology. Harper (2009) and Hicks (2011) reported that
there are many ways student engagement can be enhanced through the use of instructional
technology particularly in cases where learners require accessibility functions or where
individual student-paced learning is required.
Enhancing engagement in the Classroom through Instructional Technology
Costa (2016) observed that creating classroom experiences that grab and hold students'
interest is not only good teaching, but it is also good science. Student attention is influenced by
interest, memory and awareness. Costa (2016) explained that emotion paints our experience and
that emotion supports the ability remember. Since the more focussed attention a learner gives to
35
a subject the more a learner will retain, the subject of enhancing engagement in the classroom
with instructional technology is vital.
There have been significant changes in instructional technology in the past decade, and
educators have multiple options for applications, websites, and other tools to motivate and
engage students (Project Tomorrow 2010). Harper (2009) observed that many teachers and
professors have witnessed the benefits of instructional technology in the classroom .
Specifically, Harper (2009) indicated that instructional technology can be easily connected and
utilized in the area of classroom management. Hicks (2011) observed that integrating technology
into the classroom is an attention keeper for students.
Instructional technology has been proven to increase student motivation (Ghaznavi,
Keikha, & Yaghoubi, 2011). Students are generally interested in learning and using current
technologies. Using instructional technology at school for educational purposes makes the
process of learning much more pleasurable for them. According to Gu, Zhu, and Guo (2013),
student interest in the subject matter can be enhanced by instructional technology. Gu et al.
(2013), reported that students become more motivated when they are interested in the subject
matter.
Current society is surrounded by technology constantly. Most jobs require at least some
expertise and understanding, and therefore consistent use is crucial (Fullan, 2013; Hicks, 2011)
There are multiple studies which endorse the claim that students benefit from using instructional
technology (Keengwe et al., 2012; Lui & Szabo, 2009; Seifried, Lenhard, Baier, & Spinath,
2012). Keengwe et al. (2012) reported that integrating laptops on a 1:1 basis increased student
engagement in the classroom, learning, motivation, and ability to work individually (p. 144).
36
There is substantial research to explain how technology strengthens student engagement
and learning. For example, active learning is associated with improved student academic
performance (Hake, 1998; Knight & Wood, 2005; Michael, 2006; Freeman et al., 2007; Chaplin,
2009), and increased student engagement, critical thinking, and better attitudes toward learning
(O’Dowd & Aguilar-Roca, 2009). Findings by Wardlow (2016) in her article about boosting
student engagement with technology, suggested that digital games provide the most far-reaching
influence across different types of student engagement, followed by web-conferencing and
Facebook. Consulting the applications and web-based learning tools identified later in this paper
will allow teachers to find a large number of activities and projects to engage students with
instructional technology.
While Keengwe et al. (2012) observed that integrating laptops on a 1:1 basis increased
student engagement in the classroom a 1:1 ratio is not always possible. To create a 1:1 ratio some
schools have been creative through the implementation of a Bring Your Own Device Policy
(BYOD). The next section in this paper will discuss and analyze the benefits and obstacles of
implementing BYOD policies.
Bring Your Own Device (BYOD)
The limited number of school provided devices can restrict classroom teachers wanting to
enhance learning using instructional technology. In terms of technology use, a situation of 1:1
student to a device is ideal because Saprano (2014), Soskill (2012) and Nielson & Webb (2012)
have observed that there are many positives to schools allowing the use of devices and in fact
point to encouraging the use of BYOD in the classroom. The BYOD devices provide an
37
opportunity for all learners to participate at the same time and give the option of self-paced
learning.
Concordia University in Portland, Oregon reports that student-owned cell phones and
devices can have a positive effect at school, in their online blog about Learning and Schooling in
the Age of Mobilism (2012). Cell phones provide peace of mind for many parents who have
children getting themselves to and from school; the article indicates that it is a motivator for
curious students who may access information instantly. The enhancement of learning through
video and a wide range of music was also noted. Another reported positive effect was the ability
to allow students the opportunity to collaborate and share information through social learning
like google docs and slides. BYOD also promotes the idea of learning on the go.
Learning and Schooling in the Age of Mobilism (2012) reported negatives such as
students being distracted on social media or surfing the internet but suggested the positives far
outweigh the negatives for providing digital learning opportunities. Included in the discussion in
the aforementioned article, are school districts that have seen significant improvements in
learning outcomes by allowing the use of digital devices in the classroom. In order for success to
be achieved, however, students must have guidelines in place and teaching online safety and
using judgement when determining the quality of sources of information as recommended by the
Education and Skills Department Ireland (2016).
Saponaro (2014) reinforced the idea that these devices are already a part of daily student
life, therefore they should be incorporated into their learning. Saponaro (2014) maintained that
BYOD increases student participation, assists learning to become student-driven, increases
collaboration and communication among students, saves money and allows for personalized
38
instruction to meet many learning needs. These benefits of BYOD result in a transformation in
instruction methods and encourage project and inquiry-based learning opportunities through the
incorporation of devices into the curriculum.
Soskill (2012) in his article regarding cell phone use in schools explained that students
should be permitted to have cell phones. He advocates that cell phones prepare students for life,
assists schools on tight budgets where the school cannot provide everyone with a device,
balances any ambiguity in the classroom where the teacher is using devices but not allowing
students to participate in the same way and helps teachers teach digital responsibility and not
censorship.
Nielson & Webb (2012) both with over twenty years in education and experience in
administration speak to audiences around the world through conferences, workshops, and online
classes about using cell phones and texting as part of teaching practice. Their book offers a host
of innovative ideas, activities, lessons, and strategies to incorporate unique ways to use students’
preferred method of communication in the classroom. Many lessons encourage BYOD in the
classroom and multiple ways to utilize BYOD in current curriculum delivery. Lessons are
enhanced by the ability to record and listen to a voice, serve as a way to take notes, poll students
for answers, provide instant answers and research, create home-school connections, using world
clock functions to enhance math or geography lessons, and access to the web-based learning
tools that enhance the classroom experience. The lessons based on the use of cell phones and
BYOD encourage creativity, innovation, communication, research, and digital citizenship for
example recording and capturing oral reports or responding to quizzes and polls.
39
While many educators enjoy the benefits of BYOD, others have put bans on cell phone
use. To prepare for a new law in France set by President Emmanuel Macron to detox teenagers
from their screens, students at Plousane Middle School started with phone free Mondays. With a
concern for phone addiction, the law is to encourage students to have the right to disconnect.
During the ban they have noticed students bringing cards to school, talking on breaks and
reading more books (Chrisafis, A. 2018). Similarly, in 2016, Central Middle School in Victoria,
B.C. banned all cell phones and personal electronic devices on school property. Parents from the
school were most upset about the new policy claiming this new rule made it difficult to arrange
rides and communicate with their children. The administration maintained that is it was best for
learning and the students. This policy is still in place at Central Middle School in 2019.
While some schools find that BYOD with specific guidelines and expectations is
effective and creates an opportunity for more students, some schools like the example in France
that Chrisafis (2018) observed, still uphold that the addiction of device use is concerning and that
promoting socialization and communication without devices is of higher value. Differentiated
instruction and blended learning should also be part of the discussion in evaluating the need for a
1:1 ratio for students and devices. Only students with an individual device can take advantage of
the self-paced learning opportunities differentiated instruction provides.
Differentiated Instruction and Blended Learning
Differentiated instruction allows students to engage in self-paced and personalized
learning. Multiple intelligence theorist from Harvard University, Howard Gardner (2010)
reminds us that we cannot teach and assess all individuals in an identical way because human
40
beings differ from one another. Barbra Thoeming (2017), observed that classrooms rich in
instructional technology are a pathway to post-secondary and career readiness while helping
teachers differentiate instruction. Blended Learning allows teachers to create individualized
learning guides while providing real-time intervention. Haskins-Powell (2016) concurred that
strategies using digital differentiation can assist in providing specific and unique learning that
customizes assignment lengths.
Singh (2003) in his article about first generation e-learning programs, described blended
learning as an educational program which combines traditional classroom teaching methods with
Internet-based media. Murray (n.d.) acknowledged that when technology is mixed deftly with
traditional teaching strategies to deliver a more challenging and purposeful program, classes
move to the top SAMR levels Modification and Redefinition as shown in Figure 11. Puentedura
(2006) observed that using SAMR would replace pictures of zoo animals for example to a
virtual trip to the zoo which would create a more authentic learning experience. In some models
of Blended Learning, the learning is teacher driven and augmented by instructional technology.
In other models, the instruction is primarily technology driven. The Kineo Report (2013)
suggests listing learner objectives and identify assessment benchmarks then choosing the
instructional technology as the final step Kineo Report (2013)
In 2015 a study by EdSurge found that fifty percent of the teachers in blended learning
classrooms said students are developing problem-solving and critical thinking skills, language,
scaffolded activities, compaction and interactive media (Haskins-Powell, 2016). Paired with the
ability to differentiate for varied student needs the blended learning model is indeed a model to
continue to explore.
41
Based on the previously mentioned literature it is clear that technology can differentiate
learning for students in a meaningful and useful way and therefore should be considered in
determining best practices for implementing instructional technology in the classroom (Murray,
n.d., Haskins-Powell (2016) & Kineo Report (2013).
Students that are using devices and instructional technology regularly for differentiated
instruction or the flipped classroom are using technology for sustained periods. It is, therefore,
necessary to consider the effects of technology on the mental health of students. The next section
will explore and analyze both positive and negative effects technology can have on the mental
health of youth.
Effects of Technology on Mental Health of Students
While the research for technology in the classroom may be useful for classroom
engagement, there are other factors in a student’s life that may be affected by technology and
therefore should be considered, such as mental health. Healthy social and emotional growth in
the early years lay the foundation for mental health and resilience throughout life. The Mental
Health Commission of Canada (2018) estimated that 1.2 million children and youth in Canada
are affected by mental illness. While society tries to eliminate the stigma of mental health and
the dialogue has been opened, it is still a topic of concern. With increased access and availability
to technology on the rise, 92% of teens report going online daily, including 24% who say they go
online “almost constantly,” Lenhart (2015). Lenhart asks if there is a direct effect between the
rise of mental health issues and the rise of technology in the lives of adolescents. Adolescents
use technology in almost every aspect of daily life, and mobile technology has helped to create
an online presence that is always there. Technology is used by adolescents nine hours a day, and
42
they are often multitasking between texting, social media, TV and music (Wallace, 2015). With
the knowledge that technology is everywhere in the daily lives of adolescents and the concern
that mental health illnesses are on the rise, it is essential to investigate further whether or not
there is a correlation between the two.
Young people frequently engage in technological use, and with such a presence in their
lives, research has connected this with their mental health. Approximately nine in ten teenagers
are online multiple times a day, with 45% of teens online consistently (Anderson & Jiang, 2018);
thus understanding the effects, this is having on the young mind can assist in recommendations
for use to decrease adverse effects on mental health.
Adolescents are at a stage vulnerable to depression and anxiety (McLaughlin & King,
2014), at times leaving them susceptible to the negative influences of technology. Being
immersed in the digital world can be stressful and overwhelming. This immersion leads to more
than one in three students in grades 7 to 12 affirming moderate through severe psychological
distress (CAMH, 2016). Social acceptance is a priority for the adolescent age group, thus leading
the majority of them to SNS platforms. Not all behaviour on these platforms is positive for
teenagers, as cyberbullying is linked to depression and low self-esteem (Hamm et al., 2015;
Patchin & Hinduja, 2010a; Vaillancourt, Faris & Mishna, 2016; Tokunaga, 2010). In some
extreme cases, suicidal thoughts and behaviours are a resulting factor of socializing online
(Patchin & Hinduja, 2010b; Pingault & Schoeler, 2017; Nikolaou, 2017). This link between
online communication and mental health presents the potential hazards of adolescents using
technology. Youth are also inundated with access to various sources of information on the
internet and can be influenced by inappropriate content including high-risk behaviour and
43
substance use (O’Keeffe & Clarke-Pearson, 2011). The alluring nature of digital technologies
provides entertainment for adolescents, often through gaming. A study by Salguero and Moran
(2002) found dependency behaviours, similar to substance use and gambling, indicated when
youth excessively played video games, and another study equates gaming behaviour with
addiction (Grusser, Thalemann, & Griffiths, 2007). These technologically influenced adverse
conditions on adolescent mental health suggest the importance of further investigation.
Despite the evidence of the damaging nature of technology on youth mental health, there
is research that presents the affordances of technology. Concerning a teen’s social nature, there
is evidence of interactions in online environments has allowed them to experience closeness with
friends (Valkenburg & Peter, 2007). Grieve et al. (2013) found that the feeling of social
connectedness created on social media decreased anxiety and depression, and improved
contentment in life. In addition to connecting with peers, at this point in their young lives, youth
look to digital means (i.e., on SMS) of expressing themselves and discovering identity (Ong et
al., 2011; Spies Shapiro & Margolin, 2014; Boyd, 2014). The interactions of youth online have
been found to positively connect virtually to real-world empathy (Carrier, Spradlin, Bunce, &
Rosen, 2015). Interactive applications and games also contribute to building relationships with
others, along with providing youth with enjoyment. In one study, teenage males felt that playing
games led to stronger friendships, and also more youth reported feeling relaxed and happier, than
those who felt angry or frustrated when they play (Lenhart, 2015). The aforementioned research
suggests the advantages of technology for adolescent mental health, which implies that
technology provides a platform to leverage positive changes in mental health.

44
There is evidence that teenagers are affected in various ways when using technology,
though there is no conclusion whether technological use is beneficial or detrimental for their
mental health. O’Keeffe et al. (2011) highlight that, parents do not recognize their child’s online
life being extended forms of their offline lives. Thus, further exploration of technology use on
adolescents’ mental health can identify areas of potential risks and benefits, which can inform
suggestions for beneficial use and assist educators in determining what instructional technology
is beneficial in the classroom.
Barriers and Advantages of Instructional Technology Implementation in Schools
While instructional technology has many advantages for student learning, there are also
obstacles to its implementation in schools. Infrastructure, funding, security, policy and the
selection of various devices all present issues that if not planned for extensively, can be
problematic in the school system. To prevent barriers to instructional technology
implementation in schools, Dionicio (2016) observed that schools must plan extensively to create
a comprehensive wifi design. Dionicio (2016) acknowledged that an overloaded system would
not work efficiently no matter how many devices you have. By examining potential barriers and
identifying advantages, schools can better discern systems and hardware necessary for the
successful implementation of instructional technology.
Infrastructure
Technology is everywhere. It is entwined in almost every fibre of our culture. Danny
Mareco (2017) observed that technology influences how we live, work, play, and most
importantly learn see Figure 12. It is this constant use of technology that creates potential issues
45
for the wifi infrastructure in schools. The wifi infrastructure includes a network, access points,
ethernet cabling and directional antennas that all influence the speed and reliability of a school’s
wifi (Dionicio, 2016). Sandvine (2016) reported that in 2016, North American homes had an
average of seven devices actively connected at one time. With the degree of use the
infrastructure is managing, it is no wonder the education system struggles to support the growing
use of the internet in schools. Some schools have incorporated BYOD Bring Your Own Device
programs to implement a ratio of 1:1 computer or mobile device per student. BYOD programs
save funding on the cost of devices, but they require additional bandwidth or a range of
frequencies required to transmit a signal, to support the increase in computing programs.
Advocating for the importance of reliable infrastructures in schools, secretary Duncan reported
that without support we deny students and teachers the tools they need to be successful, and he
declared that that is educationally unsound and morally unacceptable (Secretary Duncan, 2013).
Broadband, which provides higher-speed data transmission connections in schools,
enables students to engage in rich digital learning experiences such as streaming videos, gaming,
and interactive services (US Department of Education, 2014). While the cost of a new
high-speed internet is an issue, there are also other challenges. Planning and configuring the
number of access points is vital. The more mobile devices are connecting, the more significant
number of access points will be required (Yagci, 2017). Besides, access points, switches and an
increase in wiring are also necessary as part of the infrastructure. Cloud-based software has
alleviated some issues of file storage but accessing those cloud-based applications, and software
platforms are still affected by inconsistent wifi bandwidth.

46
An additional challenge is the health risk to students. While most documents focus on the
cost of increased bandwidth as a deterrent, the Canadian Teachers Federation brings up the issue
of potential health risks, especially where young children are affected. The CTF is concerned
about the lack of definitive research regarding the adverse health effects of Wi-Fi radiation
(CTF, 2012). The CTF mandated that decisions regarding exposure to Wi-Fi should be based
upon sound science given how new broadband and Wi-Fi is.
Another barrier or concern is the security of wifi in the schools. The network must be
able to determine who is who so that there is role-based access control. Role-based access
control limits access to people based on their profile in the directory see Figure 13. With BYOD
breaking traditional security as it can create issues of peer to peer networking coming from a
valid IP address. Schools require application visibility to show what activity is happening on the
network. This application visibility will show peer to peer activity, social sharing, learning apps
and will then control which applications users have permission to use based on their role in the
organization (Wainright, A., 2014).
While some current barriers or situations provide challenges to instructional technology
implementation, as they are acknowledged they are also being remedied in the quick pace of
technology innovation. As the infrastructure grows and changes, it becomes necessary to address
issues of policy and communication.
Policy and Communication
As the use of technology expands, schools require more resources to support the learning
community in the integration of instructional technology. Technical support and training for the
users of the infrastructure is key to ensuring success. Policies including Responsible Use and
47
Protection for Student Privacy and Data are vital. Technological advancement changes rapidly,
therefore, the need for updates at the school level is constant. The Guidance Document for the
Provision of Wireless Network Installations created by the Department of Education and Skills
in Offaly, Ireland (2016) suggested the importance of creating a communications plan that can
assist all stakeholders to be involved in decisions. This communications plan would allow all
parties to understand and accept the overall objectives along with the challenges and benefits.
Leadership teams in schools can prevent technology infrastructure issues by creating
short term and long term strategic technology plans. Technological infrastructure is just one
element of educational transformation. The use of the infrastructure should be guided by clear
goals and effective planning, which require that stakeholders in the system act and plan together
(US Department of Education, 2014). The US Department of Education (2014) document used
to clarify the use of technology in teaching and learning, advocated to stress the importance of
considerations for digital learning resources, staff professional development and investigated
other implementation issues such as device selection, responsible use policies, privacy, and
security associated with creating effectively connected schools.
Funding
Improving the infrastructure in schools and keeping pace with the continuous
development of instructional technology is extremely costly. Based on an analysis by Education
SuperHighway and the Consortium for School Networking, Nagel (2014) reported that the cost
of Wi-Fi in schools in the United States is $800 million per year. For schools to accommodate
the costs of instructional technology implementation, a Strategic Technology Plan must be in
place. This Strategic Technology Plan, similar to what the Toronto District School Board has in
48
place, would cover maintenance, operations, training needs and the implementation of all
technology projects. The TDSB had created a Years of Action Plan with the goal of equipping all
schools with WiFi by 2016 (TDSB, 2019). This goal was completed and contains Wi-Fi user
access with a ratio of one access point per fifty students.
In 2012 a PBS national survey reported that 63% of teachers in the United States
confirmed that lack of funding was a barrier to instructional technology implementation in the
classroom. Gonzalez (2012) confirmed that teachers in lower income communities cited an even
more significant barrier at 70%. In order to provide a financial remedy, it is crucial to determine
where the funding issues lie.
There is substantial research to support that students with resources at a 1:1 ratio will
succeed at a higher rate (Keengwe et al. 2012; Lui & Szabo, 2009; Seifried, Lenhard, Baier &
Spinath, 2012). The National Assessment of Educational Progress observed in 1992 that student
performance was influenced significantly by the ratio of books per student in their school
libraries (Krashen, 1995). In schools where there was a higher book-to-student ratio, both
nationally and in California, their achievement scores surpassed other schools significantly
(Krashen, 1997). The issues of 1:1 ratio discussed with regards to books translates directly to
instructional technology as students develop new media literacy skills on devices. Students in
2019 must learn to navigate, research, and evaluate information using instructional technology.
Without regular access to the tools or the experience and instruction required to develop those
new media literacy skills, these students are at a disadvantage.
Where funding is a concern, some schools have moved toward Bring Your Own Device
(BYOD). Afreen, (2014) reported that while BYOD has cost-cutting benefits schools may be
49
confronted with a network infrastructure issue since the requirements will need to accommodate
the additional number of devices and confirm that the infrastructure is appropriately secure.
Funding to purchase equipment and infrastructure is only part of the successful
implementation of instructional technology in schools. Another prominent consideration is that
of teacher training. Tyler-Wood, Cockerham & Johnson, (2018) suggested that new school
technology does not ensure teacher understanding or student learning therefore for school
technology implementation to be successful, significant planning, teacher training, and resources
must be in place. Lambert and Gong (2010) observed that preparing teachers to use instructional
technology in the classroom requires more than just being familiar with the technology; teachers
must learn how to implement best the technology to help students develop relevant skills.
Up-to-date teacher training on instructional technology is another obstacle to consider.
Training for teachers which occurs during the school day also incurs the cost of replacement
teachers. Training scheduled after school hours cannot be a requirement. Therefore, not all
teachers will receive the training. Professional development days or a staff meeting time is a
potentially viable option to build into a schools Strategic Technology Plan. Another option to
consider is setting up teacher leaders in the schools to support instructional technology training
within each school. Finally, as mentioned in previous literature, teacher acceptance is a factor to
consider in the implementation process.
While instructional technology is costly, having a Strategic Technology Plan in place can
eliminate the obstacles of funding. It is also vital that the technology plan include the many areas
that require funding such as infrastructure, equipment, maintenance and teacher training.
50
Desktop Computers
When considering how the funds in a strategic technology plan should be distributed,
investigating the most appropriate hardware is crucial. In the classroom setting desktop
computers are mainly used for the teacher to project instructions or lessons instead of writing on
the board. This method of using the desktop computer offers a strategy for the whole class to stay
together on lesson topics and learn at the teacher’s pace as a large group. The teacher computer
may also be used to project student work or projects so the whole class can see. Most
classrooms have only a few desktop computers, and therefore, in terms of student use, they could
be valuable in small group settings, individual self-paced work or to embellish the other devices
in the room, so each student has instructional technology to use. With features to create text
documents, download pictures, research on the internet and watch videos or follow tutorials, the
desktop computer is still a valuable asset in the classroom. Also, the desktop computer usually
has the greatest hard drive memory and power making it more useful for downloading large files
and powerful video editing while also offering a larger screen size. Finally, the hard-wired
connection which has permanently connected circuits is sometimes more reliable for
connectivity than that of a portable device (Meyer. L., 2014).
Tschirgi (2009) suggested that obstacles to using desktop computers in the classroom
could be a slower operating system while the newer devices connect to wi-fi or the fact that they
are not portable and confine students to a single location to work. Taking pictures or recording
video is also more cumbersome with a desktop computer than a portable device like an iPad or
smartphone.
51
In determining the best hardware for instructional technology in the classroom, schools
must consider the purpose and intended outcome for the use of the hardware. Reviewing the
functions and costs of portable devices including laptops and iPads will help determine the needs
of the school. Tschirgi (2009) recognized that educators should consider other factors such as
equitable access, classroom space and sustainability.
Laptops
Another consideration for hardware used to implement instructional technology in the
classroom is the laptop which is a portable computer that has the same functionality as a
computer or Chromebook which is similar to a laptop except it runs on chrome as its operating
system and usually has a smaller amount of hard drive storage. Laptops allow for increased
notetaking and engagement in online course materials because of the ease and speed of
note-taking (Samson, 2010; Saunders & Klemming, 2003; Zhu, E., Kaplan, M., Dershimer, R.
C., & Bergom, I. (2011). Fried (2008) reported that laptops assist in student-teacher interaction
and increased rates of in-class participation and motivation of students because of their
portability and flexibility. In the Canadian school system Chromebooks are leading the way with
43% of Canadian schools using both the Chromebook hardware and the cloud-based GSuite for
Education (Bout, B., 2017). The Chromebooks are regarded, by the Toronto District School
Board, Edmonton Public Schools and the Upper Grand School District Board as easy to use and
affordable (Bout, B., 2017).
In higher education, there is a concern regarding laptop use taking students off task by
browsing for non-course related items. Hembrooke & Gay (2003) observed in a controlled study
that students with open laptops remembered less lecture content than those with closed laptops.
52
To prevent student disengagement when using laptops, Kay & Lauricella, (2011), suggested in
their article Unstructured vs. Structured Use of Laptops in Higher Education that faculty should
use engaging learning activities and avoid passive instructional methods such as reading from
slides. Kay & Lauricella (2011) also recommended inviting students to engage in creating an
agreement of technology use in class.
While there is a potential risk of students straying off task, the lower cost and portability
has proven to be an incentive for the laptop or Chromebook to be considered valid for
instructional technology implementation in the classroom.
iPads
Another flexible, portable and user-friendly device to consider when examining the best
hardware for instructional technology implementation in the classroom is the iPad. iPads provide
a significant number of positive uses in the classroom and many reasons for being the chosen
hardware. One of the most attractive reasons for schools to use iPads in the classroom is
affordability. The cost of iPads is significantly lower than the cost of laptops or desktop
computers assisting schools to achieve a 1:1 ratio for students. Other benefits of iPads include
reading books online, accessibility functions, seamless transfer of assignments from student to
teacher digitally and a staggering number of educational applications (Catapano, J., n.d.). Maich
& Hall, (2016) reported that iPads can improve classroom learning but it is important to note that
the learning only improved in classrooms where teachers have trained on iPad use and how to
implement engaging and interactive activities and consequently guided more project-based
learning. Project-based learning, which promotes student learning by applying knowledge and
53
using skills in an engaging experience, has been found to improve student learning across grade
levels (Cheu-Jay, 2015).
While iPads have many advantages, there are also some disadvantages to consider. iPads
usually don’t hold their charge as long a laptop, they can be distracting; a computer is still
required for many functions, the potential for wi-fi issues and teacher comfort level. Also, iPads
do not have a USB port creating a limitation of data storage and transfer and do not support the
flash player (Wainright, A., 2012). So while iPads boast many positives, they may need to be
used in conjunction with a desktop computer at times, and teachers must carefully plan activities
to garner useful educational benefits.
Cloud-Based
Cloud-based educational tools are becoming increasingly popular. For group projects,
cloud-based programs allow for multiple contributors to work at the same time. Cloud-based
webcam features allow students to work with peers and experts internationally without any
additional cost beyond the internet or wifi connection. Many classroom management programs
are cloud-based and allow teachers and students to connect, hand in assignments and collect data
from anywhere, digitally (Fort, A. 2014). Most of the tools referred to in this paper are
cloud-based and allow for the flexibility, portability and seamless connection from a device to a
device that cloud-based tools offer. Bengfort, J. (2016) suggests that ease of use and
mobile-friendly applications expand the borders of the brick-and-mortar classroom and
consequently create more learning opportunities in the classroom.
Google for Education continues to lead the way with cloud-based technologies and
platforms for education in North America. The Gsuites technology allows seamless syncing
54
between devices and multiple learners collaborating. The applications and tools all sync easily
from one to another through google drive. Google classroom allows students to easily hand in
assignments and receive lesson plans, instructions and even assessments. Google for Education
assist schools by offering educational pricing on Chromebooks which are a lightweight laptop.
While the Chromebooks have limited hard drive storage, it does not matter because Google
Suites is allowing everyone to work in the cloud.
One consideration of the cloud-based technologies in the classroom is that of security.
The programs are online, and this makes them less secure and consequently more vulnerable
than the standard paper and pencil teaching systems. While many of these programs adhere to the
most advanced level of encryption, even with parents and teachers taking every precaution, there
is still the possibility that hackers taking backdoors could steal and exploit student information
(Fort, A. 2014). Google for Education, however, maintains that students are using a completely
secure network in their Google platform (Google Privacy and Security, n.d.).
Part Three: Process

Process for Identifying Literature
Literature
The selection of resources used in the literature review has included scholarly articles
paired with current references from professionals in education and instructional technology
implementation (Fried, 2008; Meyer, 2014; Maich & Hall, 2016). The review of literature on the
implementation of instructional technology in the classroom and the consideration of policy,
barriers and the advantages of instructional technology have uncovered common themes.
55
Policymakers and stakeholders for education see technology and digital literacy as an
essential part of relevant learning for students. Evidence lies in the policies and documents. In
Canada the C21 document, the United States Department of Education Plan 2014 and the Europe
2020 Strategy, there are policies in place to ensure that young people have the opportunity to
gain valuable skills with instructional technology. The ability to provide critical thinking,
creativity and collaboration through instructional technology is substantial (Bengfort, J, 2016;
Wilms, Friesen & Milton, 2009)
The research finds that while infrastructure capabilities and bandwidth or connectivity
issues are sometimes a barrier to technology in the classroom, teacher training is a more
significant barrier (Tyler-Wood, T., Cockerham, D., & Johnson, K, 2018). Teachers now feel
like they have the resources at their disposal, but many are not comfortable with the programs or
do not have the time to restructure their lessons (Lambert & Gong 2010). There are also still
some valid concerns with BYOD. Is it helpful for providing a 1:1 ratio for students and devices
or are they distracting and encouraging phone addictions (Sapparano, 2014; Neilson & Webb,
2012; Soskill 2012; Chrisafis, 2018). There are also still concerns regarding mental health. The
results determining whether technology is beneficial or detrimental is inconclusive (Okeefe et al.
2011).
Some of the positive aspects of technology implementation include the vast options for
differentiated learning (Thoeming, B. 2017; Khan, S. 2012). Self-paced learning is also a viable
option (Keengwe et al., 2012; Lui & Szabo, 2009; Seifried, Lenhard, Baier, & Spinath, 2012).
Moreover, learners have the option for accessibilities like voice to text, translators or speech
readers. The applications and tools are also becoming increasingly user-friendly, portable and
56
they sync easily from device to device which streamlines projects (Fort, A., 2014). Assessment
and feedback are readily available to students using many different tools and applications. There
is also substantial evidence that when implemented with trained teachers and to embellish the
lesson not take over the lesson, technology can offer students many benefits for curricular
engagement (McMullen, L., 2012; Chowdhry, 2015).
The consultation of Theories of implementation and theories of learning design has
helped to shape a framework for effective instructional technology implementation (Davis, 1989;
Rogers, 1962; Power, 2013; Mishra & Koehler, 2006). And, curricular documents from
provinces in Canada and policy documents from the governments of Canada, the United States
and Europe align with the other literature reviewed.
Discussion of Teacher Personal Observations
To better understand the potential obstacles of instructional technology implementation in
the classroom I have spent time working with teachers in the role of a technology leader in the
schools I have taught in over the past three years. During this time I have observed that there is a
vast range of comfort and ability level of teachers when it comes to using instructional
technology in the classroom.While the literature review in this project reveals that funding and
support for technology have increased at an exponential rate over the past five years, there is still
hesitancy among teachers with regards to using instructional technology to enhance classroom
learning. Funding in local school districts has included instructional technology packages for
classrooms. These instructional technology packages include whiteboards, built-in screens and
attachments to desktop or laptop computers. Also, there is regular availability for class sets of
57
iPads and Chromebooks in schools. The wifi infrastructure is robust and covers all areas in most
schools.
Still, teachers are not feeling confident implementing instructional technology in the
classroom. Some teachers are comfortable doing simple things within Google suites, but most
teachers are not even touching the surface of the projects, inquiry, collaboration and class
engagement from game-based learning that is possible. Based on my personal observations of
teachers through working with them on technology in various schools the two main reasons they
are still not feeling confident with instructional technology are time and comfort level. Teachers
are offered in-services after hours where it is necessary to give of their own time to expand their
learning. The other time-related issue is that an experienced teacher likely has a bevy of
handouts, resources and lesson plans that they have always used. Teachers indicated that it is
uncomfortable to have to learn a new tool or application, input all the resources, curricular
content or data and then not be a hundred percent sure of the outcome. When teachers multiply
that task by including numerous different instructional tools to learn and a whole year of content
they find it overwhelming.
To understand the feelings of teachers and the needs of the school and school board with
regards to instructional technology in the of technology leader at my school, I have been offering
lunch and learns to share my knowledge. During the lunch and learns, it was evident that it is
essential to demonstrate the tool in simple terms and have teachers try it as a student and then
create content as a teacher. Teachers need to leave having experienced both student and teacher
formats in order to enhance the possibility of using it in front of students. When demonstrating
Kahoot for example, it was helpful to create a quick game as an icebreaker. The icebreaker game
58
allowed the group to gain comfort while the facilitator could survey teacher comfort level both
with instructional technology and the web based tool. Then as a group, it worked well to create
teacher accounts and have each teacher create their own Kahoot. Showing teachers pre-created
templates for their subject area made the learning curve even more manageable.
In working with teachers, it was observed that creating simple strategies for the teachers
to explore, practice and learn new tools is imperative to the successful implementation of
instructional technology in the classroom. Teachers should experience the tool as a student and
as a teacher to understand more clearly what their students will be asked to do. Finally, when
teachers learn and work together in groups they share experiences and collaborate on ideas and
strategies to help each other which benefits the entire process.
Theoretical Framework
Pairing the aforementioned teacher feedback and experience with theoretical framework
for pedagogy and technology helps to scaffold implementation of instructional technology more
effectively. Research in the past involving technology inventions in classrooms compared the
performance of students with and without computers (Thompson, Simonson, & Hargrave, 1996).
Through an evolution of instructional technology interventions researchers have found that there
are uncontrollable variables that affect such a process. This evolution of instructional technology
interventions has encouraged qualitative studies which examine what affects the interaction of
technology between student and teacher (Selwyn, 1997, 2002; Forsythe & MacKinnon, 2005;
Roblyer, 2005). With this knowledge theoretical frameworks have been developed to explain
more clearly what works and why it works in terms of instructional technology implementation.
59
These frameworks drive pedagogy, technology and content independently while the established
interactions of each continue to occur.
This paper will examine Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK),
Collaborative Situated Active Mobile learning design strategies (CSAM) and the Universal
Design for Learning (UDL). These three theoretical frameworks most closely align with the
objective of this paper, to determine best practices for instructional technology implementation.
TPACK
The initial factor, for the successful and most effective integration of instructional
technology by the teacher, can be described most efficiently by the TPACK framework which
was developed by Mishra and Koehler (2006). This framework helps us to understand the
relationship of three crucial components of teacher knowledge: technology, pedagogy, and
content. TPACK assists the process of understanding the complex interaction of those
relationships and the expertise required to get them all to interact in a balanced, compelling way.
Deciphering and understanding the Venn diagram of TPACK is helpful to evaluate the
diagram’s effectiveness particularly the spheres that pertain to technology. Technology

60
knowledge (TK) pertains to the teacher’s awareness of different instructional technologies and
their usage. Technology knowledge is a delicate area to stay on top of as instructional technology
is so rapidly changing. The next sphere is Technological content knowledge (TCK) which
defines the teacher’s understanding of content exploration through instructional technology. One
of the most challenging sections is the technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) which
examines the teacher’s knowledge of how the application of instructional technology can change
teaching and learning. TPK also considers perceptions of effective instructional technology
implementation. The main intersection which connects teaching and learning, subject matter
expertise and the quickly changing view of instructional technology is technological
pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK).
When evaluating the TPACK framework as a measurement tool, it is worthy to
acknowledge that there is research that connects teacher knowledge and the self-efficacy of a
teacher (Abbitt, 2011; Ertmer 2005). Self-efficacy or a teacher’s belief in themselves could be a
barrier to integrating technology in classrooms because of the level of confidence a teacher has
either using or choosing a tool (Abbitt, 2011)
CSAM
CSAM or Collaborative Situated Active Mobile learning design strategies, designed by
Power (2013) is a theoretical framework which uses key pedagogical elements to guide
instructional designs for the use of mobile reusable learning objects to encourage collaborative
learner interaction.
61
When using this design strategy, collaboration is critical. The mobile learning design
must allow the opportunity to collaborate. Being situated in a real and meaningful context is also
vital in this design. The real-world context makes it more relevant and fun for the students. The
design must also allow for interactivity. Learners must have a way to use the content learned
actively and engagingly. Finally, the design must also allow for mobility and be free from the
structure of the traditional classroom. Using mobile devices to answer questions or play an
interactive classroom game is fun and engaging for students.
CSAM and its learning strategies framework was developed based on influences from
Koole's (2009) Framework for the Rational Analysis of Mobile Education (FRAME) model. The
considerations for CSAM in learning design is relevant for teachers when implementing
instructional technology in the classroom. The key elements used in this framework are
transferable to use in the classroom and consultation will help teachers more effectively design
learning materials which include instructional technology.
Universal Design for Learning
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a pedagogy approach to assist all learners to find
success. There are also unique benefits for students with learning and attention issues.
62
Incorporating UDL principles into the course during its design and development lays the
foundation with learning outcomes, activities, assessments, and teaching methods that improve
accessibility for all learners (Rose & Meyer, 2002)
There are three critical elements of the design, and they are representation, action and
expression and engagement. Amanda Morin (n.d.) explains that representation could include
more than one format. These formats could include text, video, audio and active, hands-on
learning and allowing the student to pursue the material is the best way for their learning style
and strength. Action and expression allow the student to engage and interact with the material in
more than one way. Students also have the opportunity to show what they have learned in
multiple ways from a written test to a group project. The third element is engagement. UDL
promotes multiple strategies for motivating students. Encouraging student to make choices and
63
having them complete assignments and projects they feel are relevant to their lives and personal
interests are part of this component.
Web-Based Tools and Applications
To effectively implement instructional technology in the classroom it is essential to have
an understanding of what a web-based learning tool is and then have the ability to assess the tool
based on instructional design principles and theoretical learning theory foundations. Kay (2009)
described a web-based learning tool (WBLT) as an interactive instructional technology tool that
supports the learning of concepts by enhancing the cognitive processes of learners. Kay (2009)
observed that in order to assess the value of a WBLT for learning and teaching, significant
evaluation of instructional design principles and foundational learning theories should take place
along with an analysis of the WBLT’s ability to provide interactivity, engagement, ease of use
and an aesthetically pleasing design. Clark and Mayer (2011) created instructional design
principles based on how people learn best. These principles include Multimedia, Contiguity,
Modality, Redundancy, Coherence, Personalization, Segmenting and Pre-training See Figure.
Kay (2009), also argued that the WBLT should have a significant application of foundational
learning theories. Foundational learning theories include Behaviorism, Situated Learning, Social
Learning, Experiential Learning, Social Development theory and the ARC Model of
Motivational Design (Clark and Mayer, 2011).
In the review of WBLT’s to accompany this paper, there was consideration for theory,
design and alignment with current school board practice. The ease of implementation for
teachers is significant and therefore an important consideration. To provide strategies for
meaningful and useful implementation of instructional technology in the classroom, this paper
64
and the accompanying website offers a wide selection of web-based learning tools from which to
choose.
Web Based Tech Tools for Teachers
The accompanying website for this paper can be found at
https://webbasedtechtools4teachers.weebly.com. Organization of the WBLT's is by appropriate
use in the classroom based on four main themes. These themes include tools for assessment,
tools for presentation, tools for collaboration and tools for game-based learning. The WBLT's
discussed have common transferable features. These features include offering differentiated
learning, accessibilities, real-time feedback or assessment, enhancing student engagement and
being user-friendly for both teacher and student. The website is inclusive of this project paper.
The website offers other references and additional facilities to master tool development
and tool implementation. While the primary focus for the creation of the website was on use for
school districts in Victoria B.C., Canada, there are universal applications in terms of tool set.
65
Tools for Assessment
Educators often use the terms formative assessment and summative assessment to
describe the evaluation of data collection and feedback to the learner. Formative assessment,was
defined by Bell & Cowie (2010), as the procedure used by teachers and students to recognize and
respond to student learning in order to enhance said learning, during the learning. The findings
indicate that teachers use two kinds of formative assessment, planned and interactive (Bell, B.,
Cowie, B., 2010).
Summative assessment usually takes place after students have completed units of work or
modules at the end of each term. It is pointed out by Harlen & James (2006) that the assessment
requirements for formative and summative purposes can differ in reliability, the reference base of
judgements and the focus of the information used. Taras (2010) argued that all assessment is, in
fact, summative which is a conclusion or judgement. Taras (2010), maintained that formative
assessment is a summative assessment which includes feedback that can be used by the learner.
The tools in this section have been chosen based on observed effectiveness in the
classroom and school district alignment. The web-based learning tools organized by their most
prominent use supplies the accompanying website. The following are the web-based learning
tools best suited for assessment.
FreshGrade. FreshGrade
(https://webbasedtechtools4teachers.weebly.com/fresh-grade.html) is an assessment tool which
allows parents to become fully engaged in their child’s progress at school through a digital
portfolio. Parents are given a window into the classroom through uploaded video, images, test
scores and rubrics. Teachers and Parents have portfolio access to the student’s work. The
66
FreshGrade tool helps teachers give more personal and meaningful feedback that parents can
view at any time convenient to them. The system is easy for teachers to capture student work on
a phone or iPad. The cloud-based system makes it simple for parents to understand their child’s
progress and work with the teacher as a collaborative team for student learning.
As an assessment tool, the personalization Freshgrade provides to students and parents is
valuable. The use of conversational voice and personalization within the database for each
student aligns this tool with the Personalization Principle (Clark & Mayer, 2011). Keller (2016)
ARC Model Theory is evident in the engaging and real-world format Freshgrade delivers.
Freshgrade tracks progress and then provides supportive feedback aligning with the ARC Model.
The Multimedia Principle detected throughout the application demonstrates student learning
through video, visual images and sound (Clark & Mayer, 2011).
Google Forms. Google Forms
(https://webbasedtechtools4teachers.weebly.com/google-forms.html) is a web-based learning tool
used to collect, organize and analyze assessment data. This assessment allows for different styles
of questioning or reflecting through multiple choice, checkboxes, short answer, fill in the blanks
and even matching. This diversity in questioning encourages thinking skills such as
metacognition and problem-solving. The instructor can pre-train individual sections or topics as
well as practice using specific information. This style of assessment supports student learning by
allowing the assessment data to be collected and used to inform instruction.
Google Forms adheres to the ARCS Model theory as the customized multimedia forms
encourage learners to stay attentive and interact with relevant content. This interaction allows
opportunities for consistent assessment and quick feedback during the process of learning.
67
Google Forms can also build confidence and satisfaction in learners (Keller, 2016). To assess
student content knowledge before a unit of study, as well as support student knowledge
acquisition over a more extended period Practice and Pre-Training Principles can be identified
(Clark & Mayer, 2011). Finally, when using a Google Form, students can work at their own pace
and use navigational supports, such as headings and web buttons to move forward in their
learning supporting the Learner Control Principle (Clark & Mayer, 2011).
Mentimeter. Mentimeter
(https://webbasedtechtools4teachers.weebly.com/mentimeter.html) is an interactive web-based
tool which can help students become more actively involved during a lecture. Mentimeter is
versatile in its operating system and can be used on a mobile phone, tablet or laptop allowing
students to answer questions or react to a statement anywhere at any time. This web-based tool
includes everyone's feedback by showing the results in real time while participants are voting.
The data then generates an attractive word cloud which students can share and keep. Using
mentimeter teachers can quiz, generate responses to brainstorm and create collaboratively, or
pre-test knowledge to involve student in instructional planning. The application is completely
cloud-based giving further versatility to its use and not requiring data storage.
Mentimeter adheres to the Social Development Theory in its ability to guide the learner
through feedback, discussion through open-ended questions and level based adjustments through
the learning process (Vygotsky, 1980). Mentimenter also demonstrates Keller (2016), ARCS
Model of Motivational Design with an engaging, real-world design which tracks progress and
provides feedback. Finally, Mentimeter offers the ability to pre-train and segment learning
68
through the platform's quizzes and multiple choice questions, therefore, justifying both the
Pre-training and Segmenting Principles (Clark & Mayer, 2011)
Tools for Presentation
Many educators are using web-based, presentational tools as a means for students to
showcase their work and provide a summative assessment. By definition, a web-based,
presentational tool is usually a slideshow, website or video presentation created from a slideshow
which can be played or viewed using a web browser. These programs are used to display
information and must have three main functions. They must allow text to be inserted and
formatted; there must be a method for inserting and manipulating images and a way to display
the content (Aggarwal, S., 2013).
This paper will discuss a bevy of useful presentational tools used for educational
purposes in the classroom to assist students to showcase their work and present a learning
artifact.
Google Slides. Google Slides
(https://webbasedtechtools4teachers.weebly.com/google-slides.html)i s a cloud-based
presentation editor in the Google Drive Suite. Creation of the slides occurs in linear order with
the ability to rotate as necessary. It offers real-time collaboration between users as well as
options to share or link the presentations. The slide presentations are based in the cloud and
associated with a Google account, so users and co-editors of Google Slides have continuous
access to them on any laptop, device or computer without the use of a flash drive. Also, a
revision history is kept, allowing editors to access any version of the presentation in the past.
69
Google Slides keeps a log of who made which edits. Finally, Google Slides can be converted to
different formats (such as PowerPoint or PDF) and PowerPoint presentations are editable.
Google Slides adheres to the Constructivism Theory, The Connectivism Theory and the
Collaborative Learning Principle. Students demonstrate the Constructivism Theory when they
construct knowledge instead of passively receiving it. Using the Constructivism Theory, learners
are more likely to retain information. Students creating slides must first gather research and
knowledge and then use critical thinking to highlight the essential parts and creativity to build
the presentation. Google Slides is a collaborative tool where students must connect and
collaborate to show their learning. Google Slides adheres to the Connectivism Theory as
connections are made using this instructional technology (Siemens, G., 2005). Also, as
knowledge is constructed to reach a common goal, the Collaborative Learning Principle is
highlighted (Clark & Mayer, 2011).
Adobe Spark. Adobe Spark
(https://webbasedtechtools4teachers.weebly.com/adobe-spark.html) is a web based and cloud
based tool that allows students and teachers to create visually effective videos, slide shows and
posts. Adobe Video has features to add text, images, background music and voiceover. All of the
Spark tools sync from device to device allowing for a single student to use many devices or for a
group to collaborate and work together. The system is user friendly and intuitive. This free tool
can help students create a polished project used for summative assessment in any subject area.
Adobe Spark is an example of Situated Learning. The Situated Learning Theory applies
as Adobe Spark can involve role-playing, case studies and communities of practice (Lave, 1988).
70
The Multimedia Principle, which mandates that people learn better from words and pictures than
from words alone is also evident in this video platform (Clark & Mayer, 2011).
Weebly. Weebly (https://webbasedtechtools4teachers.weebly.com/weebly.html) is a free
web-hosting service which offers a "drag and drop" website creator. This web-based learning
tool allows educators to create a unique website using free templates which are easy to use and
intuitive in their design. As a foundation site, a multitude of other online learning platforms can
enhance Weebly through hyperlinks and connections. Weebly is easy to access on devices which
connect to the internet and allow fluid collaboration capabilities.
Weebly offers many multimedia features which learners and instructors can incorporate
to retain and retrieve information from a variety of avenues. Weebly is an example of the
Multimedia Principle (Clark & Mayer, 2011). Weebly also allows for a collaborative space on
the website through blogs where learners can post and comment. This collaborative space
supports the Collaborative Learning Principle (Clark & Mayer, 2011).
Powtoon. Powtoon (https://webbasedtechtools4teachers.weebly.com/powtoon.html) i s a
web-based and cloud-based animation software that allows students and teachers to create
professional looking presentations quickly and easily. The software features an easy to use and
understand "drag and drop" style templates. Students can also build their video by manipulating
pre-created objects, music, voiceover and imported images. The animation features make this a
very engaging presentation tool for teachers providing a lesson and for students demonstrating
their learning. The cloud-based features allow users to move from device to device with their
work seamlessly synced. This application is free to create videos under three minutes in length.
There are purchase options for longer videos and additional features.
71
Powtoon adheres to the Multimedia Principle (Clark & Mayer, 2011) because of the
multimedia style format it uses for learning and teaching. The pre-training principle is also
evident in this web-based learning tool as teachers can create videos using the tool to pre-train
students in any subject area (Clark & Mayer, 2011). Finally, the segmenting principle could also
be used in conjunction with Powtoon as the tool makes it easy to create segmented lesson chunks
(Clark & Mayer, 2011).
Screencastify. Screencastify
(https://webbasedtechtools4teachers.weebly.com/screencastify.html) is an extension for Google
Chrome that allows the user to record their screen for the purpose of tutorials, demonstrations
and even assessment. This cloud based tool will screencast slide shows while allowing the video
creator to speak with voiceover or web image. The program includes tools to spotlight or draw
on the screen to further demonstrate a point. Screencastify is easy to use and seamlessly syncs
completed videos with youtube and google drive. As an assessment tool, the instructor can
specifically speak to points in a student essay by circling or showing on the screen and using
voiceover to explain.
Screencastify is a useful tool for creating video tutorials for students. Use of Pre-training
principle is evident in the WBLT (Clark & Mayer, 2011). Teachers creating tutorials or students
creating project videos can use the Personalization Principle by using a conversational tone and
text that personalizes the material (Clark & Mayer, 2011). The Social Development Theory
developed by Vygotsky, (1980), could also be applied as Screencastify could allow students to
respond to a question through an online community.

72
YouTube. YouTube (https://webbasedtechtools4teachers.weebly.com/youtube.html) is a
video based, presentational platform. It is free and allows the user to display presentations in an
online forum. This tool allows instructors to create step by step tutorials and connect with other
learning tools to enhance engagement in the classroom. It has privacy controls which allow the
user to select the intended audience. As an assessment tool students have the ability to create
videos and post them for teachers to evaluate. Students are also able to share their work and like
or comment on the work of their peers.
YouTube has the ability to separate complex material into bite sized chunks for
manageable learning as required by the Segmenting Principle (Clark & Mayer 2011). The play
and pause feature which enables students to move at their own pace demonstrates the
Segmenting Principle nicely. In addition, videos could be separated into a number of mini
lessons or larger videos with many small segments of instruction to avoid cognitive overload.
Another significant benefit to YouTube is the ability to “pre-train” students by giving key
concepts and information beforehand. The Pre-Training Principle suggests that prior to a
complex lesson, teachers can reduce overwhelming information overload by pre-training (Clark
& Mayer 2011).YouTube videos allow instructors to provide that pre-training prior to a lesson.
YouTube also adheres to the Personalization Principle as learners can create their own videos
and personalize all aspects of the video.
Tools for Collaboration
Vygotsky (1978) reminded us that within the development of a child each function
appears twice. The first is social and the second is individual. This interpsychological plane or
connection between other people is essential to encourage inquiry and growth in our learners.
73
Therefore the opportunity for students to collaborate in education is paramount. This section will
include web-based tools and applications that have useful qualities for encouraging collaboration
in the classroom.
Collaboration, defined by Merriam Dictionary as working jointly with others or together
especially in an intellectual endeavour, provides us with the parameters. Many web-based tools
allow for student collaboration using technology. Within this paper and accompanying website is
a selection of some tools that have been recommended by other educators and proven to be
effective, engaging and easy to use in the classroom.
AnswerGarden. Answergarden
https://webbasedtechtools4teachers.weebly.com/answergarden.html is a minimalistic web-based
feedback tool. This tool allows instructors or conference presenters to gain valuable feedback
from a group quickly. Teachers can quickly gauge the knowledge level of a class in an
interactive and fun way. Answergarden is also a great tool to use as an icebreaker for a group. It
is easy for everyone to get involved and allows anonymity for students less likely to raise a hand
to contribute. The AnswerGarden grows in real time as the group adds their responses. It can
then be tweeted or embedded in a website or blog to share. This free tool is cloud-based and
syncs immediately to any devices. There are many opportunities for collaboration in a large
group setting or brainstorming in a small group.
Answergarden adheres to the Social Development Theory through the collaborative
discussion based feedback it generates (Vygotsky, 1980). The Collaborative Learning Principle
is also evident in AnswerGarden as learners work together to reach a common goal (Clark &
Mayer, 2011)
74
Padlet. Padlet (https://webbasedtechtools4teachers.weebly.com/padlet.html) is a
web-based learning tool which allows the student to collaborate in real time using an online
bulletin board. The board allows students to post thoughts and feedback to fuel discussion or
collaborate on research. The storage of information is in a digital space, and group members can
share easily. In addition to text posts, students and teachers can add images, links and videos.
This tool is best used to brainstorm, critique, discover, question and review.
Padlet allows students to share ideas and collaborate to gain insight while stimulating
new ideas which promotes critical thinking. The connection of these ideas with others creates an
online community of learners which adheres to the Connectivism Theory (Siemens, 2005). Using
Padlet, students can learn to construct their knowledge using learned information or experience.
The community of learners has access to the page and the ability to read the comments of others
and view uploaded material. This connection of learners provides the opportunity to build on
discoveries by posting reflections and thoughts throughout the learning process. Padlet also
incorporates the Elaboration Theory which is a design theory that suggests that instructional
materials should be organized from simple to complex and be provided in a meaningful context.
The Elaboration Theory is supported using Padlet through the online method of storing
information which provides the instructor with specific organizational guidelines which overlap
into each lesson (Clark, 2004). Students are introduced to a new topic and then as time goes on,
receive more information.
Flipgrid. Flipgrid (https://webbasedtechtools4teachers.weebly.com/flipgrid.html) is a
web-based learning tool that allows teachers to create"grids" to enable video feedback and
discussion. Students record short video responses to articulate their understanding of a specific
75
topic. Grids are similar to message boards where teachers will ask questions to facilitate deeper
learning and continuing discussions. Sharing grids is easy through a private link that can or
integrate links into any learning platform or website.
Flipgrid supports the Constructivist Theory through the ability to facilitate active and
authentic learning experiences by stimulating collaborative discussions (Liu, C. C., & Chen, I. J.
2010). These discussions encourage critical thinking, the progression of knowledge and
self-reflection. Flipgrid also adheres to the Social Learning Theory as students learn through
interaction with one another and collaborative discussions with a larger social community
(Bandura,1977). Students can share knowledge, self-reflect, ask questions and give feedback.
Finally, the collaborative nature of Flipgrid allows learners to connect, interact, and motivate
other users within a community of learners. This evidence students work together adheres to the
Collaborative Theory (Clark and Mayer, 2011).
Google Docs. Google Docs
(https://webbasedtechtools4teachers.weebly.com/google-docs.html) is a Web-based word
processing program free for students and teachers with education accounts. Google Docs lets
users create web-based documents that anyone in the group can update from any computer or
device, simultaneously. This cloud-based syncing keeps projects streamlined and organized. A
project can have a single doc or many docs in one file. Google Docs effortlessly merges with
other tools in the G Suite allowing the docs to be the basis for presentations, assessment, data
gathering, research and more. Moreover, one of the best features of Google docs is that
documents are all stored in Google's servers which eliminates the worry of losing data from a
hard drive crash or a virus.

76
The collaborative nature of Google Docs lends itself to the Collaboration Principle (Clark
& Mayer, 2011). The ARCS Model of Motivational Design is also evident (Keller, 2016).
Google Docs is engaging through its interaction capabilities; it allows real-world connections
with others, the comment options generates feedback, and the teacher easily tracks progress.
Google Drawings. Google Drawings
(https://webbasedtechtools4teachers.weebly.com/google-drawings.html) allows students to
collaborate and create flowcharts, mind maps, diagrams, concept maps and organizational charts
in real time. This Google developed web-based software is meant for diagramming and is free.
Students can collaborate and use Google Drawings in conjunction with other parts of Google
Suites including Slides and Docs. Placing the drawings in a document or a slide is simple. The
ability to work together and build a diagram or brainstorm the best way to show knowledge is the
essence of collaboration in education. Google Drawings is synced on all devices immediately
and shared quickly.
Google Drawings demonstrates the Multimedia principle as it encourages the creation of
pictures and words in diagrams, concept maps and timelines (Clark & Mayer, 2011). There is
also evidence of Problem Based Learning as teachers can place students in groups to solve a
problem using constructs in Google Drawings (Hmelo-Silver, C. E. 2004).
Tools for Game-Based Learning
In light of the critical importance of student engagement in the classroom, the creators of
instructional technology for the classroom are finding game-based learning to be a valid option.
In 2003, research published by University of Rochester neuroscientists Green & Bavelier (2003)
77
had received national attention for suggesting that playing "action" video and computer games
had the positive effect of enhancing student's visual selective attention. They also suggested that
parents and educators should be aware that video games are quite possibly the best opportunity
to engage students in real learning.
Gamification is a much newer concept than game-based learning. It is about using
elements derived from video-game design, where then deployed in a variety of contexts, rather
than about using individual video game (Perotta, C., Featherstone, G., Aston, H. and Houghton,
E., 2013). Some of the advantages of gamification for learners are the real-time feedback, the
progression of levels and the motivation created by leaderboards and point systems (Pappas, C.,
2015)
Having researched many gamified platforms created for educational purposes I have
created a short list of web-based gamification tools that will assist teachers to enhance
engagement in the classroom.
Kahoot. Kahoot (h ttps://webbasedtechtools4teachers.weebly.com/kahoot.html) is a free
web based tool which allows teachers to gamify their subject area. The technology is used to
give quizzes, facilitate discussion or create surveys. This educational technology allows the
whole class to play a game or respond and learn correct answers all in real time. Multiple choice
questions are projected on the screen and an unlimited amount of students can respond using
tablet, phone or computer. This creates a fun, social environment which emulates a game show.
Kahoot is user friendly, allowing teachers to design multiple-choice quizzes as well as polls and
surveys that populate on-the-spot data. There is also a library of pre-created quizzes teachers are
78
free to use if they don’t have time to create their own. Whole class discussions and quick
instructional decisions are stimulated by polls and quiz questions.
Kahoot applies game related principles to engage and motivate the user or student thus
adhering to Gamification Theory (David, L, 2016). When using Kahoot for the classroom
feedback is readily available to learners to progress. The player control required makes students
feel accountable for the outcomes of their team's progression. Kahoot also encourages a social
connection to ignite collaborative learning. In addition to Gamification, Kahoot also is an
example of the Practice Principle (Clark & Mayer, 2011). Students practice content to achieve
the learning goal. Kahoot uses multimedia to add to engagement and then provides feedback
upon completion. Finally, Kahoot may also allow the instructor to deliver content in smaller,
manageable chunks thus applying the Segmenting Principle (Clark & Mayer, 2011). This
division of complex material avoids overwhelming students with complicated information all at
once. Instead, smaller sections of the content could be pre-trained or segmented for more
effective learning.
Quizlet. Quizlet (https://webbasedtechtools4teachers.weebly.com/quizlet.html) is a
web-based tool which offers an adaptive study plan that allows the learner to personalize
learning by allowing users to create study tools like interactive flashcards, tests and study games.
In "Learn" mode students are guided and able to track progress. Students can also choose their
own "Study" mode where activity content converts from flashcards to matching games. Quizlet
is versatile and portable in its digital interface, and its assessment ability makes it a valuable tool
to enhance classroom learning.

79
Quizlet can be used to learn and memorize facts for a variety of subjects including
languages, history, science, mathematics, literature and geography. Its primary uses demonstrate
the Practice Principle, which suggests the need for practice to achieve the best learning outcomes
(Clark & Mayer, 2011). The principle of Learner Control (Clark & Mayer, 2011) is also evident
as Quizlet provides teachers and learners with a variety of study tools which meet individual
learning and assessment needs. Also, Active Learning is encouraged through gamification of
study material and the ability to earn badges. The incorporation of text and audio through
corresponding diagrams adheres to the Contiguity Principle (Clark & Mayer 2011). The
Pre-training Principle is also evident in the ability to provide critical terms and concepts before
class activities.
Socrative. Socrative (https://webbasedtechtools4teachers.weebly.com/socrative.html) is
an online game based learning tool that allows instructors to create polls, quizzes, play games
and receive feedback from the classroom in real time. The competitive nature of the activities is
engaging and exciting for students. Socrative generates reports of student and class progress for
teachers and students receive immediate feedback.
Socrative offers various ways to quiz students through multiple choice, short answer and
true or false questions. This variety of questioning provides students with the opportunity to
practice contents being taught and is an example of the Practice Principle (Clark & Mayer,
2011). These practice interactions assist students in building skills and knowledge (Clark and
Mayer, 2011). Using Socrative, students can work at their own pace when they complete quizzes.
The learners have the opportunity to determine if they require additional time to answer
questions, this is evidence of the Learner Control Principle (Clark & Mayer, 2011). Finally,
80
social interactions and students learning from each other as they work together in teams and
answering questions together.support the Social Development Theory (Vygotsky, 1980).
Second Life. Second Life
(https://webbasedtechtools4teachers.weebly.com/secondlife.html) is an online environment
which enables students to transport themselves to a virtual learning environment. In this online
world, avatars interact with other avatars and places or objects. Students create their own avatar
in which to travel around the virtual environment.
According to Baker, Wentz and Woods (2009), more than 100 universities in the United
States and other countries rent or own virtual land in Second Life. Instructors utilize these spaces
to hold lectures or meetings with learners, exhibit digital artwork, host music performances,
entertain gatherings, and construct virtual environments. Second Life users can create content in
virtual worlds, including objects, buildings, furnishings, and landscapes. Second Life can be a
meeting site for instructors and learners. Instructors can provide office hours or arrange meeting
times with online learners who otherwise are unable to connect face to face. Instructors can
deliver lectures in Second Life which can be attended by learner avatars. Holding Second Life
lectures can provide purposeful online alternatives for learners who otherwise are unable to
interact face to face with the instructor or each-other.
Second Life adheres to the Situated Learning Theory as it provides simulation and
roleplay while also involving communities of practice (Lave, J., & Wenger, E., 1990). There are
also aspects of Experiential Learning based on the interactivity of cause and effect within the
web-based learning tool (Watkins, M., & Ii, J. M. 2012).

81
Roblox. On May 31, 2018, Roblox
(https://webbasedtechtools4teachers.weebly.com/roblox.html) announced the debut of Roblox
Education, which is an initiative to inspire learners through imagination and creativity through
the access of engaging with educational tools. According to Tofu (2018), Roblox primary focus
has been STEM education. Roblox provides learners with the affordance to learn coding and
design three-dimensional worlds. Tofu (2018) claims that Roblox provides learners with the
opportunity to explore and experiment with their imagination. In the summer of 2018, over 500
coding camps and online programs around the world utilized Roblox Studio to teach learners the
basics of coding, game design, digital citizenship and entrepreneurship. Each summer camp had
a customized course catering to a variety of subject matters and skills. On top of the summer
camps, Roblox invited 45 young developers to their headquarters as part of their summer
Accelerator internship program for a 12-week program. The internship provided learners with
the opportunity to work with product engineers and development relation teams to enhance their
own game and to explore a career in game development. Roblox began as a virtual world and has
now ventured into the realm of virtual reality.
Roblox incorporates Situated Learning, Experiential Learning and Social Development
Theories. The simulations and role-play aspects align with Situated Learning ((Lave, J., &
Wenger, E., 1990). Experiential Learning is evident in the cause and effect interactions
throughout the activities (Watkins, M., & Ii, J. M. 2012). Moreover, the Social Development
Theory is evident as feedback guides the learner and the adjusting of levels based on student
progress. The chat features with other players are also an example of learning through the Social
Development Theory (Vygotsky, 1980).

82
Part Four: Discussion
Discussion
In reviewing the provincial and national policies in Canada the United States and Europe
along with curriculum documents, there is impressive support for the implementation of
instructional technology and 21st-century concepts of learning. Government documents
underline that students must learn to speak and become fluent in the language of technology to
be successful, employable adults. Research indicates that best way to achieve this is practice and
training.
Instructional technology provides the ability to allow collaboration from within a
classroom and enables connections throughout the world. These connections provide access to
experts and stimulate dialogue with people from other cultures and languages. Also, connections
between the use of instructional technology and critical thinking, problem solving and creativity
in students are significant. Self-paced learning and differentiated instruction are other positive
features of instructional technology for students.
While there are still barriers to infrastructure capabilities, connectivity and security,
critical improvements and progress has been made, and those obstacles become smaller each
year. Other barriers include resources and funding for devices and adequate teacher training.
BYOD is a viable option in schools where responsible use plans are in place. Schools are also
finding ways to share devices and Chromebooks to allow a 1:1 student to device ratio. Finding
affordable ways to train teachers and keep their instruction up to date is still a significant
challenge.
83
Teachers trained in the implementation of instructional technology are enhancing student
engagement in the classroom. Students enjoy the interactivity, real-time feedback and connection
with others in their learning. The multimedia aspects of instructional technology assist learners
that may have difficulty visualizing ideas or thoughts when merely reading the text. The
combination of narrated voice-over, images and text reinforce learning. In many of the
web-based tools, students can segment their learning into manageable chunks. Teachers can also
pre-train concepts and key terms using a video, making a curricular unit easier to understand.
Students requiring assistive technologies are finding the implementation of instructional
technology particularly valuable.
Additional considerations are the effect of mental health in students and the general
health of being around waves of Wi-Fi. Finally, while student engagement in the classrooms is
on the rise from the implementation of instructional technology, there is still the possibility of
students not using the devices as intended and surfing the internet, texting or playing games.
The aforementioned literature indicates the positive influence instructional technology
has in the classroom is worth the limited obstacles that are left to overcome.
Part Five: Recommendations
Recommendations
The research conducted for this project reflects that the way instructional technology
implementation takes place in the classroom must be carefully evaluated to be effective.
Teachers that incorporate technology must be comfortable and know the equipment and
resources. The recommendation is that there be further study on the best ways to train teachers
84
and how schools and school boards will fund this training. The training for practicing teachers
will be continual as instructional technology is always changing. The more a teacher practices,
however, and the more fluid and intuitive instructional technology becomes paired with the
transferability of knowledge skills, the easier it will be. The teacher training programs for
educating new teachers must also be responsible for incorporating instructional technology use
into their curriculum.
With the acknowledgement that professionals in other fields are engaging in lifelong
learning and maintain the currency of their skills and with the importance, the education systems
are putting on preparation for the real-world through technology another recommendation is that
teachers are encouraged or required to keep their training up to date with regards to instructional
technology.
The effects of mental health on children and teens using technology is still inconclusive.
There is a need for further study on the mental health of youth and the effects of technology.
While the research highlights positive features for the mental health of youth, there also some
serious concerns related to sexting, cyberbullying and suicide therefore the recommendation is
research preventative measures for students involving parents and counsellors.
Strategies for collaboration, sharing devices and using applications is another area that
would benefit from further study. Therefore the the recommendation would be to gather
documented teacher created resources and bring educators together to brainstorm additional
ideas to support sharing devices while maintaining a controlled classroom.
The ability to access experts through video conferencing and participate in virtual
explorations using special equipment will expand the possibilities available to students through
85
technology. Based on the research in this paper, student cognition through direct experience and
engagement will be greater with more current tools. Therefore, the recommendation would be
that schools continue to fund tools that help students access these learning opportunities in the
digital world that step beyond just computers and devices.
Finally, infrastructure security and the security of G Suites and other applications in the
cloud students use is vital. Parents rely on school boards to ensure that security is in place and
that there is protection for students when using the infrastructure. There appear to be ways that
hackers and intelligent information technology experts still can break security codes and find
backdoor entries therefore the recommendation is that further research be carried out to ensure
schools have properly set up role based infrastructure and security and that students are educated
in digital citizenship and security protection.

86
Appendix
Glossary
Accessibility - products, services or devices designed to support people with disabilities
Alternate Learning Spaces - learning spaces different from traditional classroom, including
changes in set up and furniture as well as virtual learning spaces
Applications - web-based learning tools
BYOD - Bring Your Own Device, Students bring their devices to school to help achieve a 1:1
ratio of student to device
Core Competencies - sets of personal proficiencies
Engagement - participating, involved, sharing
Game Based / Gamification - taking elements of game playing and using them for instruction
Implementation - process of putting a plan into place and executing the plan
Infrastructure - the ICT (Information Communication Technology) network
Web-Based Learning Tools - programs which provide instruction, learning interaction and
feedback to the student
Virtual Reality - a simulated environment which is computer generated
21st Century - set of skills and abilities required to succeed in the age of technology
87
References
Abbitt, J. T. (2011). An Investigation of the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs about
technology integration and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)
among preservice teachers. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(4),
134–143.
Afreen, R. (2014). Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) in Higher Education: Opportunities and
Challenges. International Journal of Emerging Trends & Technology in Computer
Science, 3, 233-236
Aggarwal. S. (2013) Computer Graphics & Multimedia Applications, Unistar Books Pvt. Ltd.
Al-Senaidi, Said & Lin, Lin & Poirot, Jim. (2009). Barriers to adopting technology for teaching
and learning in Oman. Computers & Education. 53. 575-590.
10.1016/j.compedu.2009.03.015.
Anderson, M. & Jiang J. (2018). Teens, social media & technology 2018. In Pew Research
Center. Retrieved from
http://www.pewinternet.org/2018/05/31/teens-social-media-technology-2018/
Baker, S. C., Wentz, R. K., & Woods, M. M. (2009). Using virtual worlds in education: Second
Life as an educational tool. Teaching of Psychology, 36(1), 59-64.
doi:10.1080/00986280802529079
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bell, B., Cowie, R., (1999) A Model of Formative Assessment in Science Education, Assessment
88
in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 6:1, 101-116, DOI:
10.1080/09695949993026
Bengfort, J., (2016), Cloud Use in the Classroom Creates More Learning Opportunities, EdTech
Magazine, Retreived from
https://edtechmagazine.com/higher/article/2016/09/cloud-use-classroom-creates-more-lea
rning-opportunities , January 2019
Bocconi, S., Kampylis, P. & Punie, Y., (2012) Innovating Learning: Key Elements for
Developing Creative Classrooms in Europe, Scientific and Policy Report by the Joint
Research Centre of the European Commission.
Boudrealt, F., (2013) Future Tense, Adapting Canadian Educations Systems for the 21st Century,
Action Task Force Report 2013,
http://www.actioncanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/TF2-Report_Future-Tense_EN.
pdf
Bout, B. (2017) Chromebooks are at the Head of the Class in Canada’s K-12 Schools, Google
Outread and Initiatives, Retrieved from
https://www.blog.google/outreach-initiatives/education/chromebooks-are-head-class-cana
das-k-12-schools/, January 2019
Boyd, D. (2014). It's complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Britland, M., (2013), What is the future of technology in education?, The Guardian,
89
International Edition Retrieved from
https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/teacher-blog/2013/jun/19/technology-futu
re-education-cloud-social-learning
Canadians for 21st Century Learning and Innovation (2012) A 21st Century Vision of Public
Education for Canada Retrieved from
http://www.c21canada.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/C21-Canada-Shifting-Version-2.
0.pdf
Capetano, J. (n.d.), Advantages/Disadvantages of the iPad Classroom, Teach Hub Retrieved
from
https://www.teachhub.com/advantagesdisadvantages-ipad-classroom
Carrier, L.M., Spradlin, A., Bunce, J.P., & Rosen, L.D. (2015). Virtual empathy: Positive and
negative impacts of going online upon empathy in young adults. Computers in Human
Behaviour, 52, 39-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.026
Center for Addiction and Mental Health. (2016). One-third of Ontario students report elevated
psychological distress, CAMH survey shows. CAMH: Centre for Addiction and Mental
Health. Retrieved from
http://2017.camh.ca/en/hospital/about_camh/newsroom/news_releases_media_advisories
_and_backgrounders/current_year/Pages/One-third-of-Ontario-students-report-elevated-p
sychological-distress.aspx
Cheu-Jey, L. (2015) Project-based learning and invitations: a comparison. Journal of Curriculum
Theorizing, 1(3), 63-73.

90
Chowdhry, A, (2018) Computers in Classroom Have ‘Mixed’ Impact on Learning: OED Report,
The Globe and Mail,
Chrisafis, A., (2018) 'It's pretty easy to talk instead': pupils react to French phone ban, The
etrieved from
Guardian, R
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GON2AqXiqoZszflxYtGBYTJkhdCuGdhTXqg74
emcwhc/edit
Clark, D. (2004). Reigeluth`s elaboration theory for instructional design. The Performance
Juxtaposition Site.
Clark, R.C, & Mayer, R. (2008). E-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines
for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning (pp.153-172), 3rd Edition P

feiffer
Publishing, San Francisco, CA
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R.E. (2011). Learning together virtually. In E-learning and the science of
instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers
of multimedia learning (pp. 279-306).
Cockerhan, D., Johnson, K., Tyler-Wood, T., (2018) Implementing new technologies in a middle
school curriculum: a rural perspective, Retrieved from
https://slejournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40561-018-0073-y#Sec20
Costa, K., (2016), Four Ways to Keep Students' Attention, Inside Higher Ed,
Retrieved from
https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2016/07/26/how-hold-students-attention-classroo
m-essay
Cox, J. (n.d.) http://www.teachhub.com/teaching-using-technology-classroom

91
Culp, K. M., Honey, M., & Mandinach, E. (2005). A Retrospective on Twenty Years of
Education Technology Policy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32( 3),
279–307.
David L, "Situated Learning Theory (Lave)," in Learning Theories, January 17, 2007, Retrieved
from https://www.learning-theories.com/situated-learning-theory-lave.html.
David L, "Gamification in Education," in Learning Theories, January 26, 2016, Retrieved from
https://www.learning-theories.com/gamification-in-education.html
Davis, Fred & Bagozzi, Richard & R. Warshaw, Paul. (1989). User Acceptance of Computer
Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models. Management Science. 35.
982-1003. 10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982.
Davis, N., (2003) Technology in teacher education in the USA: what makes for sustainable good
practice?, Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 12:1, 59-84, DOI:
10.1080/14759390300200146
DeMonbrun, R.M., Borrego, M., Finelli, C. J., Prince, M., Henderson, C., & Waters, C. (2017).
Creating an instrument to measure student response to instructional practices. Journal of
Engineering Education, 106(2).
Department of Education and Skills (2016) Guidance Document for the Provision of Wireless
Network Installations in Post Primary Schools, 1st Edition, Tullamore, Co, Offaly,
etrieved from
Ireland R
https://www.education.ie/en/School-Design/Technical-Guidance-Documents/Current-Tec
hnical-Guidance/Guidelines-for-Wireless-Networks-in-Post-Primary-Schools.pdf
Dickard, N. (2003) The Sustainability Challenge: Taking EdTech to the Next Level, Education
92
Development Centre, N.Y, N.Y., Education Development Center, New York, NY. Center
for Children and Technology.; Benton Foundation, Washington, DC.
Dionico, R. (2016) Wifi Design Considerations for K-12 Schools, Network Computing
Retrieved from
https://www.networkcomputing.com/wireless-infrastructure/wifi-design-considerations-k
-12-schools
Dobo, N., (2016) U.S. schools have more computers than ever. But what are they doing with all
that (expensive) technology?, The Hechinger Report
Ertmer, P.A. ETR & D (2005) Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for
technology integration? 53: 25. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504683
Fisher, K. (2010), Technology-enabled active learning environments: an Appraisal, University of
etrieved from
Melbourne Australia R
https://www.uwo.ca/wals/pdf/technology-enabled.pdf
Forsythe, T. & MacKinnon, G. (2005) Technology & cooperative learning: The IIT model for
teaching authentic chemistry curriculum. In R. Yager, Exemplary science in grades 9-12:
Standards-based success stories (pp. 11-23.).
Fort, A., (2014) Use of Cloud-Based Technologies in the Classroom, E-Learning Industry,
Retrieved from
https://elearningindustry.com/use-of-cloud-based-technologies-in-the-classroom
Fredericks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., Friedel, J., & Paris, A. (2005). School engagement. In K. A.
Moore & L. Lippman (Eds.), Conceptualizing and measuring indicators of positive
development: What do children need to flourish (pp. 305–321).

93
Fried, C., B.,. 2008. In-class laptop use and its effects on student learning. Computers &
Education. Vol. 50(3): 906-914.
Fullan, M. (2012). Stratosphere: Integrating technology, pedagogy and change knowledge
Toronto, On: Pearson Canada. Retrieved from
http:www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/research/Shifting_LandscapeE.pdf
Gage, B., & LaGue, K., (2010), Increasing Student Engagement Through Educational
Technology, National Social Science Association
https://www.nssa.us/tech_journal/volume_3-3/vol3-3_article3.htm
Gardner, H, (2010). Multiple intelligences. http://www.howardgardner.com/MI/mi.html
Ghaznavi, M. R., Keikha, A., & Yaghoubi, N. M. (2011). The impact of information and
communication technology (ICT) on educational improvement. International Education
Studies, 4(2), 116-125. Doi:10.5539/ies.v4n2p116.
Glowacki, L (2015) Technology in the classroom no shortcut to success: OECD report, CBC
News, Manitoba, Retrieved from
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/technology-in-the-classroom-no-shortcut-to-s
uccess-oecd-report-1.3230587
Gomez, K., (2014) Flipped Classroom Success: Growing student engagement in
etrieved
Elementary instrumental music. Blackboard Innovative Teaching Series (BITS) R
from http://blog.blackboard.com/flipped-classroom-success-growing- student-
engagement-in-elementary-instrumental-music/
Gonzalez, L., (2012)
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ypMIhI8XFOo7eXq_AIMRMMbpdWYxLCZnYG
94
1ayHP-Zuk/edit#
Grusser, S.M., Thalemann, R., & Griffiths, M.D. (2007). Excessive computer game playing:
Evidence for addiction and aggression? CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10( 2), 290-292.
https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2006.9956
Guo, Z., Li, Y., & Stevens, K. (2012). Analyzing students’ technology use motivations: An
interpretive structural modeling approach. Communications of the Association for
Information Systems, 30(14), 199-224
Hamm, M., Newton, A., Chisholm, A., Shulhan, J., Milne, A., Sundar, P., Ennis, H., Scott, S., &
Hartling, L. (2015). Prevalence and effect of cyberbullying on children and young
people: A scoping review of social media studies. JAMA Pediatrics, 169( 8),770–777.
doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.0944
Harlen. W, James, M., (1997) Assessment and Learning: differences and relationships between
formative and summative assessment, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy &
OI: 10.1080/0969594970040304
Practice, 4:3, 365-379, D
Haskins-Powell, D. (2016) Digitally Yours: 4 Ways Technology-Based Differentiated
Instruction Propels Learning, Retrieved from
https://medium.com/inspired-ideas-prek-12/digitally-yours-4-ways-technology-based-diff
erentiated-instruction-propels-learning-e0ea0ff0d4ab
Hawkridge, D. (1990) Computers in Third World Schools: The Example of China, British
Journal of Education Technology, Vol 21, Issue 1
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.1990.tb00665.x
Hembrooke, H. & Gay, G. J. (2003) The Laptop and the Lecture: The Effects of Multitasking in
95
Learning Environments, Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 15: 46.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02940852
Hicks, S. D. (2011). Technology in today's classroom: Are you a tech-savvy teacher? The
Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 84(5), 188-191.
doi:10.1080/00098655.2011.557406
Howell, S. & O’Donnell (2017), Digital Trends and Initiatives in Education, The Association of
etrieved from
Canadian Publishers R
http://www.omdc.on.ca/Assets/Research/Research+Reports/Digital+Trends+and+Initiativ
es+in+Education/Digital+Trends+and+Initiatives+in+Education.pdf
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn?
Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266.
doi:10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3
Brendon Hyndman (2018) Ten reasons teachers can struggle to use technology in the classroom,
The Conversation,
http://theconversation.com/ten-reasons-teachers-can-struggle-to-use-technology-in-the-cl
assroom-101114
Johnson, M., Riel, R. and Froese-Germain, B. (2016), Connected to Learn: Teachers’
Experiences with Networked Technologies in the Classroom. Ottawa:
etrieved from.
MediaSmarts/Canadian Teachers’ Federation, R
https://www.ctf-fce.ca/Research-Library/ycwwiii_connected_to_learn.pdf
Jones, G., (2017) 5 Biggest Barriers to Education Technology, Edudemic connecting Education
and Technology http://www.edudemic.com/barriers-to-education-technology/

96
Kahu, E., Nelson, K., & Picton, C. (2017). Student interest as a key driver of engagement for
first year students. Student Interest as a key driver of engagement for first year students.
Student Success, 8(2), 55-66. doi: 10.5204/ssj.v8i2.379
Karmijn van de Oudeweetering & Joke Voogt (2018) Teachers’ conceptualization and enactment
of twenty-first century competences: exploring dimensions for new curricula, The
Curriculum Journal, 29:1, 116-133, D

OI: 10.1080/09585176.2017.1369136
Kay RH, Lauricella S. Unstructured vs. structured use of laptops in higher education. . Journal of
Information Technology Education. 2011;10(1):33-42.
Khalid, S, & Buus, S. (2013), A Theoretical Framework Mapping Barriers of Integrating and
Adopting Educational Technology Retireved from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Md_Saifuddin_Khalid/publication/259897763_A_th
eoretical_framework_mapping_barriers_of_integrating_and_adopting_educational_techn
ology/links/0f31752e783760b41c000000.pdf
Kitchenham, Andrew. (2006). Teachers and Technology: A Transformative Journey. Journal of
Transformative Education. 4. 202-225. 10.1177/1541344606290947.
Knaack, L., (2017) 5 Key Changes in BC’s New K-12 Curriculum: What are the Implications for
Post-Secondary? Retrieved from
https://wordpress.viu.ca/ciel/2017/12/28/5-key-changes-in-bcs-new-k-12-curriculum/
Krashen, S. D. (1995). School Libraries, Public Libraries, and the NAEP Reading Scores. School
Library Media Quarterly, 23(4), 235–237.

97
Krashen, S. D. (1997). Bridging inequity with books. [Electronic version]. Educational
Leadership, 55, 18-22. Retrieved from
http://go.galegroup.com.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA20445484&v=
2.1&u=s1185784&it=r&p=PPPM&sw=w
Kumar, M., (2017), 8 Ways Tech is Improving Communication Between Student and Teacher,
Retrieved from https://tech.co/news/8-ways-technology-improving-education-2017-12
Lane, E., & Harris, S., (2015) A New Tool For Measuring Student Behavioral Engagement in
Large University Classes, Research and Teaching Vol. 44, No. 6, UBC, Vancouver, B.C.
http://www.cwsei.ubc.ca/SEI_research/files/Geo_Ocean/Lane-Harris_Meas-Engagement
_JCST2015.pdf
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1990). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lenhart, A. (2015). Teens, social media & technology 2015. Pew Research Center. Retrieved
from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/09/teens-social-media-technology-2015/
Liu, C. C., & Chen, I. J. (2010). Evolution of constructivism. Contemporary Issues in Education
Research, 3(4), 63-66.
Maich, K. & Hall, C. (2016) Implementing iPads in the inclusive classroom setting. Intervention
in School and Clinic, 51(3), 145-150.
Mareco, D. (2017), 10 Reasons today’s Students NEED Technology in the Classroom,
Securedge
98
etrieved from
Blog R
https://www.securedgenetworks.com/blog/10-reasons-today-s-students-need-technology-i
n-the-classroom
Mason, G. (2018) The time has come to ban cell phones in the classroom, The Globe and Mail,
Retrieved from
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-time-has-come-to-ban-cellphones-i
n-the-classroom
McLaughlin, K., & King, K. (2014). Developmental trajectories of anxiety and depression in
early adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 43(2), 311-323.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-014-9898-1
McMullen, L, (2012) US News- 3 Tips on Integrating Technology in the Classroom,
Retrieved from
http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/high-school-notes/2012/01/25/3-tips-
on-integrating-technology-in-the-classroom?int=96e908
McNeil (2016) Education Week, Teachers Like Technology in the Classroom, But Few Think
It's
Well Integrated, Ed Week, Retrieved from
http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/teaching_now/2016/05/technology_impacts_classroom_
instruction.html
Mental Health Commission of Canada, & Canadian Electronic Library. (2013). Making the case
for investing in mental health in Canada. Mental Health Commission of Canada.
Retrieved from
99
https://www.mentalhealthcommission.ca/sites/default/files/2016-06/Investing_in_Mental
_Health_FINAL_Version_ENG.pdf
Meyer,L.,(2014), 5 Reasons Schools Still Need Desktop Computers, The Journal - Ed Tech
Group, Retrieved from
/https://thejournal.com/articles/2014/04/24/5-reasons-schools-still-need-desktop-compute
rs.aspx
Morelock, J., S., (2015), Portland University, Effective Technology Implementation in Schools:
Differing Perceptions of Teachers, Administrators and Technology Staff
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/37774905.pdf
Morin, A, (n.d.) Universal Design for Learning (UDL): What You Need to Know, Reading
Rockets, Retrieved from
http://www.readingrockets.org/article/universal-design-learning-udl-what-you-need-kno
Murray, J. (n.d.) Blended Learning Via Technology in the Classroom, TeachHub, Retrieved from
http://www.teachhub.com/blended-learning-technology-classroom
Nagel, D. (2014), Cost of Wi-Fi in Schools: $800 Million per Year, The Journal,
https://thejournal.com/articles/2014/05/28/cost-of-wifi-in-schools-800-million-per-year.a
spx
OECD (2015), Students, Computers and Learning: Making the Connection, PISA, OECD
Publishing, Paris, Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239555-en.
O'Keeffe, G. S., & Clarke-Pearson, K. (2011). The impact of social media on children,
adolescents, and families. Pediatrics, 127(4), 800-804. doi:10.1542/peds.2011-0054

100
Okojie, Mabel CPO; Olinzock, Anthony A.; Okojie-Boulder, Tinukwa C.(2006), The Pedagogy
of Technology Integration, The Journal of Technology Studies,
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ847571
OnDigitalMarketing.com
OnDigitalMarketing.com
Ong, E., Ang, R., Ho, J., Lim, J., Goh, D., Lee, C., & Chua, A. (2011). Narcissism, extraversion
and adolescents’ self-presentation on Facebook. Personality and Individual Differences,
50, 180-185. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.09.022
Ontario Curriculum Grades 11 & 12 (2009), Retrieved from
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/2009teched1112curr.pdf
Patchin, J., & Hinduja (2010a). Cyberbullying and self-esteem. Journal of School Health,
80(12), 614-621. doi: 10.1111/j.1746-1561.2010.00548.x
Patchin, J., & Hinduja (2010). Bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide. Archives of Suicide
Research, 14, 206-221. doi:10.1080/13811118.2010.494133
Pappas, C. (2015) The Top Gamification Statistics and Facts for 2015 You Need to Know,
eLearning Industry
https://elearningindustry.com/top-gamification-statistics-and-facts-for-2015
Peel School Board Document, (2019), BYOD Infographic, Retrieved from
http://peelschools.org/aboutus/21stCentury/byod/parentresources/Documents/FINAL%20
BYOD%20brochure%20for%20parents.pdf
Perrotta, C., Featherstone, G., Aston, H. and Houghton, E. (2013). Game-based Learning: Latest
101
Evidence and Future Directions (NFER Research Programme: Innovation in Education).
Slough: NFER.
Peters, F.,, & Leslie, P., Education Policy (2018). In The Canadian Encyclopedia. Retrieved
from
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/education-policy
Peterson, D., (2019), Preparing Students for the Real World via Technology, AASA The
Superintendent Association, http://www.aasa.org/content.aspx?id=27162
Policy on Education Success (2017)
http://www.education.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/site_web/documents/PSG/politiques_orientati
ons/politique_reussite_educative_10juillet_A_1.pdf
Puentedura, R. (2006) Transformation, Technology and Education, SAMR
Prensky, M., (2003), Computers in Entertainment - Theoretical and Practical Computer
Applications in Entertainment, Vol 1 Issue 1 pg. 21, NY, NY
https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=950596
Renwick, M., (2016) Should Pedagogy Always Drive Technology?, EdTech focus on K-12,
https://edtechmagazine.com/k12/article/2016/08/should-pedagogy-always-drive-technolo
gy
Rich, E., (2010), How Do You Define 21st-Century Learning?, Ed Week, Retrieved from
https://www.edweek.org/tsb/articles/2010/10/12/01panel.h04.html Rich, E. (2010)
Roblyer, M. D. (2005). Educational technology research that makes a difference: Series
introduction. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online
serial], 5(2). Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/volume-5/issue-2-05/

102
seminal-articles/educational-technology-research-that-makes-a-differenceseries-introduct
ion
Rogers, E.,( 2003). Diffusion of Innovations, 5th Edition. Simon and Schuster. ISBN
978-0-7432-5823-4. Pg. 283
Salguero, R., & Moran, R. (2002). Measuring problem video game playing in adolescents.
Addiction, 97, 1601-1606. doi: 10.1038/s41562-017-0209-z
Samson, P. J. (2010). Deliberate engagement of laptops in large lecture classes to improve
attentiveness and engagement. Computers in Education, 20( 2), 22–37.
Sangrà, A., & González-Sanmamed, M., (2010) The role of information and communication
technologies in improving teaching and learning processes in primary and secondary
schools, ALT-J,18:3, 207-220, DOI: 10.1080/09687769.2010.529108
Saponaro, T. (2014, October 25). 6 Benefits of BYOD in the classroom. E-Learning Industry
Retrieved from https://elearningindustry.com/6-benefits-byod-classroom
Savin-Baden, M., Gourlay, L., Tombs, C., Steils, N., Tombs, G., & Mawer, M. (2010). Situating
pedagogies, positions and practices in immersive virtual worlds. Educational Research,
52(2), 123-133.
Schindler, L. Burkholder, G., Osama A. Morad & Marsh, C., (2017) Computer-based technology
and student engagement: a critical review of the literature. International Journal of
Educational Technology in Higher Education
https://educationaltechnologyjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41239-017-006
3-0
103
Selwyn, N. (1997). The continuing weaknesses of educational computing research. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 28(4), 305-307.
Selwyn, N. (2002). Telling tales on technology: Qualitative studies of technology and education.
Burlington VT: Ashgate.
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of
Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3-10.
Singh, H., (2003), Building Effective Blended Learning Programs, Issue of Educational
Technology, Volume 43, Number 6, Pages 51-54.
Spies, S. L. A., & Margolin, G. (2014). Growing up wired: Social networking sites and
adolescent psychosocial development. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review,
17(1), 1-18. DOI:10.1007/s10567-013-0135-1
Soskil, M. (2012) 5 Reasons Why Schools Should Not Be Stiff in Allowing Cell Phone Usage in
Classrooms Retrieved from
https://theinnovativeeducator.blogspot.ca/2012/07/5-reasons-to-allow-students-to-use-cell
.html
Straub, E. T. (2009). Understanding Technology Adoption: Theory and Future Directions for
Informal Learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 625–649.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325896
Taras, M., (2005) Assessment - Summative and Formative – Some Theoretical Reflections,
British Journal of Educational Studies, 53:4, 466-478, DOI:
10.1111/j.1467-8527.2005.00307.x
Taylor, L. & Parsons, J. (2011). Improving Student Engagement. Current Issues in Education,
104
14(1). Retrieved from http://cie.asu.edu/
TDSB (2019) Retrieved from https://www.tdsb.on.ca/About-Us/Innovation/Wi-Fi-in-Schools
TeachThought (2016) The Definition of the Flipped Classroom, TeachThought, Retrieved from
https://www.teachthought.com/learning/the-defin12ition-of-the-flipped-classroom/
The Learning Partnership (2015), Emerging Technologies, Evolving Education: Impact of
Integrating Technology on Teaching and Learning. Toronto: The Learning Partnership
Thoeming, B. (2017), Technology is No Longer a Convenience, It’s Necessary, Desire2Learn,
Thompson, A., Simonson, M. & Hargrave, C. (1996). Educational technology: A review of the
research. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and
Technology.
Tofu, Y. (2018). Inspiring a New Generation of Creators with Roblox Education. Retrieved from
https://blog.roblox.com/2018/05/inspiring-new-generation-creators-roblox-education/
Tschirgi, D. (2009), 5 Factors to Consider When Selecting Classroom Technology Implementing
Education Technology in your School Requires Preparation and Planning, EdTech Focus
on K-12, Vancouver, WA
https://edtechmagazine.com/k12/article/2009/04/choose-but-choose-wisely
Twining, P. (2010). Virtual worlds and education. doi: org/10.1080/00131881.2010.482730
U.S. Department of Education (n.d.), Use of Technology in Teaching and Learning
https://www.ed.gov/oii-news/use-technology-teaching-and-learning
Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2007). Preadolescents and adolescents online communication and
their closeness to friends. Developmental Psychology, 43( 2), 267-277.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012.1649.43.2.267
105
Venkatesh, V.; Davis, F. D. (2000), "A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance
model:
Four longitudinal field studies", Management Science, 46 (2): 186–204,
doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M. G.; Davis, G. B.; Davis, F. D. (2003), "User acceptance of
information
technology: Toward a unified view" (PDF), MIS Quarterly, 27(3): 425–478
Vijayalakshimi, M., (2016) Information and Communication Technology in Education, Guest
Lecture Slideshare, Retrieved from
https://www.slideshare.net/Vijirayar/information-and-communication-technology-in-educ
ation-57360802
Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Harvard university press.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development.Readings on the
development of children, 23(3), 34-41.
Wainright, A., 201217 Pros and Cons of Using iPads in the Classroom, Secure Edge Networks,
Retrieved from
https://www.securedgenetworks.com/blog/17-Pros-and-Cons-of-Using-iPads-in-the-Class
room
Warburton, S. (2009). Second Life in higher education: Assessing the potential for and the
barriers to deploying virtual worlds in learning and teaching. British journal of
educational technology, 40(3), 414-426.

106
Warlick, D. (2018) Tackling Challenges of Blended Learning, Ed Tech Update
http://www.edtechupdate.com/blended-learning/?open-article-id=8848139&article-title=t
ackling-challenges-of-blended-learning&blog-domain=wiziq.com&blog-title=wiziq-educ
ation---technology
Watkins, M., & Ii, J. M. (2012). Bringing Life To Learning: Immersive Experiential Learning
Simulations For Online And Blended Courses. Online
Learning, 16(5). doi:10.24059/olj.v16i5.287
Watson, D. M., (2001), Pedagogy before Technology: Re-Thinking the Relationship between
ICT and Teaching. Education and Information Technologies, 6, 251-266.
Zhu, E., Kaplan, M., Dershimer, R. C., & Bergom, I. (2011). Use of laptops in the classroom:
Research and best practices (No. 30). CRLT Occasional Papers. Center for Research on
Teaching and Learning: University of Michigan.

107
Appendix
Fig. 1- Compass including Fig. 2 - Priorities including 21st Century Competencies

Computer and Digital Capacity C21 Document
Fig. 3 - Priorities for creativity, critical thinking and collaboration which technology fosters
108
Fig. 4- Peel Board BYOD Infographic (2018)

109
Fig. 5 - Matching instructional practice with various learning styles
CTF (2015)
Fig.6 - Alternate Learning Spaces, the changes of the classroom

110
Fig. 7 - TAM Technology Acceptance Model
Fig. 8 -Measuring Student Engagement Fig. 9 - Student Responses

111
Assessed by instruments (2017)
Fig. 10 Descriptions of student Behaviors as engaged or disengaged.

112
Fig. 11 SAMR - Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, Redefinition

113
Fig. 12 - Infrastructure
https://tech.ed.gov/netp/infrastructure/
Figure 13 - Role Based Access
Role Based Access - Wegner (2016)
https://www.securedgenetworks.com/blog/school-wireless-network-design-2-0-5-campus-wi-fi-plann
ing-tips
114
Fig. 14 - TPACK Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Figure - 15 - CSAM Collaborative Situated Active Mobile Learning Design Strategies

115
Figure 16 - Kay (2009) WBLT Evaluate Scale
Figure 17 - Clark and Mayer (2003), Multimedia Learning Principles
Figure 18 - Learning Theories

116
Appendices
Tools for Assessment
https://webbasedtechtools4teachers.weebly.com/fresh-grade.html
https://webbasedtechtools4teachers.weebly.com/google-forms.html
117
https://webbasedtechtools4teachers.weebly.com/mentimeter.html
Tools for Presentation
https://webbasedtechtools4teachers.weebly.com/google-slides.html
https://webbasedtechtools4teachers.weebly.com/adobe-spark.html
118
https://webbasedtechtools4teachers.weebly.com/weebly.html
https://webbasedtechtools4teachers.weebly.com/powtoon.html
https://webbasedtechtools4teachers.weebly.com/screencastify.html
119
https://webbasedtechtools4teachers.weebly.com/youtube.html
Tools for Collaboration
https://webbasedtechtools4teachers.weebly.com/answergarden.html
https://webbasedtechtools4teachers.weebly.com/padlet.html
120
https://webbasedtechtools4teachers.weebly.com/flipgrid.html
https://webbasedtechtools4teachers.weebly.com/google-docs.html
https://webbasedtechtools4teachers.weebly.com/google-drawings.html
121
Tools for Game-Based Learning
https://webbasedtechtools4teachers.weebly.com/kahoot.html
https://webbasedtechtools4teachers.weebly.com/quizlet.html
https://webbasedtechtools4teachers.weebly.com/socrative.html
122
https://webbasedtechtools4teachers.weebly.com/secondlife.html
https://webbasedtechtools4teachers.weebly.com/roblox.html

Master Final Project For Submission

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Master Final Project For Submission

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Master Final Project For Submission

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RUNNING HEAD: Using Technology to Enhance the Curriculum in B.C.

Using Technology to Enhance the Curriculum in the B.C. Education System

Lena Marie Palermo

Part One: Project Objective

Part Two: Review of Related Literature

Part Three: Process

Part Four: Discussion 82

Part Five: Recommendations 83

Appendices - Website Links and Images 115

accompanies this paper.

Keywords:​ ​Instructional Technology, ICT, Student Engagement, Technology

Implementation, Teacher and Student Best Practices

I want to express my most profound appreciation to my Project Supervisor, Dr. Bill

influenced the website that accompanies this project.

encouraged to follow her dreams.

Part One: Project Objective

previous generations because of their immersion in a technology-rich environment (Taylor &

Gonzalez-Sanmamed, M., 2010).

In many cases instructional technology has dramatically expanded access to education.

Soumakian, Oxnard Union High School District Superintendent, describes technology as a

instructional technology implementation a top priority. In Canada, a 21st-century learning

reference to 21st-century learning included core competencies such as digital literacy,

magic wand which transforms bad teachers into good ones.

implementation in an effort to improve student learning, achievement and participation in the

Pedagogy and Instructional Technology

To better understand the influences of instructional technology on education, it is

Becker (2000), attributed key elements of effectiveness to convenient access, teacher

social rationale supporting computer knowledge as skills to create well-informed citizens, an

acceleration of innovation. Instructional technology should be delivered through subjects. The

pleasure using instructional technology through regular use (Watson, 2001).

gain experience in teaching with instructional technology.

technology and 21st Century learning competencies.

Use of Instructional Technology by K-12 Teachers

instructional technologies in the classroom. In addition, 99% of teachers believed that

believe that it improves student achievement (The Learning Partnership, 2015).

Barriers to Integration of Instructional Technology

(information communication technology) described by Vijayalakshimi (2016) as a diverse set of

implementation in the classroom.

Information Technology (IT) infrastructure complications (e.g. internet connection, privacy,

Changes in instructional technology happen so quickly that it is difficult for educators to

Part Two: Review of Related Literature

Policy Change in Education in the 21st Century

inculcate and foster those values advocated by the community.

technologically literate and repeatedly referenced instructional technology as an essential source

instructional technology in the legislation which reflects an increasing consensus within

acknowledges that instructional technology can facilitate collaboration between students,

importance policymakers and stakeholders place on instructional technology in the classroom

emphasis on personal empowerment is witnessed in the new BC curriculum documents where

and mentions the competencies of critical thinking, communication, problem-solving,

entrepreneurship and cooperation.

students to one computer. As Hicks (2011) recognized, whether it be a desktop computer to

student-driven project-based learning opportunities. Learners themselves have an vital role to

debate on what Canada’s learning framework should be in the 21st Century.

The aforementioned Canadian Teachers’ Federation Survey (2015) revealed, when

direction and funding of education.

The United States Department of Education described instructional technology as

through modelling connectedness (US Department of Education, n.d.).

independent student seat work.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Programme for

Keywords: Instructional Technology, ICT, Student Engagement, Technology

practice. Adoption theories must therefore be considered to evaluate effective implementation of

Theoretical implementation (theories of adoption, integration)

of technology (UTAUT). This theory, formulated by Venkatesh is a technology acceptance

Established in 2008, The Khan Academy is a non-profit educational organization created