Engaged Teaching: Engaged Learning

Introduction

"Some of my students were able to use tools from [their] iPad to help them develop their writing and comprehension skills. For example, a dyslexic student used the mic to have the iPad type what he wanted to write. Then, he could read and understand what was written. He felt more motivated in class, and I could see he was really developing his skills."

– Middle School Language Arts Teacher from Brazil

Few modern educational reforms have been as far-reaching as the increased access of educational technology resources across the world's K–12 classrooms. Over the past several decades, millions of classrooms have adopted computing devices for students (Bebell & O'Dwyer, 2010). Although one-to-one student computing programs emerged as early as 1990 (Watters, 2015), the widespread adoption and integration of the Internet and digital tools into everyday teaching and learning practices emerged largely in the 21st century. The COVID-19 pandemic unexpectedly accelerated this trend, as the global K-12 community rapidly deployed educational technologies to support pedagogical continuity. Post-pandemic, many communities have struggled to balance the educational opportunities and challenges associated with increased technology in school. Given the breadth of technology use in K-12 settings, studies have explored how one-to-one programs (and other educational technologies) impact teachers' approaches to instructional practices (Bebell & Burraston, 2014), shifts in pedagogy (Bebell & Kay, 2010), and classroom culture (Andrade Johnson, 2020). Other studies have examined how classroom technologies relate to student learning practices (Zheng et al., 2016), engagement (Ibid; Bebell & Burraston, 2014), and academic performance (Bebell & Pedulla, 2015; Kennedy et al., 2016; Stoneman, 2018).

Theoretical Perspectives

To better understand the dynamic relationship between technology use and student learning, this study draws from many foundational ideas. Building on the work of first-generation learning theorists such as Piaget (1936), Seymour Papert (1980, 1992) developed a constructivist framework showing how computers can expand students' cognitive opportunities and unlock deeper, more meaningful learning. Today's ubiquitous access to technology may realize Papert's vision towards access, but few classrooms have realized the full potential he imagined—where students actively construct knowledge and explore ideas in transformative ways.

Additionally, the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework continues to inform a generation of researchers and practitioners on the successful integration of educational technology (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Placing educational technology integration within the larger context of teachers' Content Knowledge (CK), Pedagogical Knowledge (PK), and Technological Knowledge (TK), the model recognizes the independence and importance of contextual and pedagogical nuances when implementing (or evaluating) new resources.

Lastly, Puentedura's SAMR model also helps to contextualize teachers' and students' breadth of technology practices in the current study (Blundell, et al, 2022; Hamilton, et al, 2016; Puentedura, 2009). Popular with educators, this framework differentiates technology practices based upon their intended educational application: Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition.

The SAMR model acknowledges that teachers' pedagogical intent is a critical component for the design, implementation, and evaluation of any new resource. In this study, the SAMR model provides a lens to understand how technology use varies across classrooms and how these practices may relate to student engagement. For this reason, we consider the specific and unique components of teacher and student technology use rather than a single, generic dimension.

Methodology

This study employs a simple, descriptive methodology to explore 17,078 teacher surveys voluntarily collected from a global community of K–12 schools participating in the Apple Distinguished School Program.

The Apple Distinguished Schools program is a voluntary program of over 1,000 K–12 public and private schools in over 40 countries. Participating schools vary dramatically but are alike in adopting Apple technology to foster creativity, collaboration, and personalized learning (Apple Distinguished Schools, 2025).

Building off prior research, a new teacher survey was developed to capture teacher background, technology access, and a wide range of classroom practices, attitudes, and beliefs (Bebell et al., 2010; LEGO, 2025). The resulting online survey included Likert scale, frequency scales, and open response question types. Beginning in late 2021, members of Apple Distinguished Schools were invited to participate in the study. Schools that responded received further information and a link to the online teacher survey, which most respondents completed in under 15 minutes.

Survey based research remains a foundational tool across educational technology scholarship, and is particularly useful for capturing a wide variety of practices and beliefs at scale. As one component of the larger research and policy discourse, well-designed surveys provide critical, empirical insight into instructional practices and teachers' valuable perspective, helping researchers and school leaders move beyond anecdotal evidence.

All data were collected voluntarily and anonymously by K–12 classroom teachers who provided active consent to have their results analyzed and shared.

Each participating school received access to their own school results and study-wide findings through customized data dashboards and PDF reports. Indeed, the 323 participating schools were the initial audience for fostering more empirical self-reflection on technology, teaching, and learning within and across the Apple Distinguished Schools community. However, with no shared intervention or educational connections beyond Apple Distinguished Schools status, the variations across school and classroom settings provide a rich opportunity for comparison of practices. The cumulative, collective value across thousands of classrooms (all with notable educational technology programs) provides a rich, teacher-voiced perspective on evolving classroom practices across the globe.

About the Teacher Respondents

A total of 17,078 classroom teachers participated in the Apple Distinguished School snapshot study across 323 schools in 31 countries (36% of responses were from the United States). Before exploring their practices and beliefs, it is useful to briefly summarize the participating teachers—many of whom serve multiple grade levels or subject specialties—to provide context for this unique global sample. For example, 2,640 teachers served students in the youngest settings (Early Years, PreK, or Kindergarten), 6,390 teachers served elementary grades (1–5), 6,116 served middle school grades (6–8), and 7,085 served high school grades (9–12). More specifically, participants served a broad range of grade levels and subject specialties across the Apple Distinguished Schools community.

In addition, the survey collected demographic information reflecting teachers' age and teaching experience. Unlike grade and subject, teachers provided only a single response.

This research explores one of the most extensive global datasets ever collected on technology, teaching and learning conditions, and educational practices.

Technology Access and Conditions

Many studies have documented the trends and types of educational technology tools used by students and teachers in school. In this inquiry, all schools equipped students with one-to-one Apple technologies. As such, the difference between Apple and non-Apple products or differences between shared access and one-to-one student access can not be directly explored. However, across all 323 school settings, the study can illuminate variations across teachers' and students' devices.

Across the 2024 results, 42% of teachers reported using iPad as their primary tool, compared with 83% of their students. Additionally, the survey captured whether students in iPad settings had additional access to Logitech Crayons (23%), Apple Pencils (55%), or external keyboards (56%).

83% of participating classrooms used iPad as students' primary tool

Teaching and Learning Practices

"Students used slow motion video captured using apple devices to analyze the impact points of projectiles to better determine the range of a marble launcher to determine the relationship between launch angle and range for a projectile"

– High School Fine Arts, Math, and Science Teacher from the US

What are the most frequent educational technology practices across the Apple Distinguished Schools community?

The study provides a valuable opportunity to explore the variety and frequency of learning conditions and teachers' and students' use of educational technology. Specifically, this inquiry summarizes classroom practices across all participating countries, grade levels, and subject areas. Looking across these different settings, what were the most common and frequent teaching, learning, and educational practices across the entire sample?

The following graphs summarize the range and frequency of teaching and learning practices reported across this global sample of K–12 classrooms.

First, teachers estimated the percent of typical class time (0-100%) different learning conditions and practices occurred.

The most frequently reported classroom practices included Critical thinking and Self-directed learning.

Again, looking across the sample, teachers estimated widespread and frequent student use of educational technology. Across all classroom settings, the most common technology practices were using an iPad/MacBook to take notes, Maintaining an electronic calendar, and Research using the internet while activities requiring more infrastructure and planning such as Coding, Using robotics, Maker spaces, and 3D printers, or Connecting with industry experts occurred less frequently.

"Students used a table in Keynote, where they used the conditional highlighting cell function to create their own version of the NY Times word guessing game, Wordle. This basic coding allowed for deeper learning, with authentic content linked to the word study syllabus within the literacy curriculum."

– Middle School Computer Science Teacher from Australia

Exploring Pedagogy and Technology Practices

Although technology access was largely fixed across study settings, there were significant differences across teacher backgrounds, grade levels, and subject areas and how they employed technology tools to support diverse instructional goals.

Despite similar technology access across schools, the usage of technology varied considerably. This complexity within and across school settings underscore the importance of contextual and pedagogical nuances emphasized by the TPACK model (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) and teachers' pedagogical intent, emphasized by the SAMR model (Puentedura, 2009).

Prior research also suggests that autonomy-supportive teaching practices—including student-centered decision-making and independent thought— can directly enhance student engagement (Yang et al., 2023). Examining the variation across study settings, deeper pedagogical practices were nearly always associated with classrooms exhibiting frequent use of technology. In other words, the study-wide results suggest a positive relationship between technology use and richer pedagogical practices. Although not causal, the strong association for such rich pedagogical practices and one-to-one student computing originally suggested by Papert at the dawn of the computer age continues to manifest in a post-COVID-19 K–12 landscape. As shown in the scatterplots illustrating relationships between technology use and classroom practices, teachers (r = .33) and especially students' use of technology in class (r = .59) was positively related to student opportunities to pursue their own interests in class.

Teachers' use of technology in class was positively related to student opportunities to pursue their own interests in class.

Students' use of technology for creation was strongly related to student opportunities to pursue their own interests in class.

"Learners (in groups) researching different aspects of a poem, including definitions of difficult words, pictures to support research. Presenting to each other for everyone to collaborate information and come to a mutual understanding. Using Explain Everything to analyse poetry."

– Middle/High School ELA Teacher from South Africa

Teacher Beliefs and Attitudes

Over 30 years of research has demonstrated the importance of teacher attitudes and beliefs in the successful adoption and use of new technologies (Fisher, 1989; Hiebert et al., 1989; Bebell & O'Dwyer, 2010; European Commission, 2013, 2019). Respondents across this study were overwhelmingly positive towards the value and role of student collaboration with 93% of all teachers sharing it is "always valuable" or "usually valuable" in their class setting.

Beyond collaboration, teachers consistently affirmed the value of pedagogical practices that promoted critical thinking, personalized learning, project-based learning/case-based learning (PBL/CBL), and complex problem-solving. Nearly 70% of respondents identified critical thinking as "always valuable" and over 63% reported the same for personalized student learning.

Like the differences observed across instructional practice, closer analysis of teacher beliefs demonstrates notable differences in how teachers value certain instructional strategies. For more specialized practices such as educational gaming and coding, teachers' valuations tended to decline as grade level increases. In contrast, more widely endorsed practices like critical thinking and complex problem solving exhibited consistent positive valuations across nearly all Apple Distinguished Schools teachers. To illustrate the relationship between teacher beliefs and their setting, we examine four teacher beliefs across school levels:

Student Engagement: Conditions

"Using iMovie, students compiled text, illustrations, and audio into a cohesive digital story. They learn to edit and enhance their projects with transitions. animations, and special effects, such as using a green screen. Having students work on this type of product helps them become really engaged in their learning experience."

– Elementary multi-subject teacher from Mexico

Student engagement is a multifaceted concept with many typologies, definitions, and models. Yet, it remains a universal component of learning related to many personal and academic outcomes. Today, two student engagement trends challenge educators and policy makers. First, comparative research studies consistently show global engagement levels decreasing as students maturate (von Davier, et al. 2024). In other words, children around the world report less engagement in school as they progressed through their respective educational systems. A second disturbing trend suggests engagement levels have also been decreasing over time, particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic (Bălţătescu & Cernea-Radu; 2024; Gallup, 2024).

Despite these challenges, research shows that student engagement is a malleable trait impacted by classroom and school practices, including the use of educational technology (Li & Xue; 2023). However, such impacts were closely associated with teacher/classroom variables and program fidelity (Bebell & O'Dywer, 2010; Fisher, 1989; Hiebert et al., 1989).

In this post-COVID-19 landscape, researchers and educators seek to reconcile the sharp contrast between students' engagement with personal technology and decreasing levels of student engagement in the classroom. As schools invest in technology, it is vital to understand how classroom practices and educational technologies are (or are not) supporting deeper student engagement and other outcomes.

Across Apple Distinguished Schools settings, teachers were asked to share the frequencies across a range of classroom practices and conditions in their "typical" class, including the % of time students were "actively engaged in class." As a nearly universal educational tenet across all grade levels and subject areas in the global Apple Distinguished Schools community, teachers reported generally high levels of student engagement. Indeed, across all study participants (over 3 years in 31 countries), teachers estimated that their students were actively engaged for an average of 78% of class time. In the following tables and figures, student engagement rates are explored across the participating Apple Distinguished Schools community.

When looking across this entire sample, measures of student engagement varied across grade levels, echoing past research. Holding all other variables constant, student engagement tended to peak in the upper elementary grades and decreased through middle and high school grades when looking across all participants.

Across the entire sample, smaller differences in student engagement were observed across teachers' subject area, suggesting the many curricular and pedagogical factors related to engagement. Overall, teachers serving some of the most traditional academic subjects (e.g., languages, mathematics, and humanities) often observed the lowest rates of student engagement. However, it is important to note that self-contained classrooms often serve younger students, an important factor influencing classroom engagement.

The relationship observed between student device type and engagement is confounded by the fact that MacBook programs were more frequently deployed in upper grade levels (where engagement is traditionally lower). As such, the studywide difference between student devices largely disappeared (and even reversed) when grade levels were held constant, suggesting that the overall difference in studywide patterns of engagement are similar, on average, across the iPad and Mac settings. Additionally, there was less overall student engagement observed in those small number of settings where students used phones as their primary educational device in the classroom.

Relatively little difference in student engagement was observed across teachers' number of years experience, however, the lowest averages were observed for the least (0-5 years) and the most experienced (36+ years) educators. There was essentially no difference in the estimated percent engaged class time for US teachers and non-US teachers (77.3%).

Across all grade levels and subject areas, teachers reported their students were actively engaged about three-fourths of class time.

"One innovative practice I introduced in my classroom this year was the implementation of a ‘flipped classroom' model combined with project-based learning (PBL). In this approach, traditional lecture content was delivered outside of class through pre-recorded videos and interactive online modules. Students watched these videos and completed related activities at their own pace, allowing them to engage with the material on their own terms."

– Elementary Special Ed Teacher from Malaysia

Student Engagement: Impacts

How do student and teacher practices relate to outcomes?

"After the use of Apple devices, I see 100% student involvement, their eagerness to learn and show their creative side. This was something new for my students but they were able to work the device and native apps"

– Elementary Math Teacher from India

Across thousands of diverse classroom settings, the results showed a consistent, positive link between classroom technology use and student engagement—especially when students, rather than teachers, were active users of technology. Given the concerning global trends of decreasing student engagement over time and age, exploring classroom settings and practices that increase student engagement is critical.

Exploring the variation across responding teachers, it is possible to illuminate how the differences in classroom practices relate to teacher or student outcomes. For example, the relationship between the frequency of using a computer to present information to the class (from 0-100% of class time) was positively related (r = .3, p < .001) to teachers' perception of student engagement. Generally speaking, those teachers who more frequently used technology for presenting information were somewhat more likely to report higher levels of student engagement.

Students' use of technology to create content was strongly related to student engagement.

Looking across reported classroom conditions, including educational technology practices, across the 2024 responses showed the strongest relationships with engagement was observed for students' use of iPad or MacBook to create content (ρ = .30). Other practices demonstrated smaller but still meaningful relationships. For example, teacher use of iPad or Mac to present information correlated positively at ρ = .24 with student engagement.

Studywide, not all technology practices were found to have significant relationships to student engagement. For example, while the results suggested that student note-taking with technology was among the most commonly reported daily classroom activities, its relationship with student engagement was notably weak (ρ = .05). This relationship suggests an important distinction between the most routine instructional practices and those "deeper" classroom practices more closely associated with increased student engagement levels.

"Due to problems with children researching, I created individual videos for people they might meet in a Greek Agora or a Mayan market place. The children really engaged with these audio visual stimuli and were able to feed back so much more about how these people lived in the past."

– Elementary multi-subject teacher from the UK

Implications & Next Steps

Although simple, this descriptive study offers several valuable insights for future research and practice. First, findings confirm the varied and multi-dimensional use of educational technology in K–12 classrooms. Differences across teacher backgrounds, grade levels, and subject areas suggest that educators employ technology autonomously to support different instructional goals. Even in schools with comparable access, the ways, purposes, and frequency of technology use vary considerably. This complexity underscores the need for research that accounts for contextual and pedagogical nuances, as emphasized by TPACK (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) and pedagogical intent, as reflected by SAMR (Puentedura, 2009).

Second, results suggest a continued, positive relationship between technology use and deeper pedagogical practices.Typically, teachers reporting more frequent student technology use also reported the use of deeper, more advanced instructional strategies. Although not causal, the strong association for rich pedagogy and one-to-one student computing first suggested at the dawn of the computer age continues to manifest in a post-covid K–12 landscape. Pedagogically rich teaching and learning can occur in any classroom setting, but current results suggest that technology is a frequent vehicle for teachers' enhancement of their curriculum/lesson.

Third, the study finds a moderate positive link between classroom technology use and student engagement—especially when students, rather than teachers, are active users. Although not reported, student engagement was found to be correlated positively (and significantly) with teachers' feeling of effectiveness in their role as educators (ρ = .23) and feeling of appreciation in their role as educators (ρ = .22). Conversely, student engagement demonstrated a studywide negative relationship with teachers' feelings towards leaving the profession, showing how classroom practices and conditions may contribute to measures of teacher satisfaction and retention. Given the concerning trends of decreasing student engagement over time and age, exploring classroom settings and practices that increase student engagement are important to identify and understand. The study also underscores the importance of distinguishing and better understanding professionally integrated educational technology practices, given growing concerns over children's personal technology usages.

This report begins the exploration of a rich dataset amplifying the voice and practices across a diverse, global sample of teachers. While current findings serve to highlight universal trends globally, future analyses focused within subject, grade level, location, and other classroom/teacher characteristics will continue to yield meaningful insights.

We believe that any school or community can benefit from research-informed reflection activities, including self-study like action research. Below are a few examples of K–12 institutions across the Apple Distinguished Schools community leveraging research tools and techniques for enhanced formative and summative reflection.

References & Resources

1. Andrade Johnson, M. D. S. (2020). Digital equity: 1:1 technology and associated pedagogy. In R. Papa (Ed.), Handbook on promoting social justice in education (pp. 1609-1639). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14625-2_142
2. Apple Distinguished Schools (2025). Apple Distinguished Schools: Program overview.
3. 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
4. Bebell, D., & Pedulla, J. (2015). A Quantitative Investigation into the Impacts of 1:1 iPads on Early Learner's ELA and Math Achievement. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 14, 191–215. https://doi.org/10.28945/2175
5. Bebell, D., & Burraston, J. (2014). Procedures and examples for examining a wide range of student outcomes from 1:1 student computing settings. Revista de Curriculum y Formacion del Profesorado, 18(3), 137-160.
6. Bebell, D., & Kay, R. (2010). One to one computing: A summary of the quantitative results from the Berkshire Wireless Learning Initiative. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 9(2), 1-60.
7. Bebell, D., & O'Dwyer, L. M. (2010). Educational outcomes and research from 1:1 computing settings. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(1), 1-16.
8. 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
9. Blundell, C., Mukherjee, M., & Nykvist, S. (2022). A scoping review of the application of the SAMR model in research. Computers and Education Open, 3(100093), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100093
10. European Commission. (2013). Survey of schools: ICT in education – Benchmarking access, use and attitudes to technology in Europe's schools: Final report. Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2759/94499
11. European Commission. (2019). 2nd survey of schools: ICT in education. Objective 1: Benchmark progress in ICT in schools. Executive summary. Publications Office of the European Union.
12. Fisher, C. W. (1989). The influence of high computer access on student empowerment (ACOT Report No. 1). Advanced Technology Group, Apple Computer, Inc.
13. 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/
14. Hamilton, E. R., Rosenberg, J. M., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The substitution augmentation modification redefinition (SAMR) model: A critical review and suggestions for its use. TechTrends, 60(5), 433-441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0091-y
15. Hiebert, E. H., Quellmalz, E. S., & Vogel, P. (1989). A research-based writing program for students with high access to computers (ACOT Report No. 2). Advanced Technology Group, Apple Computer, Inc.
16. Kennedy, C., Rhoads, C., & Leu, D. J. (2016). Online research and learning in science: A one-to-one laptop comparison in two states using performance-based assessments. Computers & Education, 100, 141–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.05.003
17. Li, J., & Xue, E. (2023). Dynamic interaction between student learning behaviour and learning environment: Meta-analysis of student engagement and its influencing factors. Behavioral Sciences, 13(1), 59. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13010059
18. 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/
19. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
20. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books, Inc.
21. Papert, S. (1992). The Children's Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
22. Piaget, J. (1936). The origins of intelligence in the child. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
23. Puentedura, R. R. (2009). As we may teach: Educational technology, from theory into practice. Apple.
24. Stoneman, D. (2018). (dissertation). A quantitative Inquiry into the Effectiveness of One-to-One Mobile Computer Access for Students. Retrieved 2025, from https://www.proquest.com/docview/2051185823
25. 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
26. 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
27. Yang, D., Cai, Z., Wang, C., & others. (2023). Not all engaged students are alike: Patterns of engagement and burnout among elementary students using a person-centered approach. BMC Psychology, 11, 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01071-z
28. Zheng, B., Warschauer, M., Lin, C.-H., & Chang, C. (2016). Learning in one-to-one laptop environments: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1052–1084. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316628645