Developing a Technology-supported Learning Model for Elementary Education Level

Qiyun Wang


Technology has been increasingly used to promote students’ engagement in online learning environments. Engagement refers to the students’ commitment or effort involved in learning. Engagement often has various categories such as behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement. In this paper, a technology-supported learning model is proposed for the purpose of promoting students’ engagement in online learning. This model is composed of three key components: pedagogical design, social design, and technical design. Pedagogical design aims to achieve predefined learning objectives through well-designed instructional strategies and learning activities so that students can be behaviorally engaged (e.g., high participation, active exploration) and cognitively engaged (e.g., asking questions, giving evaluative comments). Social design is to create a comfortable and friendly setting where students are willing to interact with peers and/or with the teacher so that emotional engagement (e.g., positive social relationship between students and the teacher) and cognitive engagement (e.g., knowledge construction) can be attained. Technical design intends to create a usable platform that students can easily manipulate without technical difficulties.  All these designs must take the context (e.g., elementary education level) into careful consideration.


engagement; pedagogical design; social design; technical design

Full Text:



Chen, P. S. D., Lambert, A. D., & Guidry, K. R. (2010). Engaging online learners: The impact of web-based learning technology on college student engagement. Computers & Education, 54, 1222-1232.

Chi, T.H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49 (4), 219-243.

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., Paris, A.H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74 (1), 59-109.

Fredricks, J. A., & McColskey, W. (2012). The measurement of student engagement: A comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 763-782). New York, NY: Springer Science.

Henrie, C. R., Bodily, R., Manworning, K. C., & Graham, C. (2015). Exploring intensive longitudinal measures of student engagement in blended learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16 (3), 131-155.

Kong, S.C. (2011). An evaluation study of the use of a cognitive tool in a one-to-one classroom for promoting classroom-based dialogic interaction. Computers & Education, 57, 1851-1864.

Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67-98). Chicago: Open Court.

Van den Akker, J. (2013). Curricular development research as a specimen of educational design research. In N. Nieveen and Tj. Plomp (eds.), Educational Design Research (pp. 52-71). Netherlands: SLO.

Wang, Q.Y (2008). A generic model for guiding the integration of ICT into teaching and learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45 (3), 411-419.

Wang, Q.Y. (2009a). Guiding teachers in the process of ICT integration: Analysis of three conceptual models.Educational Technology, 49 (5), 23-27.

Wang, Q.Y. (2009b). Designing a web-based constructivist learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 17 (1), 1-12.

Wang, Q.Y. & Huang, C.Q. (2018). Pedagogical, social and technical designs of a blended synchronous learning environment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49 (3), 451-462.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2019 Mimbar Sekolah Dasar

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

View Mimbar Sekolah Dasar Stats