You are here:

Getting the digital generation to integrate technology in their learning: A framework for disciplinary learning with technology for adolescents

, , Michigan State University, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Austin, Texas, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-92-1 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA


Though often described as digital natives, there is some research to indicate that today’s learners are not adequately equipped to learn disciplinary content using technology. This paper seeks to address this concern by offering a framework for technology integration from the student perspective. Specifically, this paper integrates a disparate range of research literatures in order to develop a better understanding of what students of the digital generation need to know to successfully learn subject matter with technology. Implications for research and practice are also explored.


Kereluik, K. & Mishra, P. (2012). Getting the digital generation to integrate technology in their learning: A framework for disciplinary learning with technology for adolescents. In P. Resta (Ed.), Proceedings of SITE 2012--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2883-2892). Austin, Texas, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 25, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map


  1. Bebell, D., Russell, M., & O'Dwyer, L. (2004). Measuring teachers' technology uses: Why multiple measures are more revealing. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(1), 45-63.
  2. Brown, A.L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F.E. Weinert & R.H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65-116). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
  3. Flavell, J.H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitivedevelopmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911.
  4. Frand, J. (2000). The information-age mindset: changes in students and implications for higher education. EDUCAUSE Review, 35, 14–24.
  5. Howe, N. & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: the next great generation. New York: Vintage.
  6. Huttenlocher, P.R. (1994). Synaptogenesis, synapse elimination, and neural plasticity in human cerebral cortex. In C.A. Nelson (Ed.), Threats to Optimal Development: Integrating Biological, Psychological, and Social Risk Factors, Vol. 27 (pp. 35–54). Hillsdale, NJ:
  7. Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPACK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation& Technology (Eds.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge for educators (pp. 3-29). New York: Routledge.
  8. Koehler, M.J., Shin, T.S., & Mishra, P. (2012). How do we measure tpack? Let me count the ways. In R.N. Ronau, C.R. Rakes, & M.L. Niess (Eds.). Educational technology, teacher knowledge, and classroom impact: A Research handbook on frameworks and approaches. Hersey, PA: IGI Global.
  9. Kramarski, B. & Mevarech, Z.R. (2003). Enhancing mathematical reasoning in the classroom: The effects of cooperative learning and metacognitive training. American Educational Research Journal, 40(1), 281-310.
  10. Kuhn, D. (2006). Do cognitive changes accompany developments in the adolescent brain?-2891-Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 59-67.
  11. Kuhn, D., & Dean. D. (2004). Metacognition: A bridge between cognitive psychology and educational practice. Theory into Practice, 43(4), 268-273.
  12. Michigan Department of Education. (2009). 2009 Michigan Educational Technology Standards for Students: Grades 6-8. Lansing, MI: State Board of Education.
  13. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. Doi:10.1111/J.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
  14. Moses, L.J., & Baird, J.A. (1999). Metacognition. In R.A. Wilson& F. Keil (Eds.), The MIT Encyclopedia of Cognitive Sciences (pp.533-535). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  15. Oblinger, D. & Oblinger, J. (2005). Is it age or IT: first steps towards understanding the net generation. In D. Oblinger& J. Oblinger (Eds), Educating the Net generation (pp. 2.1–
  16. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9, 1-6. Rideout, V.J., Foehr, U.G., & Roberts, D.F. (January, 2010). Generation M2: Media in the Lives of 8-to 18-Year-Olds. Menlo Park, CA: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.
  17. Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26(1-2), 113-125.
  18. Schraw, G. & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351-371.
  19. Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
  20. Sowell, E.R, Traunder, D.A., Gamst, A., & Jernigan, T.L. (2002). Development of cortical and subcortical brain structures in childhood and adolescence: A structural MRI study. Dev. Medicine and Child Neurology, 44, 4–16.
  21. Steffe, L.P., Cobb, P., & Von Glasersfeld, E. (1988). Young children's construction of arithmetical meanings and strategies. New York: Springer-Verlag.
  22. Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: The rise of the Net Generation. New York: McGrawHill.-2892 DASHDASH

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact