Learning First, Technology Second in Practice: New Strategies, Research and Tools for Student Success

Introduction

Evolution of the Triple E Framework

IN 2010, I WALKED INTO A KINDERGARTEN CLASSROOM to observe the students using adaptive software to learn about and assess their understanding of phonics. The classroom was 1:1; every child had their own iPad. The children were scattered all over the room in flexible seating, in comfy bean bag chairs, in rocking chairs, on high-top bar stools, or stretched out on the floor. Each child using their iPad was wearing headphones. None were talking; they were fully engrossed in their devices. The teacher quietly walked over to me and excitedly whispered, Look at how engaged all my students are! She was correct; the students were engaged, but I wondered if they were engaged in learning phonics or just with the device itself?

I sat down next to a young boy and asked, Can you tell me what you are doing on your iPad?

The student took off his headphones, looked at me with a big smile and said, "Yes! I am just swiping here in the corner to get to the game at the end. Do you want to see?" He then swiped his finger in the corner of the iPad to reveal the answers to the questions, which quickly led him to a fun reward game at the end of the exercise.

Aren’t you supposed to be hearing the sound of a letter, I asked, and finding that letter?

Well, yes … but that takes a lot longer than just swiping in the corner. Ha! What a smart young boy! However, his use of the adaptive software was counterproductive to its purpose: to collect data from which teachers could determine necessary literacy interventions for the student. The young corner-swiper’s data was meaningless and would not lead to useful interventions. Yet the boy was working quietly and behaving. A building principal observing the classroom might have given the teacher a very effective review because it looked like a future-ready, high-tech classroom. After all, this is the kind of image that many schools put in their marketing campaigns: children in flexible seating, each with a personal iPad, looking engaged in learning. But are they?

I have observed this type of situation with technology a number of times over the last decade, not just in other classrooms but also in my own. As a result of these observations, I began to use Schlechty’s levels of engagement (2011) to assess the type of engagement students had when using technology in learning. As you can see in Figure I.1, the highest standard of student engagement is at Schlechty’s top engagement level: a high commitment to the learning goal and a high attention to the tasks and tools in order to achieve the goal. Consider the kindergarten boy short-cutting the adaptive software on his iPad; I think any educator would agree that he was at the highest level of engagement. The boy had a high attention to the iPad but a low commitment to learning phonics. He was most likely at the strategic compliance level, where he had a high attention to the device but a low commitment to the learning goal.

Figure I.1 Phil Schlechty’s levels of student engagement.

Back in 2011, I wondered, how do we move students from the strategic compliance level of a high attention/low commitment to learning with digital devices, to a high attention/high commitment to a learning task? Observations similar to the one with the kindergarten boy led me to read hundreds of pieces of research on educational technology as well as research on the science of how students learn. What I learned informed the development of the Triple E Framework (see Figure I.2).

Figure I.2 A model of the Triple E Framework.

I learned that teachers need a framework for integrating technology into lessons based on the science of learning practices rather than a framework that focuses solely on the technology tools themselves. Many educational technology frameworks consider the tool first, before the learning outcome. For example, a technology tool that is being used in a unique and creative way (such as students creating a podcast about metamorphosis instead of writing a paper about metamorphosis) has often been considered the gold standard for effective technology use. However, if students are more focused on the podcasting pieces and not on metamorphosis, the content learning could easily get lost in the excitement of making a podcast. Thus, a framework that considers the learning goal and how the technology tools are adding value to that learning goal seemed to be needed. Consequently, I created the Triple E Framework not as a tool-centric framework but as a learning-centered framework, meaning the learning goals, not the technology, are the focus of the lesson. The Triple E Framework ensures that the tool is chosen based on the learning goal. If you have used or seen the Triple E Framework model, you may notice that unlike other frameworks/models (SAMR, PIC-RAT, TIM, etc.) in educational technology, the Triple E does not level up from a passive use of technology to a transformative interactive use of technology; this is purposeful.

Although interactive hands-on learning is beneficial to student learning and can occur through the technology tool, interactivity does not have to occur through the technology tool to be effective. A passive use of technology, or teacher-centered use of technology, does not equate to a lack of student learning in a lesson. Hands-on interactivity can occur in conjunction with technology. Consider a lesson on the parts of a flower. The teacher shows students images of the different parts of a flower through a whole-class lecture with Google Slides. As they view the slide images, the students work in pairs to build the flower part by part using physical supplies (such as individual stems, seeds, leaves) at their tables. The teacher also leads a high-level discussion with probing questions around each part of the flower as the students build. Although this is a passive, teacher-centered use of technology, the students are creating and being hands-on in their learning (guided by the teacher and images on the Google Slides). I would argue the technology is supporting the students to keep their minds on the learning goal. Thus, active learning and high-level thinking can happen around the technology tool; it doesn’t always have to happen in the technology tool itself. On the flipside, there are instances in learning where students are hands-on and actively using technology, but the learning goal has been lost. Remember the kindergarten boy whose mind was not on his phonics-learning task despite his active iPad engagement?

This type of understanding about how students learn is built into the Triple E Framework, allowing for teachers to choose the tool and pedagogical strategies around the tool that best fit the learning goal. Understanding that a Microsoft PowerPoint lecture can be just as useful for learning as coding robots may ease the minds of teachers who are apprehensive about integrating technology. Ultimately, the Triple E Framework is meant to be a coaching tool that guides and supports educators in making instructional choices with technology based on the learning goal and the science of good learning practices.

Significance of Instructional Strategies in the Triple E Framework

No digital tool is a magic bullet for learning. While some digital tools have effective pedagogical strategies built into them (e.g., social collaboration, differentiation, reflection), many do not. Even when a tool includes sound pedagogical practices, teachers’ supports and instructional strategies used in conjunction with the tool are still a fundamental component to effective learning with technology (Okojie et al., 2006). Research is clear that the type of tool selected is not nearly as significant as the instructional strategies a teacher creates when using the tools (Okojie et al., 2006; Montrieux et al., 2015). Instead of tossing out effective teaching strategies when using technology tools, teachers who use technology effectively are able to integrate instructional moves to leverage better learning with the digital tools.

The Triple E Framework asks educators to consider sound pedagogical strategies that they could employ with a digital tool. For example, when students are using a digital application that may focus on low-level thinking of drill and practice, the Triple E Framework encourages you to create strategies around the tool to help students engage in higher levels of thinking. For instance, you could pair up students while they work with the software and ask them to engage in reflective thinking practices while they are using the technology tools, so they can reflect upon their learning with a partner. This is one example of why the Triple E Framework is not built around using a certain type of tool for learning; rather, it is built around making sure research-informed instructional strategies are in place to keep students on task and meeting their learning goals with all technology tools.

The Triple E Framework Components

The Triple E Framework (Figure I.2) is made up of three components that comprise good learning practices with technology:

•  Engagement in learning goals

•  Enhancement of learning goals

•  Extension of learning goals

While the terminology in these components is often used interchangeably, each E term is distinct. The next four chapters will define each E, break down the research that informs each E, and describe how each E should be assessed in a lesson with technology using the Triple E Framework Evaluation Rubric.

The Triple E Framework Evaluation Rubric

Each E component in the Triple E Framework is represented by three questions in the Triple E Framework Evaluation Rubric (Figure I.3). The rubric asks you to answer three questions about your lesson/unit with technology, giving each answer a score: 0 (it is not present), 1 (it is somewhat present), or 2 (it is present). Ultimately, the lesson will earn a score from 0 to 18. If the total score is in the lower range (0–6), there is usually little connection between the technology selected, the instructional strategies, and the learning goals. This low score often means the technology is being used as a gimmick or trick, rather than to support the learning in meaningful ways. Therefore, you should strongly consider changing the tool, the instructional strategies around the tool, or both in the lesson. If the score is in the middle range (7–12), there is most likely some connection among the learning goals, instructional strategies, and technology selected, but the connection could be improved, usually by integrating or modifying instructional strategies (and occasionally changing the technology tool). Finally, if the score is in the higher range (13–18), there is usually a very strong connection between the learning goal, technology selected, and instructional strategies. Thus, very minor or no adjustments need to be made to the instructional strategies to strengthen the lesson.

Once the educator scores a lesson on the Triple E Framework Evaluation Rubric, the total score can help determine what types of improvements the educator could make to their lesson. If the lesson scored in the lower (0–6) or middle ranges (7–12), the educator is able to look at which of the three components have the lower score. A lower score in Engagement, but higher scores in Extension and Enhancement, means modifications to engagement should be the focus of lesson changes. Thus, the educator considers adding or modifying instructional strategies to move the low Engagement score into a higher range. For example, using the Triple E Framework Model (Figure I.4), educators can look at the list of instructional strategies on the right side of the model and select one or more to improve the lesson’s connection between the three engagement questions on the rubric and the learning goal in the lesson (ultimately, moving the score in an answer from 0 to 1 or from 1 to 2 in the rubric).

Figure I.3 The Triple E Framework Evaluation Rubric.

The Triple E Framework Evaluation Rubric is a tool for tech coaches, instructional designers, and administrators to not only assess how effectively technology was integrated in a lesson but also have conversations with teachers about technology choices, pedagogical strategies, and learning goals. Although not an exact science, the Triple E Framework Evaluation Rubric provides a guide for what educators should be thinking about when integrating a technology tool in learning. The Triple E Framework draws on a considerable amount of past and current research in educational technology and the learning sciences. Much of this research will be shared more in Chapters 1 through 4.

Figure I.4 The Triple E Framework Model showing suggested options for incorporating instructional strategies into the lesson with the technology on the right side. Please note that the instructional strategies can be used to enhance any of the three E scores.

Is the Triple E Valid and Reliable?

A question that often arises around the Triple E Framework Evaluation Rubric is if the rubric is valid and reliable for evaluating lessons that integrate technology. The answer is yes. An independent study conducted by Sheila Erin Schatzke from the University of North Texas found the Triple E Framework to be both valid and reliable (Schatzke, 2019). The study asked the following questions:

•  Does the Triple E Rubric offer a valid evaluation instrument to determine whether digital technology tools effectively support the learning goals?

•  Does the Triple E Rubric have content and concurrent validity?

•  Is the Triple E Rubric a reliable measurement for a technology-integrated lesson?

To answer these questions, Dr. Schatzke and her research team reviewed 40 lesson plans from 40 teachers using technology. In each lesson, the teachers were permitted to use any technology tools to meet their state’s content-area benchmark standards. Inter-rater reliability was established by having two separate raters score the written lesson plans and recorded observations, and it was found that the inter-rater reliability was statistically significant at r = .812 (very strong). Dr. Schatzke concluded, The results from the lesson plans and observations provide strong evidence that the Triple E Rubric is a reliable and valid instrument for planning lessons with technology integration (Schatzke, 2019).

Who Uses the Triple E Framework?

Over the past eight years, numerous school districts across the United States have integrated the Triple E Framework into their districts on a small or large scale. A few examples of districts include Chatham County Schools in North Carolina; Plymouth-Canton Schools in Michigan; Wilson Schools in North Carolina; Catholic Schools in the Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey; Lake Shore Public Schools in Michigan; and Lexington School District Two in South Carolina. In addition to school districts, individual schools and educators within districts have also used the Triple E Framework. Chapter 7 goes into detail on how two schools systematically implemented the Triple E Framework.

While a systematic approach to technology integration is the best practice, it is not always an option for schools. Thus, the Triple E Framework has also been used by many individual teachers to measure and inform their teaching practice with technology. In addition to school districts, some teacher education programs are incorporating the Triple E Framework into their preparation for preservice teachers to integrate technology into their future teaching.

Connection to the ISTE Standards

The ISTE Standards for Students emphasize the skills and qualities needed to engage and thrive in a connected, digital world. The standards are designed for use by educators across the curriculum, with every age student, with a goal of cultivating these skills throughout a student’s academic career. To help you connect the learning in this book to the ISTE Standards for Students, Chapter 1 includes a table that illustrates how each standard aligns with the three Es of the framework, and Chapter 5 lists the relevant indicators for each of the twelve featured teacher lesson plans. Scan the QR code or visit iste.org/standards/for-students to view the ISTE Standards for Students in full.

The ISTE Standards for Educators are your road map to helping students become empowered learners. These standards will deepen your practice, promote collaboration with peers, challenge you to rethink traditional approaches and prepare students to drive their own learning. To help you connect the learning in this book to the ISTE Standards for Educators, Chapter 1 includes a table that illustrates how each standard aligns with the three Es of the framework. Scan the QR code or visit iste.org/standards/for-educators to view the ISTE Standards for Educators in full.

The role of the technology coach in education is constantly evolving and encompasses several elements—from establishing relationships with educators to improve learning outcomes to inspiring educators to use technology to ensure access to high-quality learning; from supporting educators to design learning experiences that meet the needs of all students to modeling digital citizenship and supporting educators and students in how to interact in a digital world. To help you connect the learning in this book to the recently revised ISTE Standards for Coaches, Chapter 6 highlights how technology coaches integrating the Triple E Framework into their schools are meeting many of the ISTE Standards. Scan the QR code or visit iste.org/standards/for-coaches to view the ISTE Standards for Coaches in full.

What to Expect in This Book

If you’ve read Learning First, Technology Second (Kolb, 2017), this book will continue to build on your knowledge about the Triple E Framework. This book provides a deeper dive into the Triple E Framework, new research in educational technology, brand new teaching scenarios, new lesson plans, and new ideas for using technology in education! If you have not read Learning First, Technology Second, this book will introduce you to the basic foundation of the Triple E Framework and essential research in education technology without missing a beat!

In the next few chapters, you will learn about the current research on teaching and educational technology that informs each of the Es in the Triple E Framework. You will explore scenarios of teaching with technology and evaluate those scenarios based on each E of the framework. In addition, you will read twelve authentic lesson plans developed and taught by K–12 teachers that meet all three E components. Finally, you will learn how instructional designers and technology coaches can use the Triple E Framework as a coaching tool with teachers, as well as hear from two school districts that implemented the framework district-wide.

Chapter 1 explores the latest research on technology in the classroom, considers the myths that are in our education technology narrative, and discusses the realities of those myths as they relate to each of the three Es. Chapter 1 includes practical takeaways for each piece of educational technology research shared so you can immediately implement that research into your teaching practice.

Chapters 2 through 4 take a deep dive into each E so that you can easily use the Triple E Framework Evaluation Rubric. You will examine six scenarios of teaching with technology and use the nine Triple E Framework Evaluation Rubric questions to evaluate each scenario. Further, you will learn how to create modifications in each scenario in order to make more effective connections between the learning goal, the instructional strategies, and the technology choices.

Chapter 5 shares twelve authentic K–12 teacher lesson plans that have integrated all three Es of the framework. The lessons are broken down so you can see how each is evaluated on the Triple E Framework Evaluation Rubric.

Chapter 6 suggests a step-by-step process for instructional designers and technology coaches to begin using the Triple E Evaluation Rubric with classroom teachers and school administrators for better lesson design with technology. This chapter also introduces the Triple E Coaching Tool.

Finally, Chapter 7 shares how two schools systematically integrated the Triple E Framework into their entire school district.

This book is meant to be read in order from the Introduction through Chapter 7. However, if you are a technology coach or coordinator who is already very familiar with the Triple E Framework, you may want to skip ahead to Chapters 6 and 7 to learn how to introduce the Triple E Framework to your school or district. If you are a classroom teacher already familiar with the framework, you may want to skip ahead to Chapter 5, where you will be inspired by a wide selection of lesson plans that meet all three Es of the framework. If you are interested in learning how to use the Triple E Framework to modify a lesson to better meet all three Es, I recommend reading through the scenarios in Chapters 2, 3, and 4. Finally, if you are interested in the latest research on educational technology and how it can be put into practice, you should start at Chapter 1. Most importantly, this book should open up conversations with teachers, coaches, and administrators around the choices educators are making with technology tools in their classroom teaching.

Chapter 1

Debunking Myths with Research That Informs the Triple E Framework

THIS CHAPTER GRAPPLES WITH some of the common myths that have arisen in recent education narratives around what it means to engage, enhance, and extend learning through technology. By citing and explaining research studies that seek to clarify the reality behind these myths, the chapter will explore:

Engagement Myths. Screen time, 1:1 with digital devices, and multitasking with technology

Enhancement Myths. Quantity versus quality