# Teaching With Digital Tools & Apps

, , &

### Hypothes.is Social Annotation

This chapter is annotated every year as part of an undergraduate/graduate class on Teaching and Learning with Technology. To turn off the highlighted text, click on the "eye" icon in the top right corner of the browser screen.

## Introduction

### Bloom’s Taxonomy

Have you ever had your class create something (e.g., project, video, poster) and found that students remembered the information from those design projects far more than what they remembered about the text you read in class?

The revised version of Bloom’s taxonomy’s features the action of “creating” as the top tier of the cognitive processes as it requires the mastery of all the other tiers (Armstrong, 2019). Remembering is at the base of the six cognitive processes. Students need to approach a subject or topic from the lowest level (i.e. remembering) and master the foundational knowledge before they can move on to higher levels of thinking and advanced knowledge acquisition. This means that when you design a lesson or activity at the top of Bloom’s taxonomy, students must work their way from the bottom up. That is, they must learn how to remember, explain, and apply information before they can analyze, critique, and create knowledge.

Bloom’s taxonomy is a hierarchical ordering of cognitive skills. Its revised edition (2001) consists of six categories: Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, and Create (see Figure 5). According to Armstrong (2019), “These ‘action words’ describe the cognitive processes by which thinkers encounter and work with knowledge” (para. 9).

Bloom’s taxonomy can serve as an instructional design tool to help you select the most appropriate apps and tools based on the level and depth of cognitive knowledge students need to acquire. Take a few moments to explore Kathy Shrock’s Bloomin’ Apps page, which features interactive tables of apps and tools for each tier of Bloom’s taxonomy, or The Padagogy Wheel V5 (see Figure 6).

As you design instruction, consider how you might start with the higher order thinking skills (analyze, evaluate, create) to encourage students to build their knowledge through active hands-on, minds-on learning experiences (visit the Evaluating the Learning Experience chapter to learn more about Bloom’s Taxonomy and higher order thinking skills).

For more information on Bloom’s taxonomy, explore Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching’s guide to Bloom’s Taxonomy, Iowa State University Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching’s Revised Bloom Taxonomy page, and Christine Persaud’s (2018) Bloom’s Taxonomy: The Ultimate Guide.

## Digital Literacy and Safety

Now that you have explored ways to find, evaluate, and teach with digital tools and apps to enrich and transform student learning, you’re all set! Well, almost…

When teaching with technology, you might assume that students actually know how to use digital tools and apps for their learning. While most kids and teens today are growing up using various technologies at home, they tend to use these tools for entertainment, social media, and messaging others. Unfortunately, many students are not taught how to use technology in a safe, ethical, and legal manner to support their learning. This can lead to a number of problems, including using technology in harmful ways that have a negative impact on their own and others’ lives.

As educators, we must role model and teach digital literacy and safety when using digital tools in our classrooms. If you are not sure where to get started with teaching students how to use technology, check out the DQ Global Standards Report 2019: Common Framework for Digital Literacy, Skills and Readiness. This report features the Digital Intelligence (DQ) Framework, which is “a comprehensive set of technical, cognitive, meta-cognitive, and socio-emotional competencies grounded in universal moral values that enable individuals to face the challenges of digital life and adapt to its demands” (p. 12). The framework includes eight standards (see Figure 7) that can empower and encourage students to use technology to positively impact their learning and their lives: digital identity, use, safety, security, emotional intelligence, communication, literacy, and rights (DQ Institute, 2019).

When using digital tools and apps for teaching, you should aim to provide students with the opportunity to develop one or more of these global DQ standards. For example, you could have students develop a digital portfolio of their school work or engage in social media conversations with experts to create a positive digital identity. Or, you could ask students to collect and analyze numerical data about their technology use to develop a healthy, balanced technology diet.

By incorporating digital literacy and safety practices into student learning experiences, you will support their long term learning, growth, and success in an ever-changing technological landscape.

## Conclusion

Ultimately, when teaching with digital tools and apps, you need to spend some time deciding which tools to use and how to use those tools to create innovative, authentic, student-centered learning experiences. In this chapter, we discussed three technology integration frameworks (SAMR, PIC-RAT, and TPACK) to guide your evaluation and selection of digital tools and apps. We hope that these frameworks will empower you to use technology to create transformative learning experiences. We also showcased how to use the TPACK model to evaluate content-based digital tools and apps. By critically evaluating the pedagogical features, content knowledge, and technology together, you can make an informed decision about which tools will positively benefit your teaching and student learning.

We discussed how to use instructional design models to guide your selection of digital tools and apps based on the desired results of the lesson and cognitive processes you want your students to develop. We also reviewed how to use these models to increase access to learning, create student-centered learning experiences, and provide students with choice over what and how they learn.

Lastly, we emphasized the importance of incorporating digital literacy and safety standards into teaching and learning to prepare students for success as learners, citizens, and professionals. The DQ framework can serve as a guide for identifying the technical, cognitive, and social-emotional competencies students need when using technology.

We hope this chapter will help you to feel more empowered and encouraged to evaluate, and teach with, digital tools and apps.

## References

Armstrong, P. (2019). Bloom's taxonomy. Retrieved from Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching website: https://edtechbooks.org/-dpW

Create effective feedback with education technology. (2019, July 2). ViewSonic. Retrieved from https://edtechbooks.org/-ZtWk

Feathers, T. (2019, August 20). Flawed algorithms are grading millions of students’ essays. Vice. Retrieved from https://edtechbooks.org/-iqgz

Hughes, J., Thomas, R. & Scharber, C. (2006). Assessing Technology Integration: The RAT – Replacement, Amplification, and Transformation - Framework. In C. Crawford, R. Carlsen, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2006--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1616-1620). Orlando, Florida, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved April 10, 2020 from https://edtechbooks.org/-vkd.

Kharback, M. (2017, February 4). A very good visual on how to evaluate educational apps to use in your class [Web log post]. Educational Technology and Mobile Learning. Retrieved from https://edtechbooks.org/-eehS

Kimmons, R. (2018). Technology integration: Effectively integrating technology in educational settings. In A. Ottenbreit-Leftwich & R. Kimmons (Eds.), The K-12 educational technology handbook. Retrieved from https://edtechbooks.org/-zqvn

Kimmons, R. (2018). K-12 Technology Frameworks. In R. E. West, Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology: The Past, Present, and Future of Learning and Instructional Design Technology. EdTech Books. Retrieved from https://edtechbooks.org/-cia

Klein, A. (2019, October 2). Ed-tech usage levels are low: What should schools do? Education Week. Retrieved from https://edtechbooks.org/-LacQ

Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Kereluik, K., Shin, T. S., & Graham, C. R. (2013). The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Framework. Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, 101–111. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_9

Koenig, R. (2019 August 20). The new Jim Code? Race and discriminatory design. EdSurge. Retrieved from https://edtechbooks.org/-edL

Kurt, S. (2017, July 1). Definitions of instructional design. Educational Technology. Retrieved from https://edtechbooks.org/-pzm

Michela, E. (2018). Universal design for learning: Teacher planning for technology integration. In A. Ottenbreit-Leftwich & R. Kimmons (Eds.), The K-12 educational technology handbook. Retrieved from https://edtechbooks.org/-pWS

Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (2007). Interactive Multimodal Learning Environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 309–326. doi: 10.1007/s10648-007-9047-2

Morris, S. M. (2017, June 15). A guide for resisting edtech: The case against Turnitin. Hybrid Pedagogy. Retrieved from https://edtechbooks.org/-rgG

November, A. (2013, February 10). Why Schools Must Move Beyond One-to-One Computing. Retrieved from https://novemberlearning.com/article/why-schools-must-move-beyond-one-to-one-computing/

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. doi: 10.3102/0013189x015002004

Tatter, G. (2019, February 12). Tests and stress bias: Strengthening the correlation between student stress levels and high-stakes tests. Retrieved from Harvard Graduate School of Education website: https://edtechbooks.org/-GdL

Trust, T. (2013). Evaluating Open Educational Resources: A Guide for Teachers. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 8(12). Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/ascd-express/vol8/812-trust.aspx

Vanderbilt University Centre for Teaching. (2016). Bloom's taxonomy [Photograph]. Retrieved from https://edtechbooks.org/-qrH

Vincent, T. (2012, March 4). Ways to evaluate educational apps [Web log post]. Learning in Hand. Retrieved from https://edtechbooks.org/-nxq

Wiggins, Grant, and McTighe, Jay. (1998). Backward Design. In Understanding by Design (pp. 13-34). ASCD.

### Suggested Citation

, , & (2020). Teaching With Digital Tools & Apps. In , Teaching with Digital Tools and Apps. EdTech Books. Retrieved from https://edtechbooks.org/digitaltoolsapps/teachingwithdigital

### End-of-Chapter Survey

: How would you rate the overall quality of this chapter?
1. Very Low Quality
2. Low Quality
3. Moderate Quality
4. High Quality
5. Very High Quality
Comments will be automatically submitted when you navigate away from the page.