This editorial was prepared with contributions from the following NTLS participants:
Glen Bull, University of Virginia
Jonathan Cohen, Georgia State University and SITE President
Marie K. Heath, Loyola University
Mark Hofer, College of William and Mary
Daniel G. Krutka, University of North Texas
Michael Searson, AACE
Torrey Trust, University of Massachusettes, Amherst
On September 19-20, 2024, leaders from educational associations, editors of educational technology journals, policy makers, and representatives from corporate and nonprofit entities convened in Washington, DC, for the 2024 National Technology Leadership Summit (NTLS). Support for this year’s Summit was provided by the National Education Association (NEA) which served as the venue for the Summit, EdThena, Mursion, and the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education (SITE), a long-term partner of NTLS.
This year’s summit celebrated the 25th anniversary of NTLS, beginning with a welcome from Andy Coons, senior director of teacher quality at NEA, followed by a brief history of NTLS presented by its founder, Glen Bull. Stephanie Rowley, dean of the School of Education and Human Development at the University of Virginia (UVA); also delivered remarks. The School of Education at UVA has played a crucial role in the establishment and ongoing support of NTLS.
Important updates were also provided by Glenna Wright-Gallo, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Service, Kevin Johnstun, Office of Educational Technology; Bob Russell from the National Science Foundation; and Erin Mote from InnovateEDU. Consistent with past practice, NTLS hosted a panel featuring presidents of teacher educator associations discussing pressing issues at the intersection of technology and teacher education and a panel featuring editors of educational technology journals.
The 2024 NTLS was organized around three strands: (a) AI in the Content Areas – led by Mike Searson and Mark Hofer; and (2) STEM Diversity and Open Hardware – led by Robert Berry, Steven Greenstein, and Glen Bull; and (3) Amplify the Message: How to Influence Policy for the Next 25 Years– led by Erin Mote and Jonathan Cohen. A summary of deliberations from each strand is provided here, with the assistance of strand leads.
AI in the Content Areas
The AI in the Content Areas (AICA) strand was led by Michael Searson and Mark Hofer. With a cross-disciplinary representation, participants within the strand on AICA, examined the potential of AI as an educational tool within their disciplines. Opportunities and challenges presented by AI and learning were discussed both during the summit and in pre- and postsummit activities. For example, a presummit activity requested that strand participants use a Gen-AI tool to create a mindmap that highlighted their professional profiles (Figure 1).
Figure 1
Sample Mindmap Created With ChatGPT
Depending on the tools they chose, AICA strand members had varied experiences and levels of success when creating their mindmap. This exercise raised issues related to the efficacy of certain tools over others, paywalls and subscriptions, and general comfort with new technologies. This presummit activity also raised concerns about learners’ familiarity with and access to new tools: Will a new digital divide emerge as AI continues to be introduced to contemporary learners? While participants acknowledged the potential of AI as a powerful tool for learning — often citing examples — they also recognized challenges that educators and policymakers should consider as the impact of AI in education continues to grow.
A key element of NTLS is the reporting by each of the three strands at the end of the 2-day summit. These reports include plans by strand participants and associations to integrate NTLS activities into their work as appropriate. As the AICA strand had previously broken into five groups, each group was asked to share its plans to integrate its work at NTLS into future activities. One group stressed the need to develop a common vocabulary that stakeholders could use as they deal with the potential of AI in education. Toward that end, members of the group wrote an abstract of an article that they planned to work on in the weeks following NTLS 2024 (Figure 2).
Figure 2
The Essentials of AI
A second group centered its work on the critical topic of ethics and created a new evaluation framework called “The AI Use in Teaching and Learning Matrix,” designed to help educators and students jointly assess AI tools before classroom implementation. The matrix has two key dimensions:
- X-axis – Environmental and Societal Impact:
- Prompts discussions about critical AI issues
- Examines potential biases and stereotypesConsiders societal and environmental costs
- Enables democratic decision-making about tool adoption
- Y-axis – Pedagogical Impact:
- Evaluates how the tool affects teaching and learning
- Assesses whether it replaces, disrupts, or supports education
- Considers potential for liberatory vs. oppressive usage
- Considers potential for liberatory vs. oppressive usage
- Considers potential for liberatory vs. oppressive usage
The matrix serves as a collaborative decision-making tool, allowing teachers and students to plot AI tools based on these two dimensions and make informed choices about their classroom use.
Figure 3
The AI Use in Teaching and Learning Matrix
A third group addressed the complexity of AI in Special Education. Members of the group developed mindmaps that provide rich details on issues related to the integration of AI into special education (Figure 4).
Figure 4
Mindmaps on AI and Special Education
A fourth group attempted to graphically represent the concept of “Perspectives to Consider: A theoretical framing for examining the use of AI in educational practice.” This group created a pyramid design to represent the concept that the viewer can only get a complete picture by walking around the pyramid. Viewing a single side alone, at best, provides an incomplete perspective. This group is considering the publication of an article called “Perspectives to Consider: A Theoretical Framing for Examining and Researching the Use of AI in Educational Practice.”
Figure 5
Pyramid of Perspectives for Education Technologies
A fifth group developed a plan by which representative associations could leverage the work at NTLS and issue “a call to action” for their associations to formally address the integration of AI into education (Figure 6).
Figure 6
Presidents’ Call to Action
A consistent feature of NTLS is the dissemination of activities through books, journals, and participating association social media, including blogs, podcasts, and Facebook posts. The AACE has been supported by the NTLS since its inception. As one of the largest publishers of digital content in the field of learning technologies, AACE provides numerous publication and conference presentation activities to academics, researchers, and practitioners from across the world. Feedback from the 2024 NTLS AICA strand was useful as AACE prepared the launch of a new journal, AI-Enhanced Learning, scheduled for early 2025. AICA participants will now have an opportunity to submit their work on AI and education for publication in a new journal!
STEM Diversity and Open Hardware
The NTLS strand on STEM Diversity and Open Hardware was led by Robert Berry, Steven Greenstein, and Glen Bull. It focused on collective efforts to facilitate the use of open hardware in K-12 schools. Open-source hardware, facilitated by affordable tools like 3D printers, has transformed scientific research. For instance, open-source designs can substitute expensive commercial equipment, significantly reducing costs and allowing customization for specific research tasks. An example of an open-source hardware that can substitute expensive equipment is the OpenFlexure Microscope, which is designed to provide medical-grade imaging capabilities affordably and is widely used in research and healthcare settings. The OpenFlexure microscope has already been fabricated in hundreds of universities and medical settings around the world.
This year’s initiative built upon the efforts from the 2022 and 2023 summits. At NTLS 2022, for instance, participants worked on an extension to the CITE Journal, Objects to Think With(https://citejournal.org/category/objects-to-think-with/), which is now used to review educational objects and academic manuscripts associated with the implementation of those objects. These objects stem from the Educational CAD Model Library (www.CADLibrary.org), established with support from the National Science Foundation. At NTLS 2023, participants explored strategies for fabricating tools by engineering students that could be used in K-12 science class. This year, participants engaged in hands-on activities, including constructing a microscope using a FoldScope Kit (www.FoldScope.com). They also discussed challenges in K-12 engineering education, including diversity issues, identified areas of excellence, and began discussions on establishing a K-12 Microscopy Network to facilitate access to open hardware designs through collaboration with universities and K-12 schools.
For a more detailed report of the STEM Diversity and Open Hardware strand, we encourage readers to see the editorial, “Facilitating Use of Open Hardware in K-12 Schools – Summary of Discussion at the 2024 National Technology Leadership Summit” (and associated commentaries: “The Promise and Complexity of Open-Source Hardware in K-12 STEM Learning: Commentary on Discussion at the 2024 National Technology Leadership Summit” by Elizabeth Whitewolf and “Creating Inclusive Environments through Authentic Engineering Design Initiatives: Commentary on Discussion at the 2024 National Technology Leadership Summit” by Chandra Hayes).
Amplifying the Message: Influencing Policy for the Next 25 Years
The Amplifying the Message strand was led by Jonathan Cohen and Erin Mote. The strand grappled with the question of how to harness the energy of NTLS working groups to facilitate meaningful change in educational technology. Strand participants began by envisioning an educational landscape ten years in the future, and speculated on what role NTLS might play in that future. Using those ideal futures as grounding, they then identified themes and drew links between those themes and current practice in the field, identifying opportunities and barriers, and creating potential action items. Finally, the strand refined the action items and prioritized them.
Strand participants categorized the various action items into three groups: normal, easy-to-implement ideas; novel, easy-to-implement ideas; and novel, currently impossible-to-implement ideas. Normal, easy-to-implement ideas included holding convenings of NTLS-affiliated organizations at current conferences and implementing an asynchronous communication channel for leaders of NTLS-affiliated organizations to have ongoing communications. Novel, easy-to-implement ideas included engaging in an advocacy day on Capitol Hill, led by a policy strand steering committee which would be empaneled to emphasize consistent membership and facilitated by existing partners who already organize advocacy days. Novel, currently impossible-to-implement ideas included more deeply integrating into NTLS a wider range of stakeholders from educational technology industry (Figure 7).
Figure 7
Reenvisioning Policy Impacts from NTLS
Description of Current Issue
This last 2024 issue of CITE Journal brings an exciting collection of studies addressing the integration of digital tools and pedagogical frameworks with a strong emphasis on equity and justice-oriented practices. Collectively, these studies advance the discourse on how technology can be leveraged to foster equitable and effective teaching practices, providing valuable insights for policy, practice, and future research in teacher education.
The CITE-English Education section presents a special issue on Critical Perspectives on Digital Platforms in English Language Arts (ELA) Teacher Education. This series explores the interaction between literacies and digital platforms, as well as the implications of this relationship for providing high-quality, equitable ELA teacher education. Throughout the year, editors will publish a variety of studies that employ diverse theoretical and methodological approaches. These contributions aim to advance the field’s critical examination of technology, literacy, and pedagogy by incorporating the influence of digital platforms that increasingly shape literacy instruction and learning within ELA classrooms and teacher education programs.
This first issue includes two articles that advance our understanding of ELA platforms. Robinson and Hadley explore how the principles of competition, speed, and personalization inherent in the popular Accelerated Reader platform influenced preservice ELA teachers’ autobiographical reflections on their experiences with the platform during their school years. Their research underscores the role of teacher educators in helping new teachers critically understand the logics of this platform and its long-lasting effects on students’ literacy practices and identities. The second article by Jerasa and colleagues investigates how preservice teachers engage with the TikTok platform to create content for the #BookTok community. This study reveals the intricate ways that preservice teachers’ digital literacy skills developed outside of school, including their roles as TikTok consumers, can shape their teaching methods. Further, the study addresses the challenges associated with such platforms, including equity issues like algorithmic bias.
Building on issues of equity, the CITE-General article by Asim and colleagues, utilize frameworks of justice-oriented technology and inquiry pedagogy to address how teacher educators can effectively prepare preservice and in-service teachers in justice-oriented technology pedagogy. The authors present a practical example using the Learning Cycle, an inquiry-based teaching model, and discuss the implications of justice-oriented technology inquiry for policy, practice, and research. The article seeks to empower teacher educators to model meaningful, justice-oriented, and inquiry-based decisions related to technology so that future educators understand the impact and implications of the technology tools they use.
The CITE-General article by Wen and Wen, explores the use of one educational technology tool, namely ChatGPT in preservice teachers’ lesson designs. Through a qualitative exploratory study grounded in the TPACK framework, the authors analyze how preservice teachers interacted with ChatGPT during curriculum design and the factors they considered. The findings highlight the necessity of combining technological, content, pedagogical, and contextual knowledge as preservice educators learn to use AI technologies to complete teaching tasks.
The CITE-Mathematics Education article by Mensah and colleagues addresses the integration of digital tools in preservice mathematics teacher education to identify factors that either promote or inhibit its adaptations. Through a literature review of 22 articles published from 2010-2022, the authors found that preservice teachers regularly engaged in lesson planning, practiced teaching with peers, and reflected on lessons. The underlying reasoning behind these practices, however, were not explicitly presented to preservice teachers. Learning opportunities included rehearsals, use of exemplary curricular materials, teamwork and constructive feedback. A key barrier to adapting teaching practices was participants’ lack of experience with technology. The analysis emphasizes the importance of making the reasoning behind teaching methods explicit to future educators.
Three articles across various sections of this issue focus on the use of simulations and video-cases to support preservice teachers’ learning. In the CITE-Science Education section, Dagher and Metzger examined how elementary preservice teachers engaged in an equity-focused digital simulation delivered on MIT’s Teacher Moments platform during a science methods course. The simulation, called To Intervene or Not, placed participants in a scenario where they must identify reasons for the classroom teacher’s inaction, suggest interventions, and reflect on their teaching roles. Analysis indicated a productive engagement with the simulation with implications for the use of equity-oriented simulations in teacher education.
Similarly, the CITE-General article by Lottero-Perdue and colleagues examine how three math and three science teacher educators utilized two types of digital simulations — Teacher Moments and Avatar Based Mursion simulations — to support preservice teachers as they learn to facilitate argumentation discussions. Utilizing a mixed methods approach findings indicated that teacher educators identified instructional goals related to argumentation, questioning, disciplinary content, and student ideas, with many indicating these areas in their assessments of preservice teachers’ learning. Further, findings from this work provide insights into the types of supports designers of digital simulation could provide to teacher educators.
In the CITE-Social Studies Education section, Howell and Maddox move from simulations to video case studies. They discuss their collaboration with a group of social studies teachers to develop problem-based geographic inquiry curriculum materials and a video case, drawing on research regarding video and multimedia production for professional development. The work outlines the key features of the video case and discusses findings related to potential modifications that could enhance its effectiveness as a professional development tool, which include foregrounding the geographic content and thinking of the case, as well as what can be learned from the case.
Finally, in the CITE-Current Practice section, Karlin and colleagues discuss the integration of computer science (CS) into preservice teacher special education programs by examining the CS activities and content integrated by three special education faculty members, as well as their motivations for doing so. Through the use of multiple data sources, the findings indicated that the faculty successfully incorporated foundational CS knowledge and skills into their courses, driven by a desire to address existing inequities faced by students with disabilities. The authors suggest that further research is needed to explore how special education faculty can incorporate more advanced CS topics and how faculty from other disciplines can integrate CS into their preservice coursework.
Collectively, these articles offer valuable insights into the unique intersections of technology, content, and teacher education, while also foregrounding equity considerations. They also underscore the key role of teacher educators as they learn to incorporate emerging technologies into their instruction, ultimately enhancing the preparation of both in-service and preservice teachers to support their students’ learning. As always, we invite readers to submit commentaries.
On behalf of the CITE Journal editorial team, we wish to thank readers for their support throughout 2024.
