Educational technology and the everyday information practices that shape student thinking and learning
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47989/ir31ISIC65142Keywords:
Information Practices, K-12 Education, Critical Thinking, Educational Technology, Teacher BeliefsAbstract
Introduction. As technology becomes increasingly embedded in K–12 classrooms worldwide, it is essential to understand teachers’ and students’ everyday information practices—especially in light of declining student engagement and the urgent calls to foster critical thinking. This study draws on the expanded everyday information practices model (Savolainen & Thomson, 2022) and the substitution, augmentation, modification, redefinition (SAMR) model (Puentedura, 2009) to examine how teachers and their students seek, create, use, and share information in technology-rich classrooms, and how these practices relate to beliefs and cognitive outcomes.
Method. Using survey data from 9,627 teachers in 245 schools across 28 countries voluntarily participating in the Apple Distinguished Schools program, this study uses descriptive statistics and correlations to analyse 15 classroom information practices and eight pedagogical beliefs.
Results. Findings reveal three key patterns: (1) average frequency of information practices do not necessarily align with teachers’ perceptions of students’ critical thinking or complex problem–solving; (2) expanded everyday information practices categories alone do not predict cognitive outcomes. Information practices aligned with SAMR’s upper levels—are more strongly associated with those outcomes; and (3) teacher beliefs tend to mirror use frequency.
Conclusion. This study bridges educational technology and information science by offering new insights into how everyday classroom information practices shape teaching and learning.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Alon, L. (2025). Information seeking and personal information management behaviors as scaffolding during life transitions: the case of early-career researchers. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 77 (2), 354–372. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-01-2023-0027
Apple Distinguished Educators (2025). Apple Distinguished Educators. https://www.apple.com/education/k12/apple-distinguished-educator/
Apple Distinguished Schools (2025). Apple Distinguished Schools: Program overview. https://education-static.apple.com/apple-distinguished-schools/Apple_Distinguished_Schools_Centers_of_Leadership_and_Educational_Excellence.pdf
Bailin, S. (2002). Critical thinking and science education. Science & Education, 11, 361–375. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016042608621
Bălţătescu, S., & Cernea-Radu, A. E. (2024). Age-related variations in school satisfaction: The mediating role of school engagement. Hungarian Educational Research Journal, 15(1), 67-87. https://doi.org/10.1556/063.2024.00302
Bebell, D., & Burt, K. (2025). Engaged teaching: Engaged learning, An empirical study of teaching, learning, and student engagement across the K-12 community of Apple Distinguished Schools [White paper]. Reflective Educational Research.
Bebell, D., O’Dwyer, L., Russell, M., & Hoffman, T. (2010). Concerns, considerations and new ideas for data collection and research in educational technology studies. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(1), 29-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782560
Blakeslee, S. (2004). The CRAAP test. LOEX Quarterly, 31(3).
Ertmer, R., & Otternbreit, A. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255-284. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551
Fielding, J. A. (2019). Rethinking CRAAP test: Getting students thinking like fact-checkers in evaluating web sources. College & Research Libraries News, 80(11), 620–622. https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.80.11.620
Froud, K., Levinson, L., Maddox, C., & Smith, P. (2024). Middle-schoolers’ reading and lexical-semantic processing depth in response to digital and print media: An N400 study. PLOS ONE, 19(5), e0290807. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0290807
Gallup. (2024). Walton family foundation–gallup voices of gen z study: Year 2 annual survey report. Gallup, Inc. https://nextgeninsights.waltonfamilyfoundation.org/resources/2024-voices-of-gen-z-study/
Hamilton, E. R., Rosenberg, J. M., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). Examining the Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) model for technology integration. Tech Trends, 60, 433-441. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s11528-016-0091-y
Hanif, S., & Warraich, N. F. (2023). Exploring everyday information practices of urban teens in Pakistan. Annals of Human and Social Sciences, 4(2), 804–819. https://ojs.ahss.org.pk/journal/article/view/503
Howard, S. K., & Mozejko, A. (2015). Considering the history of digital technologies in education. In M. Henderson & G. Romeo (Eds.), Teaching and digital technologies: Big issues and critical questions (pp. 157–168). Cambridge University Press.
Ihara, A. S., Nakajima, K., Kake, A., Ishimaru, K., Osugi, K., & Naruse, Y. (2021). Advantage of handwriting over typing on learning words: Evidence from an N400 event-related potential index. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 15, 679191. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2021.679191
Jargon, J. (2024). The battle to ban screens from school now includes Chromebooks and tablets. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/tech/personal-tech/the-parents-opting-their-kids-out-of-screens-at-school-12b216e0?reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Korbey, H. (2023, June 27). How to teach kids who flip between book and Screen. MIT Technology Review. https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/04/19/1071282/digital-world-reshaping-childrens-education-reading/
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/
Longcamp, M., Zerbato-Poudou, M.-T., & Velay, J.-L. (2005). The influence of writing practice on letter recognition in preschool children: A comparison between handwriting and typing. Acta Psychologica, 119(1), 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2004.10.019
McKenzie, P. J. (2003). A model of information practices in accounts of everyday-life information seeking. Journal of Documentation, 59(1), 19–40. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410310457993
O'Reilly, C., Devitt, A., & Hayes, N. (2022). Critical thinking in the preschool classroom: A systematic literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 46, 101110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101110
Puentedura, R. R. (2009). As we may teach: Educational technology, from theory into practice. https://hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/000025.html
Radulović, L., & Stančić, M. (2017) What is needed to develop critical thinking in schools? Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 7(3), 9–25. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.283
Reich, J., & Dukes, J. (2024). Toward a new theory of arrival technologies. EdArXiv. https://doi.org/10.35542/osf.io/x6vn7
Rezaei, S., Derakhshan, A., & Bagherkazemi, M. (2011). Critical thinking in language education. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(4), 769–777. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.2.4.769-777
Savolainen, R. (1995). Everyday life information seeking: Approaching information seeking in the context of “way of life.” Library & Information Science Research, 17(3), 259–294.
Savolainen, R. (2007). Information behavior and information practice: Reviewing the “umbrella concepts” of information-seeking studies. The Library Quarterly, 77(2), 109-132. https://doi.org/10.1086/517840
Savolainen, R. (2008). Everyday information practices: A social phenomenological perspective. Scarecrow Press: Lanham, Maryland.
Savolainen, R., & Thomson, L. (2022). Assessing the theoretical potential of an expanded model for everyday information practices. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 73(4), 511–527. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24589
Talja, S. (2005). The domain analytic approach to scholars’ information practices. In K. E. Fisher, S. Erdelez, & L. McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 123–128). Information Today.
von Davier, M., Kennedy, A., Reynolds, K., Fishbein, B., Khorramdel, L., Aldrich, C., Bookbinder, A., Bezirhan, U., & Yin, L. (2024). TIMSS 2023 International Results in Mathematics and Science. Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center. https://doi.org/10.6017/lse.tpisc.timss.rs6460
Watters, A. (2015, February 12). 25 years ago: The first one-to-one laptop program. Hack Education. https://hackeducation.com/2015/02/12/first-one-to-one-laptop-program
Willson, R., Stewart-Robertson, O., Julien, H., & Given, L. M. (2024a). Exploring how casualization complicates Canadian academics’ information practices. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of CAIS Actes Du congrès Annuel De l’ACSI. https://doi.org/10.29173/cais1860
Willson, R., Stewart-Robertson, O., Julien, H., & Given, L. M. (2024b). Isolated, individualised, and immobilised: Information behaviour in the context of academic casualisation. Information Research an International Electronic Journal, 29(2), 652–668. https://doi.org/10.47989/ir292854
Wineburg, S. S. & McGrew, S. (2019). Lateral reading and the nature of expertise: Reading less and learning more when evaluating digital information. Teachers College Record, 121. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811912101102
Yanguas, M. L. (2020). Technology and educational choices: Evidence from a one-laptop-per-child program. Economics of Education Review, 76, 101984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2020.101984
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Kayla Burt, Damian Bebell
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
