Types of Digital Technologies and Their Applications in Educational Settings

Reports of contributions to learning arising from uses of digital technologies have often focused on a specifi c hardware-such as laptops (see Roschelle, Penuel, Yarnall, Shechtman, & Tatar, 2005, reporting on US studies), interactive whiteboards (see Moss et al., 2007, reporting a UK study; or Hansson, n.d., reporting a study in Sweden), or mobile telephones (see Thomas and Orthober, 2011, reporting a study in the United States). Earlier studies in the UK (for example, Watson, 1993; British Educational Technology and Communications Agency [Becta], 2001, 2003; Harrison et al., 2002) looked at contributions according to levels of uses of digital technologies, categorising schools and access according to ‘high’ or ‘low’ levels of usage. At times when levels of digital technologies in schools were somewhat limited (and certainly that was the case when these latter studies were conducted), the value of this approach can certainly be recognised. However, many schools in many countries now have access to much higher levels of digital technologies, and indeed learners and supporters have high levels of access and use outside schools; consequently, this approach is clearly not only much more diffi cult to adopt in terms of attempting to differentiate between ‘high’ and ‘low’, or ‘control’ and ‘test’ groups, but indeed it is the qualities offered by the different forms of digital technologies, and the ways they are used in an integrated sense, that can bring about contribution for an individual. As Livingstone (2012) said, “It seems that a simple increase in ICT provision does not guarantee enhanced educational performance” (p. 11), while Lei (2010) stated that “to examine the relationship between technology use and student outcomes, the quality of technology use-how, and what, technology is used-is a more signifi cant factor than the quantity of technology use-how much technology is used” (p. 455). Lei (2010) went on to say that in an empirical study where both methods were used, a quantitative approach identifi ed no signifi cant association, but a qualitative approach identifi ed signifi cant association between use and outcomes.