Technology-Infused Instructional Framework

How to Cite

Stobaugh, R., Maxwell, M., & Tassell, J. (2016). Technology-Infused Instructional Framework. Educational Renaissance, 4(1), 3-18.


The focus of this research is to examine the impact of an instructional instrument to improve the quality of pre-service teachers’ lesson plans.  The HEAT instrument focuses on four components essential to high-quality lesson plans:  Higher-Order Thinking, Engaged Learning, Authentic Learning, and Technology.  The research study examined a) data from elementary education classes for two semesters to measure the impact of the HEAT instrument on instructional planning during the semester and b) these pre-service teachers’ subsequent performance on the Teacher Work Sample compared to a control group of student teachers to measure the impact of the instrument on pre-service teacher performance.  In the treatment group, pre-service teachers’ scores on the HEAT instrument were lower each successive semester of the study; however, during the student teaching semester the teacher candidates had higher scores on the Teacher Work Sample which measured the four components embedded in the HEAT instrument. 

Keywords:  lesson plans; Bloom’s Taxonomy; teacher education; cognitive complexity; higher-order thinking; technology integration; authentic learning; engaged learning


Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D.R. (2001). A taxonomy for teaching, learning and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Addison Wesley.

Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Philadelphia: David McKay Publishing Company.

Bloom, B.S., Englehart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., & Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.

Dener, P. R., Norman, A. D., Salzman, S. A., Pankratz, R., & Evans, S.E. (2004). The Renaissance Partnership Teacher Work Sample: Evidence supporting score generalizability, validity, and quality of student learning assessment. In E.M. Guyton, & J. R. Dangel (Eds.), Research linking teacher preparation and student performance, (pp. 23-55). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

Driscoll, M. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research & Development, 48(3), 23-48.

International Society for Technology in Education (2007). The national educational technology standards for students. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education. Retrieved from

International Society for Technology in Education (2008). The national educational technology standards for teachers. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education. Retrieved from

Jones, B., Valdez, G., Nowakowski, J., & Rasmussen, C. (1994). Designing learning and technology for educational reform. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.

Marzano, R. J. (2010). Teaching inference. Educational Leadership, 67(7), 80-81.

Moersch, C. (2002). Measures of success: Six instruments to assess teachers’ use of technology. Learning & Leading with Technology, 30(3), 10-18.

Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2009). P-12 Framework Definitions. Retrieved from

The Renaissance Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality. (2010). Teacher Work Sample: performance prompt, teaching process standards, scoring rubrics. Retrieved from

Schalock, H. D., Schalock, M., & Girod, G. (1997). Teacher Work Sample methodology as used at Western Oregon State College. In J. McMillan (Ed.), Grading teachers, grading schools: Is student achievement a valid evaluation measure? (pp.15-45). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

School of Teacher Education. (2011). Teacher Work Sample. Bowling Green, KY: Western Kentucky University.

Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Retrieved from

Stobaugh, R.S., McDonald, M. L., & Tassell, J.L. (2010). Student teacher use of technology to

facilitate teaching and learning. In C. Maddux (Ed.), Research highlights in technology and teacher education 2010, (pp. 43-52). Chesapeake, VA: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education (SITE).

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

    1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

    1. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

  1. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).