SINE: strategic integration of navigated engagement - a design thinking framework for technology integration in secondary education

  • Anne-Louise Agnew orcid

    University of Technology Sydney, NSW Australia
  • Jonathon Mascorella orcid

    Loreto Kirribilli, NSW Australia
Article ID: 4290
DOI: https://doi.org/10.59400/fes4290
Keywords: digital pedagogy; preservice teachers; pedagogical reasoning; digital affordances; disciplinary epistemology; professional judgement; learning design

Abstract

The integration of digital technologies in secondary education requires teachers to make principled decisions about when and how technological affordances serve learning. This paper introduces the SINE framework (Strategic Integration of Navigated Engagement), a design thinking scaffold that positions technology use as a pedagogical decision grounded in professional judgement, disciplinary epistemology, and learner need. The study examined approximately 80 learning design artefacts produced by preservice teachers across Mathematics, Science, English, HSIE, and Creative Arts (Drama) within an initial teacher education program. Qualitative content analysis examined how preservice teachers articulated pedagogical reasoning, positioned technology IN and OUT, interpreted technological affordances in relation to disciplinary purposes, and demonstrated developing teacher design thinking. Findings identified four themes: Pedagogical Reasoning During Design, Deliberate Positioning of Technology, Disciplinary Alignment of Technological Affordances, and Development of Teacher Design Thinking. The artefacts demonstrated varying levels of reasoning sophistication, with more developed responses explicitly connecting technology decisions to intended learning, disciplinary purposes, and anticipated effects on student understanding. Technology OUT decisions further demonstrated that purposeful integration can involve the deliberate exclusion of technology where other approaches better serve learning. Placement-situated artefacts from a subset of participants also provided evidence of the framework being applied within classroom-based planning contexts. The findings position SINE as a practical scaffold for making technology-related pedagogical reasoning visible and supporting context-responsive, discipline-aligned decision-making during learning design.

Published
2026-10-15
How to Cite
Agnew, A.-L., & Mascorella, J. (2026). SINE: strategic integration of navigated engagement - a design thinking framework for technology integration in secondary education. Forum for Education Studies, 4(3). https://doi.org/10.59400/fes4290
Issue
Vol. 4 No. 3 (2026)
Section
Article

Copyright (c) 2026 Anne-Louise Agnew, Jonathon Mascorella

Creative Commons License

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

References

[1]S. Forsström, M. Njå, E. Munthe, J.-L. Álvarez-Galván, and L. Houldsworth, “The impact of digital technologies on students’ learning: Results from a literature review,” OECD Education Working Papers, Sep. 2025. doi: 10.1787/9997e7b3-en.

[2]C. N. Blundell, “Using design thinking to embrace the complexities of teacher learning-practice with digital technologies,” Professional Development in Education, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 386–404, May 2025, doi: 10.1080/19415257.2024.2422063.

[3]T. Consoli, M.-L. Schmitz, C. Antonietti, P. Gonon, A. Cattaneo, and D. Petko, “Quality of technology integration matters: Positive associations with students’ behavioral engagement and digital competencies for learning,” Educ Inf Technol, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 7719–7752, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.1007/s10639-024-13118-8.

[4]T. Fawns, “An Entangled Pedagogy: Looking Beyond the Pedagogy—Technology Dichotomy,” Postdigit Sci Educ, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 711–728, Oct. 2022, doi: 10.1007/s42438-022-00302-7.

[5]P. Mishra and M. J. Koehler, “Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge,” Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, vol. 108, no. 6, pp. 1017–1054, Jun. 2006, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x.

[6]R. Puentedura, “SAMR: Moving from enhancement to transformation,” Transformation, technology and education. [Online]. Available: https://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2006_11.html

[7]M. Kearney, P. F. Burke, and S. Schuck, “The iPAC Scale: A Survey to Measure Distinctive Mobile Pedagogies,” TechTrends, vol. 63, no. 6, pp. 751–764, Nov. 2019, doi: 10.1007/s11528-019-00414-1.

[8]W. Shiu, “Conceptualising the Pedagogical Purposes of Technologies by Technological, Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Substitution, Augmentation, Modification and Redefinition in English as a Second Language Classrooms,” Education Sciences, vol. 15, no. 4, p. 411, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.3390/educsci15040411.

[9]G.-G. Lee and X. Zhai, “Using ChatGPT for Science Learning: A Study on Pre-service Teachers’ Lesson Planning,” IEEE Trans. Learning Technol., vol. 17, pp. 1643–1660, 2024, doi: 10.1109/TLT.2024.3401457.

[10]J. Gibson, The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin, 1979.

[11]J. J. Gibson, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception: Classic Edition, 1st ed. Psychology Press, 2014. doi: 10.4324/9781315740218.

[12]A. Maulet, W. Admiraal, N. Algozhaeva, and N. Balta, “School teachers’ perceived knowledge and affordances for using technology in teaching,” CONT ED TECHNOLOGY, vol. 16, no. 3, p. ep515, Jul. 2024, doi: 10.30935/cedtech/14713.

[13]N. Bosch, T. Härkki, and P. Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, “Teachers as reflective learning experience designers: Bringing design thinking into school-based design and maker education,” International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, vol. 43, p. 100695, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.ijcci.2024.100695.

[14]J. P. Donaldson and B. K. Smith, “Design Thinking, Designerly Ways of Knowing, and Engaged Learning,” in Learning, Design, and Technology, J. M. Spector, B. B. Lockee, and M. D. Childress, Eds., Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2023, pp. 837–860. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-17461-7_73.

[15]L. Knussen and A. Agnew, “Supporting early career teachers’ digital agency: a role for mentorship?,” Irish Educational Studies, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 201–211, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.1080/03323315.2021.2022524.

[16]L. Lockyer, S. Agostinho, S. Bennett, L. Knussen, and M. Plumb, “Designing for Teaching with Digital Technology,” in Teacher Design Thinking and Practice, Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2025, pp. 145–161. doi: 10.1007/978-981-95-1950-7_8.

[17]M. Kearney, S. Schuck, and K. Burden, “Digital pedagogies for future school education: promoting inclusion,” Irish Educational Studies, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 117–133, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.1080/03323315.2021.2024446.

[18]L. Starkey et al., “Each discipline is different: teacher capabilities for future-focussed digitally infused undergraduate programmes,” Education Tech Research Dev, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 117–136, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.1007/s11423-023-10196-2.

[19]J. Ross and N. Alsayegh, “Technocentrism,” edtechnica, 2023, doi: 10.59668/371.12180.

[20]J. McTighe and G. Wiggins, Understanding by Design, Expanded 2nd. Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development, 2005.

[21]Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, “Australian Professional Standards for teachers.” [Online]. Available: https://www.aitsl.edu.au/standards

[22]G. A. Bowen, “Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method,” Qualitative Research Journal, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 27–40, Aug. 2009, doi: 10.3316/QRJ0902027.

[23]U. Kuckartz and S. Rädiker, Qualitative content analysis: methods, practice and software, Second edition. Los Angeles: SAGE, 2023.

[24]M. Warr and P. Mishra, “Integrating the discourse on teachers and design: An analysis of ten years of scholarship,” Teaching and Teacher Education, vol. 99, p. 103274, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2020.103274.

[25]D. Petko, P. Mishra, and M. J. Koehler, “TPACK in context: An updated model,” Computers and Education Open, vol. 8, p. 100244, Jun. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.caeo.2025.100244.

[26]F. Tschönhens, I. Backfisch, T. Fütterer, and A. Lachner, “TPACK in action: Contextual effects of pre-service and in-service teachers’ knowledge structures for technology integration,” Computers and Education Open, vol. 7, p. 100219, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100219.

[27]G. Dunne, “Resisting Edutainment: How Reward Deficiency Syndrome Fuels the Student Attention Crisis,” Stud Philos Educ, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 147–173, Apr. 2026, doi: 10.1007/s11217-025-10022-7.

[28]M. Bower, “Technology‐mediated learning theory,” Brit J Educational Tech, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 1035–1048, May 2019, doi: 10.1111/bjet.12771.

[29]I. Lozano Cabezas, M. J. Iglesias Martínez, S. Arroyo Salgueira, M. D. M. Camús Ferri, and A. Giner Gomis, “What teaching models do Pre-Service teachers learn during placements?,” Cogent Education, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 2034393, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2022.2034393.