Engaged Teaching, Engaged Learning: How Learning Conditions and Technology Impacts Student Engagement

Framework

To gain a clearer understanding of the complex relationship between technology use and student learning, this study draws on a range of foundational perspectives. Extending the work of early learning theorists such as Piaget (1936), Seymour Papert (1980, 1992) advanced a constructivist framework that illustrated how computers could broaden students’ cognitive possibilities and foster deeper, more authentic learning. While today’s widespread access to digital tools may reflect Papert’s vision of access, few classrooms have fully realized the potential he described—where learners actively build knowledge and engage with ideas in transformative ways.

In addition, the TPACK framework developed by Shulman, Mishra, and Koehler remains highly influential for researchers and practitioners seeking to integrate educational technology effectively (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). By situating technology integration within the broader domains of teachers’ Content Knowledge (CK), Pedagogical Knowledge (PK), and Technological Knowledge (TK), the model emphasizes the interplay of contextual and pedagogical factors that shape how new any classroom resource can be better implemented and assessed.

Finally, Puentedura’s SAMR model provides another lens for situating the technology practices of teachers and students in this study (Blundell et al., 2022; Hamilton et al., 2016; Puentedura, 2009). Widely adopted in educational contexts, this framework distinguishes technology use across four levels—Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition—based on its intended purpose for teaching and learning. Critically, the SAMR model highlights that a teachers’ pedagogical intent is central to the design, implementation, and evaluation of technological tools. In this study, such models provide a guide for examining how classroom practices differ and how these variations may influence student engagement. For this reason, we consider the specific and unique components of teacher and student technology use rather than a single, generic dimension.

Methods

This study uses a straightforward descriptive approach to analyze 17,078 teacher surveys collected voluntarily from K–12 schools worldwide that are part of the Apple Distinguished School (ADS) Program. The ADS network includes more than 1,100 public and private schools across 40+ countries.

While these schools differ greatly in size, demographics, national standards/curricula, and context, they are unified in their commitment to using technology to encourage creativity, collaboration, and personalized learning (Apple Distinguished Schools, 2025).

Building on prior investigations, a new teacher survey was designed to capture information on teacher background, technology access, and a broad spectrum of classroom practices, attitudes, and beliefs (Bebell et al., 2010; LEGO, 2025). The resulting online instrument combined Likert items, frequency measures, and open-response formats. Starting in late 2021, ADS schools were first invited to join the study with additional details and a survey link, which most teachers were able to complete in under 15 minutes.

Survey research continues to serve as a central method in educational technology studies, particularly for examining large-scale patterns of practice and belief. When well constructed, surveys provide essential empirical insights into teaching practices and teachers’ perspectives, offering evidence that extends beyond anecdotal accounts and informing both research and leadership. Each participating school received access to its own results as well as broader study findings through customized dashboards and PDF reports.

The 323 schools that contributed data were the initial audience of this inquiry encouraging evidence-based reflection on technology, pedagogy, and learning. At the same time, the absence of a common intervention or educational program creates space for rich comparisons across diverse classrooms and contexts. Taken together, the perspectives of thousands of teachers working in schools with well-established technology programs contribute an invaluable, global setting to explore the implementation, efficacy, challenges, and impacts of evolving classroom practices.

Descriptive and comparative analyses were conducted to address three research questions:
What are the most and least frequent educational technology classroom practices?
What is the relationship between different educational technology uses and teachers’ broader pedagogical practices?
What teaching and technology practices in the classroom are most and least associated with student engagement?
All participation was voluntary and anonymous, and all respondents provided informed consent prior to completing the survey.

Results

Technology Access and Conditions

While all participating schools report one-to-one device programs and innovative technology practices, their primary device types and classroom applications varied widely. iPads were the most common student device (83%) while MacBooks were the most common teacher device (52%). Among students using iPads, 55% had access to Apple Pencils and 56% to Apple Keyboards,and 23% had access to Logitech Crayons. This variability in classroom technology infrastructure provided a useful lens through which to examine instructional practice.

Classroom Practices

Across the dataset, teachers reported a wide range of classroom technology activities. The most frequently observed uses included digital note-taking, online research, and maintaining electronic calendars––tasks largely situated in the Substitution or Augmentation levels of the SAMR model. In contrast, activities that require more planning or technical infrastructure—such as coding, robotics, and connecting students to industry experts—were significantly less common. These practices, associated with higher levels of technology integration (Modification and Redefinition), appeared in fewer classrooms and less frequently, suggesting that while basic technology use is nearly universal, more innovative applications remain sporadic and context-dependent.

Teachers also reported on a variety of instructional strategies, among which student collaboration emerged as both widespread and impactful. On average, teachers indicated that students engaged in collaborative work 57% of class time. Notably, collaboration was the single instructional practice most strongly associated with student engagement, showing a significant positive correlation (r = 0.50, p < .001). When disaggregated by grade level, collaboration increased from early years (47.6%) through upper elementary and peaked in Grade 6 (61.1%), before declining through Grade 12 (51.1%).

While collaborative learning was prevalent, other student-centered practices showed more uneven adoption. For instance, creative expression through multimedia, design thinking, and open-ended inquiry tasks were reported by a smaller subset of teachers and varied substantially by subject area.

Student Engagement
Student engagement was consistently identified as both a goal and a challenge across grade levels. Teachers were asked to estimate how much time, on average, students were actively engaged during a typical class period. Overall, reported engagement levels were high, averaging ~78% across all responses. However, patterns emerged when examining the data by grade level and subject area. Engagement peaked in Grade 5 (82.3%) and declined gradually through high school until Grade 12 (74%). Self-contained classrooms, more common in early grades, generally reported higher engagement levels than more traditional academic subjects (e.g., languages, mathematics).

Importantly, the study revealed that engagement was closely tied not only to specific practices (e.g., collaboration) but also to teacher beliefs about the value of certain instructional strategies. Practices such as critical thinking and complex problem-solving were highly valued by teachers and positively associated with engagement, regardless of grade level or subject. In contrast, teacher enthusiasm for practices like educational gaming or coding decreased in higher grade levels, potentially limiting opportunities for creative engagement. These findings suggest that fostering student engagement requires more than access to devices; it requires purposeful, student-centered pedagogy shaped by educator belief systems and supported through professional learning and school-wide vision.

Importance

Although simple and descriptive in design, this large-scale study offers several valuable insights for educational research and practice.

First, the findings confirm that educational technology use in K–12 classrooms is highly varied and context-dependent. Differences across teacher backgrounds, grade levels, and subject areas reveal that educators integrate technology in diverse ways to meet distinct instructional goals. This highlights the need for research that accounts for contextual and pedagogical factors and instructional intent.

Second, results show a consistent positive relationship between student technology use and deeper instructional practices. Teachers who reported more frequent student use of technology also reported greater use of higher-order strategies such as inquiry, creativity, and problem-solving. While not causal, these associations echo earlier findings that link one-to-one computing with pedagogical innovation.

Third, the study finds a moderate but significant connection between student-centered technology use and student engagement. Collaborative learning, in particular, showed the strongest link with engagement (r = 0.50, p < .001). Engagement was also positively correlated with teachers’ feelings of professional effectiveness (ρ = 0.23) and appreciation in their roles (ρ = 0.22), and negatively associated with intent to leave the profession. These findings indicate that classroom practices supporting student engagement also contribute to teacher satisfaction and retention.

Finally, as concerns about students’ personal screen time grow, it is essential to highlight the value of professionally guided, curriculum-aligned technology integration. Given the ongoing decline in student engagement across grade levels and over time, understanding the instructional conditions that promote engagement remains critical for improving student outcomes and supporting educator well-being.

References

Apple Distinguished Schools (2025). Apple Distinguished Schools: Program overview.

Blundell, C., Mukherjee, M., & Nykvist, S. (2022). A scoping review of the application of the SAMR model in research. Computers and Education Open, 3(100093), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100093

Bond, M.(2020). Facilitating student engagement through the flipped learning approach in K-12: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 151,103819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103819

Hamilton, E. R., Rosenberg, J. M., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The substitution augmentation modification redefinition (SAMR) model: A critical review and suggestions for its use. TechTrends, 60(5), 433-441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0091-y

LEGO Education. (2024). State of classroom engagement report: How global insights from 6,000-plus administrators, teachers, parents, and students reveal strategies to build more engaged classrooms. LEGO. https://education.lego.com/en-us/classroom-engagement-report/

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.

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books, Inc.

Papert, S. (1992). The Children's Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

Piaget, J. (1936). The origins of intelligence in the child. Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Puentedura, R. R. (2009). As we may teach: Educational technology, from theory into practice. Apple.