International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education

Volume 15 • Issue 3 • July-September 2019

Teachers’ and Students’ Perspectives

on Good Teaching Using Technology
in Elementary Classrooms
Insook Han, Temple University, Philadelphia, USA
Seungyeon Han, Hanyang Cyber University, Seoul, Korea, Republic Of
Won Sug Shin, Incheon National University, Incheon, Korea, Republic Of

ABSTRACT

This article describes good teaching with technology from both teachers’ and students’ perspectives
through analyzing two distinctive cases of teaching practices with technology in K-12 settings.
Data was generated from teacher interviews, classroom observation, student interviews, and student
reflection journals. From the analysis of these data, the authors identified four categories of behavior
that were considered emblematic of good teaching with technology: deliberate instructional design,
enhanced engagement, adaptive instruction, and a respectful learning environment. In addition, while
teachers restructured the curriculum and integrated technologies in a way that was more meaningful
for students, teachers’ beliefs were embedded in their approaches towards instructional design and
teaching practices, which resulted in the seamless integration of technology with sound pedagogy in
a content-specific way. The results of the study provided practical guidelines for good teaching with
technology and implications on what role technology should take in teaching practices.

Keywords
Elementary School, Good Teaching, Pedagogy, Technology in The Classroom

1. INTRODUCTION

Rapid development in technology and the widespread use of social media have changed the educational
landscape. However, despite the increased accessibility of resources, expanded communication
opportunities, and enhanced collaborative capacity, not every class fully benefits from the new
technology (Pittman & Gaines, 2015). It may be attributed to the discrepancy between what research
suggests that teachers do and what teachers actually can accomplish. While previous literature seems
to define exemplary technology-integrated teaching as one that embraces learner-centered teaching
practices (Admiraal et al., 2017; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010) and teachers’ constructivist
pedagogical beliefs (Kim, Kim, Lee, Spector, & DeMeester, 2013; Liu, 2011), these findings do
not readily match teachers’ performances using technology. For instance, even teachers who hold
constructivist beliefs tend to implement lecture-based teaching due to their limited understanding of
appropriately integrating technology (Liu, 2011).
Although a successful experience of using technology is essential for teachers to change their
instructional practices (Miller, 2008), previous research failed to provide teachers with practical
instructional guidelines for what will work best regarding technology uses in K-12 classrooms.
Numerous studies quantitatively examined factors associated with teachers’ technology integration
by using self-report surveys (e.g., Liu, Ritzhaupt, Dawson, & Barron, 2017). However, these studies
neither described evidence on how technology promoted instructional practices nor explicated how

DOI: 10.4018/IJICTE.2019070108

Copyright © 2019, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.


103
International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education
Volume 15 • Issue 3 • July-September 2019

teachers’ belief, knowledge, and prior experiences shaped their instructional decisions regarding the
use of technology. Besides, these studies only focused on teachers’ perspectives without considering
students’ perception, and thus limit our understanding about what good teaching with technology is
in classrooms.
Therefore, using a qualitative approach, this study investigated two distinctive cases of technology
use in K-12 settings and described evidence on the components of good teaching with technology
as perceived by teachers and students; the study also examined the intersection of their knowledge,
beliefs, and professional development experiences.

2. RELEVANT RESEARCH

2.1. Good Teaching with Technology

The existing frameworks for good teaching, in general, have defined best teaching practices without
explicitly addressing how technology can promote or enhance those practices. Studies before the
1980s tended to have a narrower focus on good teaching, with an emphasis on teachers’ “teaching
skills,” which remain important to this day with the modern framework of setting measurable learning
objectives and meeting students’ learning needs (Center for Educational Leadership, 2012). However,
recent literature is characterized by a more constructivist perspective on defining good teaching
practices including learner-centered practices (Duarte, 2013). As such, the definition of good teaching
varies following educational trends. Formulating a precise definition is even more challenging due
to the relativity of the term “good” and the complexity and multiplicity of the term “teaching.” For
example, some researchers define good teaching as encouraging learners to improve their knowledge
(Johnson-Farmer & Frenn, 2009). While Morgan and Morris (1999) defined good teaching as
stimulating student interests, explaining matters in an easy-to-understand manner, treating students in
a friendly manner, and effectively controlling the class, Borich (2000) suggested that good teaching
practices include delivering instruction clearly and concisely, utilizing various teaching methods,
focusing on coursework, promoting active participation from students, and helping students achieve
high academic performance. In a recent study, Larsen, Glover, and Melhuish (2015) found students’
perspectives on good teaching factors to be student-centered, such as classroom interactions that
acknowledge students, encouraging and available instructor, and fair assessments.
Although there is less scholarly research regarding good teaching in K-12 settings (e.g., Ballantyne,
Bain, & Packer, 1999), some studies also suggest constructivist elements as constituting good
teaching practices in K-12 education. In a study examining award-winning teachers’ perceptions of
what constitutes good teaching, four dimensions were identified: teaching as structuring learning,
teaching as motivating learning, teaching as encouraging activity and independence in learning,
and teaching as establishing interpersonal relations (Dunkin & Precians, 1992). Similarly, a review
study identified six essential practices and attributes of high-quality teaching and learning: a) the
teacher designs effective, standards-based instruction, b) the teacher delivers high-quality, student-
centered instruction, c) the teacher promotes high levels of student engagement, d) the teacher uses
assessment of student learning, e) the teacher uses a positive behavior management strategy, and f)
there is clear evidence that students are learning (MacGregor, 2007). In a more recent survey study
with elementary students and teachers, Bllock (2015) found differences in students’ and teachers’
beliefs about good teaching while identifying a teacher’s ability, personality and relationship with
students as common characteristics.
Constructivist teaching practices identified in previously discussed studies seem to be closely
related to the ideal practices of technology-integrated teaching (Liu, 2011) since if adequately used,
technology can transform learning to become more learner-centered by allowing students to become
active knowledge creators (Jonassen & Reeves, 1996; Tondeur, van Braak, Ertmer, & Ottenbreit-
Leftwich, 2017). However, which specific instructional strategies teachers should use to promote this
transformation by using technology remains understudied, and further research is needed to develop
the contextual understanding of instructional strategies using technologies.
104
 International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education
Volume 15 • Issue 3 • July-September 2019

2.2. Teachers’ Knowledge, Beliefs, and Contexts

for Good Teaching with Technology
Qualities of good teachers have also long been studied as an important element of good teaching. While
some studies have identified good teaching behaviors mostly related to students’ learning achievement
(Stronge, Ward, & Grant, 2011), others have investigated teachers’ quality with a more holistic
approach, considering teachers’ personality, teaching ability, and the contexts of teaching practice
(Korthagen, 2004). Among many qualitative factors, teachers’ characteristics such as being kind,
serious, enthusiastic, and appealing (Beishuizen, Hof, Putten, Bouwmeester, & Asscher, 2001) may
be a universal component for good teaching regardless of the use of technology. However, the skills,
knowledge, and experience necessary for being a good technology-using teacher may be different, as
technology requires specific knowledge (Mishra & Koehler 2006; Rienties, Brouwer, & Lygo-Baker,
2013) and professional development (Inan & Lowther, 2010) for its effective use in classrooms. For
instance, Shulman (1987) argued that to be effective, teachers must possess and exhibit competency in
content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge. Later, technological
knowledge was added to the framework of the three areas of knowledge (technological, pedagogical,
and content) that teachers should possess for successful technology integration, commonly known
as TPACK (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Most importantly, the TPACK framework emphasizes the
integration of these three elements as the ideal cognitive state teachers should be in when making
instructional decisions on the use of technology. Previous studies have consistently addressed the
importance of professional development in the use of technology, showing that teachers’ participation
in such development encourages the more extensive use of technology in their teaching (Rienties et al.,
2013; Han, Byun, & Shin, 2018). Also, teachers’ beliefs regarding technology have been identified as
one of the most influential factors for their use of technology in classrooms (Kim et al., 2013). Since
teachers base their teaching practices on their beliefs, teachers are more likely to use technology if it
is following their existing beliefs and practices (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Shin, 2015).
However, a teacher with the ideal personality, knowledge, competency, and beliefs will not always
practice good teaching, as environmental factors limit teachers’ behavior, such as learner effort,
atmosphere, and organizational culture (Korthagen, 2004). In particular, the available technological
hardware and software vary between districts and nations. The level of technology infrastructure either
enhances or limits teachers’ use of technology. Furthermore, students’ computer literacy and access to
computers or related technology at home can also affect how teachers can use technology in classrooms.
While these environmental factors can have a negative impact, good teaching requires a degree of
adaptability and responsiveness to the context of the work (Fenstermacher & Richardson, 2005).
Therefore, good teaching with technology involves coping with contextual limitations by utilizing
available resources and taking into consideration students’ needs and existing technological skills.

3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS

As discussed earlier, previous research examining technology integration either suggests student-
centered teaching approach as good teaching in concept or quantitatively examines factors associated
with teachers’ use of technology without addressing the quality of technology use. Thus, there are
few practical guidelines for teachers to adopt in the classroom and limited descriptive evidence on
how teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and instructional contexts shape their instruction. To fill this gap,
applying a qualitative approach, we addressed the following research questions.

• What are the salient components of good teaching using technology from teachers’ and students’
perspectives?
• How are teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and educational contexts related to their use of technology?

105
International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education
Volume 15 • Issue 3 • July-September 2019

4. METHODS

4.1. Participants
For this study, we selected two elementary school teachers who were designated as exemplary
technology-using teachers by the Ministry of Education (MOE) in South Korea. Exemplary technology-
using teachers are chosen to infuse technology in the classroom, testing innovations in selected schools,
and expanding the result to other schools. Usually, these teachers are experienced in teaching, fulfill
the role of technology coach, and frequently participate in formal technology-related professional
development. They also worked at schools designated as technology-using initiative schools by MOE
with classrooms equipped with technologies not available in other schools (a detailed description is
in “Research Contexts,” below).
Teacher A was male, in his late 30s, with 11 years of teaching experience in public elementary
schools. Teacher B was also male, in his 40s, with 17 years of teaching in public elementary schools.

4.2. Research Context

Data were collected from two elementary schools. School A was located in a metropolitan area, and
School B was located in one of the major cities in the southern part of South Korea. The schools
were distinct in their technological environment, devices used, and subjects taught. We observed
each teacher’s class sessions on different subjects to compare and contrast various strategies they
incorporated to use technologies in different contexts.

4.2.1. School A: Teacher A’s Class

Teacher A’s fourth-grade science lesson was implemented during two class sessions in a high-tech
classroom. The classroom was equipped with six smart-walls with ceiling-mounted beam projectors,
mobile devices (tablets) for each student that could be remotely controlled by the teacher, a wireless
network with a cloud computing service, and a wireless keyboard, mouse, and laptop for group work.
The students engaged in project-based learning in teams to develop evacuation guidelines for an
earthquake. The teacher offered different contexts for where the earthquake might hit for each group,
such as in the classroom, in the field, on the subway, and in a skyscraper. Four groups of students
investigated each case. In the final class, the students developed evacuation manuals for each case
based on the results of their investigations from the previous two sessions and research assignments
completed outside of the classroom. The group work consisted of self-directed learning with some
teacher guidance. Each group developed a scenario in a given condition and invented a way to present
it as a final product. They created PowerPoint presentations using pictures they found online and made
movie clips using a camera and the tablet’s video editing function. Each group’s presentation was
recorded and uploaded to a class’s closed social networking site (SNS) that allowed other students
to provide feedback. The teacher also created a survey for assessing students’ learning and activities
in Socrative®, an instant feedback application, and asked students to complete it. Throughout the
class, technology and social media enhanced the interaction and communication between the teacher
and students and among the students.
Teacher A’s fourth-grade social studies class was conducted for two consecutive class periods in a
traditional classroom with tablets. For this lesson, students were requested to submit a group proposal
of a mock “leisure fair” that included the definition of leisure and detailed descriptions of activities
they chose, including where, when, how, with whom, and so on. The classes we observed were the
first and second of three sessions, during which the teacher started to introduce the concept of leisure
by showing a short video clip with a ceiling-mounted TV connected to the teacher’s computer. In the
second session, the students brainstormed what they would include in the proposal. For this activity,
student groups used tablets and collaborated with group members by sharing resources and writing
together using Google Docs.

106
 International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education
Volume 15 • Issue 3 • July-September 2019

4.2.2. School B: Teacher B’s Class

In Teacher B’s sixth-grade social studies class, students participated in project-based learning in a
traditional classroom with tablets for two consecutive class periods. We observed the second and
third of three sessions on culture. The students worked as a team to study different food cultures
around the world in the first session, and continued working on developing presentation materials
and presented their final product in the second session. Their tools for collaboration included
Google Docs, PowerPoint, and video editing software. The presentations included skits, movie clips
(uploaded and shared on YouTube), newspaper articles, paper maps on reduced scales, and PowerPoint
presentations. The students explained what they had learned from group work, why they chose specific
kinds of presentation methods, and what they wanted to know more about in the subject area. After
each presentation, the students asked questions of other groups, made comments, or corrected other
teams’ misconceptions.
In Teacher B’s sixth grade Korean class, students were asked to bring their favorite poem and
worked on creating a digital illustration that goes along with the poem they chose. Students had
individual tablets that they could use to draw. Once they had completed the illustration, they logged
into their class’s closed SNS and posted their product. The teacher also logged into the class site and
showed the different students’ illustrations to the class via a ceiling-mounted screen, during which the
teacher and students shared their feelings and impressions. As an after-class assignment, the students
were asked to post comments on other classmates’ works on the class site.
In Teacher B’s sixth-grade mathematics class, the teacher used an e-textbook (auxiliary lesson
materials) along with a tablet connected to a ceiling-mounted screen. The students did not use any
technology in this class. The teacher demonstrated how to solve equations by writing with a stylus pen
on the tablet, which simultaneously appeared on the screen. While the students worked on solving math
problems in their workbooks, the teacher walked around the classroom, taking pictures of students’
problem-solving processes with his tablet and showing them to the class.

4.3. Data Collection

Class observations were conducted during four class sessions for each teacher, with a total of eight
class periods observed. Each class lasts 45 minutes, and researchers videotaped the sessions and
wrote field notes during observation. The researchers noted teaching and learning activities occurred
during teachers’ and students’ discourses and any subtle communication between students as much
as possible. Also, two in-depth interviews were conducted with each teacher at the end of class
observations to gather information on educational philosophy, teaching style, technology use, and their
idea of exemplary technology-using practices. Moreover, questions were asked to clarify instructional
events observed in classes. Each interview took around 40 minutes. The interviews were audiotaped
and later transcribed for analysis.
At the end of each observation, the students were asked to write a semi-structured reflection
journal. Furthermore, six students (three boys and three girls) at various levels of general academic
achievement identified by each teacher participated in a focus group interview. Both the reflection
journals and the focus group interview were meant to elicit students’ perceptions of exemplary
classroom technology use.

4.4. Data Analysis

The major data for this study were an interview with teachers and focus group interviews with students.
We first analyzed the transcripts of the interviews to identify emerging themes for the study. Then
we find more evidence from the classroom observation and students’ reflection journals to support
and refine emerging themes. Specifically, the analysis was based on the inductive analysis method,
specifically of transcripts of interviews and the focus group interview, which informed and defined
main categories for further exploration. Three main approaches were used in the inductive analysis
process: meaning condensation, meaning categorization, and meaning interpretation (Brinkmann &

107
International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education
Volume 15 • Issue 3 • July-September 2019

Kvale, 2014). Meaning condensation involved the reduction of lengthy statements into more concise
formulations. Meaning categorization entailed coding the text into categories. Meaning interpretation
transformed what was directly said in a text to relations of meaning not immediately apparent in the
text. For triangulation, emerging themes and categories were compared continuously with evidence
from field notes, interviews, focus group interviews, and student reflection journals.

5. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

5.1. Good Teaching with Technology from Teachers’ and Students’ Perspectives
We identified four categories of salient factors for good teaching with technology from both teachers’
and students’ perspectives: deliberate instructional design, enhanced engagement, adaptive instruction,
and a respectful learning environment. Table 1 shows a summary of the categories and themes
emerged from the analysis.

5.2. Deliberate Instructional Design

The deliberate instructional design consisted of teachers’ having clear goals for what they would teach
to their students. This category included three emerging themes, including restructuring the curriculum,
focusing on the development of competencies, and utilizing diverse assessment methods. Unlike the
traditional way of teaching that strictly follows the sequence laid out in the curriculum and textbooks,
especially in South Korea, where government-designated or authorized textbooks are used, the teachers
in our study tried to adopt a project-based approach in creating student activities. To create a project,
the teachers restructured the curriculum in a way that encompassed and meaningfully integrated
multiple subject areas, such as science and social studies as in the earthquake project described
earlier. This modification required the teachers’ interdisciplinary understanding of the curriculum
across subjects, which was reflected in their interviews and also featured in one student’s response.

Table 1. Categories and themes for good teaching using technology

Categories Themes
Restructuring curriculum
Deliberate instructional design Focusing on the development of competencies
Utilizing diverse assessment methods
Providing scaffolding and facilitation
Promoting participatory culture
Enhanced engagement
Promoting meaningful interaction
Utilizing authentic learning activity
Personalized learning
Adaptive instruction Continuous monitoring of students’ learning
Teachers’ constant self-reflection
Positive relationship between teacher and students
Respectful learning environment Respect among students
Diverse and emotionally safe atmosphere

108
 International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education
Volume 15 • Issue 3 • July-September 2019

Even though the textbooks do not state it, by reconstructing the curriculum, the students could find
something. The projects could help benefit them to learn and search for information by themselves.
The teacher could use this process to aid and create lessons (Teacher A).
… we learn two subjects together. In the last lesson, we conducted a science project using a survey
method in social studies. It is more helpful than learning each subject separately because I acquired
more interdisciplinary knowledge (Student A from School A).

This interdisciplinary approach was possible because the teachers had a well-defined
understanding of the different requirements of teaching according to the learning process for each
subject. The teachers chose differentiated teaching strategies and activities that best accommodated
the various goals and characteristics of different subject areas.
While explaining the benefit of project-based learning, the teachers continuously emphasized the
importance of improving students’ competencies, saying that it was at least as important as acquiring
content knowledge. For this purpose, they tried to encourage teamwork as well as self-directed and
independent learning throughout the learning process. They noticed that promoting these competencies
is not easy, taking considerable effort and time, though it is gradually achievable through practice.
In particular, Teacher A mentioned:

Yes, they did have a hard time. Especially when the children had to be in groups for the first time...
To be honest, however, as time goes by, I think the children are noticing the importance of completing
things on their own. Also, they became more assertive. The students’ self-confidence is rising, and
they are finding things that they have to complete on their own accord.

The students also felt that it was sometimes hard to collaborate with other students due to different
perspectives and opinions regarding specific issues (e.g. ‘It was hard to work with my peers because
we kept disagreeing on our opinions’), which was taken as evidence that teamwork has to be taught
and practiced. Besides this, technology seemed to play an important role in developing students’
competencies in both classrooms we observed. Teacher A mentioned that using ICT certainly helped
students take responsibility for their learning. Using the Internet and social media, students learned
how to find information on the web, as well as how to evaluate and present it critically. The students
acknowledged this as a positive experience of using technology in their classrooms:

Before, one person always created the PowerPoint presentation. However, Google Drive® creates
a space for everyone to join and communicate with one another, causing it to be more convenient
(Student B from School B).

In focusing on improving students’ competencies, the teachers used diverse assessment methods
to evaluate not only students’ knowledge gain as an outcome but also their competency growth. The
teachers placed more emphasis on the improvement of students’ competencies and utilized several
different methods for evaluating learning processes from multiple perspectives, providing students
with self-reflection opportunities to evaluate their learning. The evaluation processes were often
facilitated by the use of technology, for example, enabling instant questions-and-answers using
Socrative® as in Teacher A’s classroom.
This category is consistent with the characteristics of good teaching identified in previous
studies, such as teaching as structuring learning (Dunkin & Precians, 1992), teachers’ designing of
effective and standards-based instruction, and teachers’ use of the assessment of student learning
(MacGregor, 2007). In our study, the teachers tried to structure learning by having clear goals and
intentions for instruction, designing effective and standards-based lessons. More importantly, they
emphasized the students’ competencies and used various assessments to evaluate their development.

109
International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education
Volume 15 • Issue 3 • July-September 2019

As competency is a concept broader than just knowledge or skills, encompassing cognitive, functional,
and interpersonal attributes and ethical values (Rychen & Salganik, 2003), focusing on students’
competencies rather than content knowledge should ultimately improve both content knowledge and
the students’ ability to apply that knowledge to problem-solving. Besides, the use of technological tools
facilitates the process of communication, sharing, and problem-solving that enables the deepening of
content knowledge. Students’ use of technology to transform learning has also been acknowledged
as meaningful technology integration in previous studies (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013;
Jonassen & Reeves, 1996).

5.3. Enhanced Engagement

Enhanced engagement requires that the class provide interesting and diverse learning activities
that facilitate the deep engagement of students. This category included four sub-themes: providing
scaffolding and facilitation, promoting participatory culture, promoting meaningful interaction, and
utilizing authentic learning activities.
While focusing on improving students’ competencies, the teachers continuously provided
scaffolding and facilitation for their group work, as well as promoting participatory culture in their
classrooms. For example, instead of directing or leading the class, the teachers supported students’
learning by providing feedback and comments throughout the learning process including constant
support for group works by answering questions and facilitating group discussion. They also ensured
each student’s participation in the learning process by cultivating a participatory culture. When leading
a class discussion after completing a project, the teachers tried to give more opportunities to speak
to those who needed additional support, which ultimately created a participatory culture wherein all
students were encouraged to participate in any possible way. On this, Teacher B said in his interview:

At the beginning of the school year, student C was not able to complete tasks on his own. The student
did not have the necessary foundation to read and write. However, after the project-based learning,
as you can see now, the student became more confident in participating even though he could not
get it right, which is very worthwhile. By encouraging the student to participate and boost his self-
esteem, it does make things different.

Meaningful interaction involved increased interactions among the teacher and students, as well
as expanded opportunities for interaction. In particular, technology facilitated this process inside and
outside of classrooms. The teachers commonly used online tools (e.g., Classting®, a Korea-based site
that is similar to Edmodo, Schoology, or Google Classroom) that created online classroom spaces where
students could upload their work as well as interact with the teacher and fellow students. Furthermore,
the use of these online tools enabled instant interaction within the classroom setting by providing
every student with opportunities for presenting their ideas online. Additionally, learning was extended
to outside the classroom because students could reply to others’ posts when they returned home.
The teachers’ use of authentic learning activities also increased students’ engagement. Depending
on the subject, teachers developed learning activities that were relevant to students’ daily lives. For
example, students created earthquake evacuation manuals for different places in their neighborhoods,
researched historical figures who initiated important events from areas they live in now. In Teacher
A’s interview, he also mentioned activities that he had employed to make learning more authentic
and meaningful, which students also recognized as valuable components of good teaching.

I think it is very helpful to invite famous people from the outside world… I had the opportunity to
interview a city council member, and I took my students to the interview, which ended up being very
helpful to them (Teacher A).

110
 International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education
Volume 15 • Issue 3 • July-September 2019

He uses an entirely different method from the other teachers, such as an exciting project assignment,
helping me gain confidence and study harder. (Student B from School B).

Often, to make the learning experience more authentic, the teachers used multimedia content
in various stages of instruction. From class observation, we found that the teachers commonly used
video clips for introducing a learning topic, motivating students, or presenting learning content. The
teachers said in their interviews that, since the same teacher teaches almost every subject (in elementary
schools), instead of using a traditional textbook only, bringing multimedia and different devices to
the classroom make teaching and learning activities more dynamic and expand students’ experiences.
Promoting active learning has long been considered as an element of good teaching. Dunkin and
Precians (1992) defined good teaching as encouraging activity and independence in learning, and
Ramsey (2000) also noted that making learning meaningful and essential to students should be part
of the quality teaching model in K-12 education. The teachers’ use of technology certainly enhanced
students’ active participation and engagement by making each student contribute to a group project,
which ultimately helped them develop a sense of ownership over their group project. Motivation and
student engagement are also important psychological construct for meaningful learning. Motivating
learning (Dunkin & Precians, 1992) and promoting high levels of student engagement (MacGregor,
2007) have been recognized as critical components of good teaching. This study also found that
enhanced engagement was one of the categories that emerged, but its sub-themes identified new
trends in technology-integrated instruction, indicating that using technology transforms the best
ways of promoting student engagement. For example, the use of social media extensively increased
the opportunity for interaction inside and outside the classroom, which was recognized as a good
teaching practice by both teachers and students. The use of multimedia content was also derived from
our analysis as an element of good teaching. Utilizing authentic learning activities has already been
discussed in the previous literature as a way of engaging students in technology-enabled learning
environments (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013), and in our study, the teachers demonstrated
how technology could be used to create authentic project-based learning.

5.4. Adaptive Instruction

A technology-enabled class should provide adaptive instruction based on individual abilities and
aptitude. However, it should be noted that adaptive instruction in this study did not mean that individual
learners were provided with different sets of interventions. Instead, the teachers made tremendous
efforts to notice and accommodate individual differences during the class. This category included
three themes: personalized learning, continuous monitoring of students’ learning, and teachers’
constant self-reflection.
Technology played an essential role in the classroom when it came to individual learners’
differences in learning. The teachers used various devices and online resources to provide students
with individualized support or enrichment activities for advanced students. For example, Teacher A
worked with a student who was shy and afraid of participating in class to encourage him to speak out.
In a separate location, while the others were working in a small group, the teacher had him present
his work and ideas while recording his presentation. The teacher uploaded the student’s presentation
recording to the online classroom community and allowed other students to interact with one another
in a less-threatening and indirect way. Similarly, Teacher B used technologies as differentiated learning
tools, not only for those who need additional support but also for the advanced students. We observed
the teacher working with an underachieving child separately while letting others work on their math
problems on their devices. Regarding this, the teacher said:

In some ways, technology activities may be helpful for weaker students, but it is the same for higher-
level students as well. If a class period is 40 minutes, it only takes 20 minutes for them to understand

111
International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education
Volume 15 • Issue 3 • July-September 2019

the materials. After that, you could separate the class by taking advantage of this device (tablet PCs)
for the higher-level students and intensify their work to challenge their learning skills.

Personalized learning was made possible in each classroom by the teachers’ continuous monitoring
of students’ learning in a seamless way during instruction. The teachers posed a series of questions
(using the Socratic method) to help students determine whether or not they understood the learning
concepts instead of giving them the answers immediately. Rather than being predesigned, the teachers’
questions were adapted based on students’ previous answers and evolved until the students attained
complete understanding. Also, the teachers walked around the classrooms and monitored the students’
work during small-group and individual activities. The students also found this intellectually engaging
and helpful for reflecting on their thinking and monitoring their understanding.

When we do not understand, the teacher always makes us find the answer until the end. It helps us
learn better and increase understanding because the teacher does not just tell us the answers. / The
teacher solves the problem with me and answers my questions on the spot helping my comprehension
to grow, which is good. / The teacher never lets us give up even if the problem is hard by making us
try harder... / I like how my teacher observes my answers until I understand the materials. (From
student interviews)

In addition to in-class monitoring of students’ learning, the teachers commonly asserted the
importance of constant reflection on their teaching practice. The teachers reflected on their teaching
on various levels, whether on a specific class session, during the semester, or in a broader, more
long-term context. For example, at the start of a new semester, while planning for a project, Teacher
A invented various ways of arranging groups and tested them to find the best combination of students
in a small group. Each class, he tried out one method and observed students’ interaction, adapting the
grouping method to address problems that emerged during group work. Specifically, to address the
free-rider issue, Teacher A said he tried to create a select group of students who used to be free-riders.

If you create a 6-person group, there is bound to be a misbehaving child. So, I have come up with
different arrangements of groups. By trying groups of six, I made the children vote out the students
who were not completing their work. Based on the voting results, I created a group of those selected
students and became their group leader myself to help them with their activities.

Teacher B conducted a formative evaluation of his teaching by letting students give him feedback
and comments on his teaching for that particular semester. Usually, he went through this evaluation
after the first semester so that he could learn what students wanted, using the opportunity to reflect
on his mistakes. Based on this formative evaluation, he could modify and revise his instructional
strategies and the learning activities that he provided to students.
While previous studies did not recognize addressing diverse students’ needs as an element of
good teaching, in our study, adaptive instruction emerged as an important component of good teaching
with technology. Even though good teachers may consistently monitor students’ learning regardless
of technology use, the use of technology indeed enabled personalized learning by providing tailored
opportunities for students with different needs.

5.5. Respectful Learning Environment

One of the crucial aspects of good teaching with technology was that the teachers tried hard to create
a respectful learning environment that promoted a positive relationship with students, respect among
students, and a diverse and emotionally safe atmosphere in the classroom. The teachers believed that
all good teaching, regardless of technology, began with positive interpersonal relationships. The

112
 International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education
Volume 15 • Issue 3 • July-September 2019

teachers spent generous time with students to get to know them, and became active advocates of using
social networking sites for interacting with students outside the classrooms. Both classrooms had their
online communities in Classting®, an educational SNS, that connected the teachers and students. The
teachers provided individualized feedback to students’ work that was uploaded to this online space,
even after a school day had ended. The students were favorable toward this interaction because they
felt closer to their teacher and could communicate with him by asking questions and getting answers
even outside the classroom. Obviously, the teachers’ efforts to build a rapport with students had an
impact on the students’ perception of good teaching and was recognized in the students’ interviews.

For us, our teacher is a “father-like” figure that we can easily approach. He has always taken care
of and wanted the best for us. Because of this teacher, my elementary school years have made a
significant impact on my life. / This teacher is particularly different from the other teachers because
he has great leadership skills and a nice and pleasant personality. / I told my teacher that I wish he
become my homeroom teacher again next year. (From student interviews)

In addition to the teachers’ efforts to build a relationship with their students, they also fostered a
respectful culture within the classroom. In particular, Teacher A created a classroom culture where
students had to use certain polite expressions toward each other when working on a project in a small
group. Both the teacher and the students recognized this as a valuable experience, as the students
would stay calm and respectful not only when they agreed, but also when they did not agree on certain
issues, which ultimately helped them learn how to defend their own opinions in a non-confrontational
manner. Diverse ideas and individual differences were valued in the classroom, and students were
encouraged to present their ideas in a non-threatening atmosphere. For example, when the students
presented the final product of their group project, Teacher B allowed groups to present their work
in any way they thought was best. As a result, when the students presented their projects on food
cultures around the world, one group chose to present it with PowerPoint slides, one with a video they
created, another with a paper-based world map, or even in the form of a short play. The acceptance
of diversity and differences seemed to be deeply ingrained, and so, the students were able to learn
in an emotionally safe environment without worrying about being different or wrong. In Teacher
A’s classroom, there were two international students, which is not yet common in South Korea. As
they were still learning Korean, they could easily fee differences, but the rest of the class was very
inclusive, helped them with their Korean when they answered, and embraced their differences. The
safe ambiance of the classroom also encouraged students to make mistakes without feeling ashamed,
which was mentioned in the student interviews.

If I do not know the answer and ask questions, my teacher explains the problem until I understand
the content and rephrases it. My teacher does not blame us for wrong answers on our tests, rather
explaining the concepts again. The teacher always wants us to find our own mistakes to learn more.

This category is very well aligned with previous studies that defined good teaching as establishing
interpersonal relations (Dunkin & Precians, 1992), building positive relationships between teachers
and students and among students (Ramsey, 2000), and implementing positive behavior management
strategies (MacGregor, 2007). Besides, this study further showed that by using technology, teachers
and students could build more intimate relationships and trust, which eventually created a respectful
learning environment where diverse ideas and differences were accepted.

113
International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education
Volume 15 • Issue 3 • July-September 2019

6. CONCLUSION

From our class observations and the teacher interviews, the teachers presented their understanding of
technology integration and beliefs about technology. As discussed above, the teachers restructured the
curriculum and integrated technologies in a way that was more meaningful for students. According
to Mishra and Koehler (2006), teachers should possess technological, pedagogical, and content
knowledge for successful technology integration, which was evident in the cases examined in this
study. When the teachers designed projects for their students and used technology, they showed a
clear understanding of each subject area (content knowledge), the instructional models they could
use (pedagogical knowledge), and the technological tools that could support the process of teaching
and learning (technological knowledge).
Also, we realized that technology follows pedagogy and that it should, therefore, be used to
support pedagogy, primarily as a tool for expanding the learning space outside the classroom. In line
with previous studies that have shown that teachers’ beliefs regarding technology are one of the most
influential factors for their use of technology in the classroom (Kim et al., 2013), this study found
that the teachers saw using technology as a means to enhance teaching and learning, rather than as
an end in itself. This belief about technology was certainly embedded in teachers’ approaches toward
instructional design and teaching practices, which resulted in the seamless integration of technology
with sound pedagogy in a content-specific way. This seamless integration is only possible when
students actively engage in the learning process based upon a collegial relationship between teacher
and students as well as among students, and when technology is employed to facilitate meaningful
interaction, respond to individual learners’ needs, and nurture a respectful environment.
Finally, while designing and practicing good teaching with technology, teachers should have
a high level of awareness about the advantages and limitations of the context they are situated in
(Korthagen, 2004). Some teachers have access to classrooms equipped with advanced technologies
and can fully utilize all available technologies, from tablets to cloud computing systems, but many
classrooms outside of neighborhoods with high SES backgrounds are not as well-equipped. Good
teaching involves a degree of responsiveness to the context of the work (Fenstermacher & Richardson,
2005), and good teaching with technology requires coping with contextual limitations by utilizing
available resources and adapting to students’ needs and prior experience with technology, as observed
in the study.

7. ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This work was supported by Temple University under the 2017 Summer Research Award.

114
 International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education
Volume 15 • Issue 3 • July-September 2019

REFERENCES

Admiraal, W., Louws, M., Lockhorst, D., Paas, T., Buynsters, M., Cviko, A., & van der Ven, F. et al. (2017).
Teachers in school-based technology innovations: A typology of their beliefs on teaching and technology.
Computers & Education, 114, 57–68. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.013
Ballantyne, R., Bain, J., & Packer, J. (1999). Researching university teaching in Australia: Themes and issues
in academics’ reflections. Studies in Higher Education, 24(2), 237–257. doi:10.1080/03075079912331379918
Beishuizen, J. J., Hof, E., Putten, C. M., Bouwmeester, S., & Asscher, J. J. (2001). Students’ and teachers’
cognitions about good teachers. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(2), 185–201.
doi:10.1348/000709901158451 PMID:11449932
Borich, G. (2000). Effective Teaching Methods (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Inc.
Brinkmann, S., & Kvale, S. (2014). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Sage.
Bullock, M. (2015). What makes a good teacher? Exploring student and teacher beliefs on good teaching. Rising
Tide, 7, 1–30.
Center for Educational Leadership. (2012). Four Dimensions of Instructional Leadership, Instructional Leadership
Framework Version 1.0. University of Washington College of Education.
Duarte, F. P. (2013). Conceptions of Good Teaching by Good Teachers: Case Studies from an Australian
University. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 10(1), 5.
Dunkin, M. J., & Precians, R. P. (1992). Award-Winning University Teachers’ Concepts of Teaching. Higher
Education, 24(4), 483–502. doi:10.1007/BF00137244
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2013). Removing obstacles to the pedagogical changes required by
Jonassen’s vision of authentic technology-enabled learning. Computers & Education, 64, 175–182. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2012.10.008
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, beliefs, and
culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284. doi:10.1080/15391523.2
010.10782551
Fenstermacher, G. D., & Richardson, V. (2005). On making determinations of teacher quality. Teachers College
Record, 107(1), 186–213. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2005.00462.x
Han, I., Byun, S. Y., & Shin, W. S. (2018). A comparative study of factors associated with technology-enabled
learning between the United States and South Korea. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(5),
1303–1320. doi:10.1007/s11423-018-9612-z
Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms: A path
model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 137–154. doi:10.1007/s11423-009-9132-y
Johnson-Farmer, B., & Frenn, M. (2009). Teaching excellence: What great teachers teach us. Journal of
Professional Nursing, 25(5), 267–272. doi:10.1016/j.profnurs.2009.01.020 PMID:19751930
Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D.
H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 693–719). NY:
Macmillan.
Kim, C., Kim, M. K., Lee, C., Spector, J. M., & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and technology integration.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 76–85. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.005
Korthagen, F. A. (2004). In search of the essence of a good teacher: Towards a more holistic approach in teacher
education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(1), 77–97. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2003.10.002
Larsen, S., Glover, E., & Melhuish, K. (2015). Beyond good teaching. insights, 93.
Liu, F., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Dawson, K., & Barron, A. E. (2017). Explaining technology integration in K-12
classrooms: A multilevel path analysis model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(4),
795–813. doi:10.1007/s11423-016-9487-9

115
International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education
Volume 15 • Issue 3 • July-September 2019

Liu, S. (2011). Factors related to pedagogical beliefs of teachers and technology integration. Computers &
Education, 56(4), 1012–1022. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.12.001
MacGregor, R. R. (2007). The Essential Practices of High Quality Teaching and Learning. Center for Educational
Effectiveness, Inc.
Miller, R. T. (2008). Laptop educators: Identifying laptop use and pedagogical change. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, The University of Utah.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for
integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9620.2006.00684.x
Morgan, C., & Morris, G. (1999). Good teaching and learning: Pupils and teachers speak. Open University Press.
Pittman, T., & Gaines, T. (2015). Technology integration in third, fourth and fifth-grade classrooms in a Florida
school district. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(4), 539–554. doi:10.1007/s11423-015-
9391-8
Ramsey, G. (2000). Quality matters: Revitalising teaching: Critical times, critical choices. Sydney, Australia:
NSW Department of Education and Training.
Richter, D., Kunter, M., Klusmann, U., Lüdtke, O., & Baumert, J. (2011). Professional development across the
teaching career: Teachers’ uptake of formal and informal learning opportunities. Teaching and Teacher Education,
27(1), 116–126. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.07.008
Rienties, B., Brouwer, N., & Lygo-Baker, S. (2013). The effects of online professional development on higher
education teachers’ beliefs and intentions towards learning facilitation and technology. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 29, 122–131. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.09.002
Rychen, D. S., & Salganik, L. H. (2003). Key competencies for a successful life and a well-functioning society.
Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe & Huber.
Shin, W. S. (2015). Teachers’ use of technology and its influencing factors in Korean elementary schools.
Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 24(4), 461–476. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2014.915229
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review,
57(1), 1–23. doi:10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2017). Understanding the relationship
between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: A systematic review of qualitative
evidence. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(3), 555–575. doi:10.1007/s11423-016-9481-2

Insook Han is an assistant professor at the Department of Teaching and Learning, College of Education at Temple
University, USA. She received her doctorate in instructional technology and media from Teachers College, Columbia
University. Her major research interests involve embodied cognition, use of emerging technologies, and pre-service
education for technology integration.

Seungyeon Han, a corresponding author, is a Professor in the Department of Educational Technology at Hanyang
Cyber University. She received her PhD in Instructional Technology from The University of Georgia. Her research
investigates online collaborative learning, discourse analysis, and qualitative inquiry.

Won Sug Shin is an assistant professor of Educational Technology in the College of Education at Incheon National
University. He received his doctorate in Instructional Technology and Media from Teachers College, Columbia
University in 2010. His major research interests include technology integration in school settings, teacher education,
and emerging technologies.

116