In-Service Educators’ Changes in Reasoning About Technology Integration
Dr. Haidee Jackson
About Dr. Haidee Jackson
Haidee A. Jackson is an assistant professor of special education in the Department of Teaching and Learning at the University of Texas Permian Basin. Her research interests include understanding the individualized experiences and perceptions of educators and students across variable learning environments, including rural populations, within the instructional design process. Her research focuses on educator preparation and students’ affect within instructional design and technology to support all learners. In particular, she is interested in applying motivational theory to instructional design and technology integration models within STEM education. She is the recipient of a post-doctoral fellowship from the Institute for Measurement Methodology in Rural STEM Education (IMMERSE) at the University of South Carolina.
The problem highlighted in this brief
As educational technologies evolve rapidly, especially with the rise of artificial intelligence (AI), many in-service teachers face challenges in meaningfully integrating these tools into instructional design for all learners (Mosher et al., 2024). Without sufficient professional development, teachers risk using technology in ways that encourage passive rather than active learning. This misalignment can hinder student engagement, particularly for students with disabilities, and limit the effectiveness of technology in promoting critical thinking and meaningful learning outcomes. Jackson and Rosenblatt (2025) identified that when teachers are not grounded in pedagogical frameworks like Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and Triple E, technology use may become superficial, inequitable, or even counterproductive.
Why does this topic matter to teacher preparation?
Teacher preparation programs must move beyond tool-based training and equip educators with pedagogical frameworks that support intentional, context-responsive technology integration. The study by Jackson and Rosenblatt (2025) demonstrates that structured exposure to UDL and Triple E helps educators reevaluate their instructional planning, align technology with learning goals, and support the needs of all students. This shift in reasoning is essential for preparing teachers to navigate the complexities of modern classrooms and harness technology to foster equitable and engaging learning environments.
About This Brief
The brief begins with context on the background of technology integration in special education and highlights the urgent need for pedagogically grounded approaches amid evolving tools like AI. Readers will learn how in-service educators’ reasoning about technology shifted after engaging with the UDL and Triple E frameworks. The brief presents concrete examples of how educators re-evaluated technology to support all learners. It also emphasizes the importance of flexible, reflective instructional design. Overall, the audience will gain insights into preparing teachers to integrate technology in ways that promote equity, engagement, and meaningful student outcomes.
Research and Practice Context
In-Service Educators’ Changes in Reasoning About Technology Integration
As technology rapidly evolves, including the rise of AI, educators are faced with the challenge of integrating digital tools in ways that enhance, not hinder, student learning. In the interview, Dr. Haidee Jackson emphasizes that without pedagogically grounded frameworks, technology use can lead to passive learning and reduced critical thinking. Her work focuses on helping in-service educators shift their reasoning about technology integration by using frameworks like Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and Triple E to support intentional instructional design.
The following are key insights shared by Dr. Haidee Jackson on this research. The interview focused on seven questions about the challenges of technology integration and the role of pedagogical frameworks in teacher preparation.
Conversation with Dr. Haidee Jackson
Q1: What issues are you trying to address through your work?
Dr. Jackson’s work addresses the pressing issue of insufficient preparation for in-service educators on how to integrate technology with effective pedagogy. Without structured guidance, teachers may adopt technology in ways that promote passive rather than active learning. This lack of intentionality can hinder student engagement and limit opportunities for deeper cognitive processes like exploration and critical thinking. The concern is particularly urgent with emerging tools like AI, which carry risks of student overreliance if not grounded in instructional purpose.
Dr. Jackson: “The problem is, if teachers aren't appropriately trained in how to integrate technology with effective pedagogy, students are not going to be engaging in critical thinking, active learning, and ultimately, that is not going to be good for facilitating learning, positive learning outcomes, achievement… especially when you think about AI, there's so many teachers worried about overreliance.”
Q2: Can you walk us through the framework you used to change in-service educators’ reasoning about technology integration?
Dr. Jackson guided in-service special education teachers through the use of two key frameworks: Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and the Triple E Framework. UDL helped teachers design flexible lessons that accommodate learner variability, while Triple E focused on using technology to enhance, engage, and extend student learning. By integrating both frameworks into a graduate course, educators were supported in aligning technology use with pedagogy, ensuring it promoted active engagement rather than passive consumption. This structured approach encouraged teachers to think more critically and intentionally about their instructional decisions.
Dr. Jackson: “So a project that I worked on was to introduce them to two frameworks, the UDL framework, and then Triple E... using technology to enhance instruction and extend the learning to help in-service educators think about how they are going to structure their technology and their tools with effective pedagogy to ensure that that engagement is there in active learning.”
Q3: How did you integrate the frameworks and technologies to support teachers’ reasoning about technology integration?
To support in-service educators in shifting their reasoning about technology integration, Dr. Jackson embedded the UDL and Triple E frameworks into an online Canvas course using a hands-on, application-oriented approach. Teachers engaged with readings and multimedia resources from CAST, IRIS, and required texts, then applied their learning by designing lesson plans, conducting classroom observations, and identifying real examples of UDL and Triple E in practice. They also created a technology toolkit and wrote reflective papers to examine how their beliefs about technology use evolved. This integration of theory, practice, and reflection was key to deepening teachers’ understanding and purposeful use of educational technology.
Dr. Jackson: “We took resources from CAST, IRIS, and the UDL textbook as well as the Triple E textbook, and put that into discussions and modules. Students had to complete lesson plans using the UDL framework, lesson plans using the Triple E framework, observation forms… identifying UDL practices, Triple E, building a toolkit and strategies, and submit a reflection paper on how their changes in reasoning or beliefs about technology had changed.”
Q4: How can we better prepare educators for using these technologies in the field?
Dr. Jackson emphasized that preparing educators for effective technology integration requires a contextual, reflective, and adaptive approach. Rather than adopting a one-size-fits-all solution or fixating on specific tools, teachers must be trained to evaluate student needs, learning goals, and environmental factors when selecting and using technology. The instructional design process should be ongoing, with educators continuously revisiting and refining their strategies. Frameworks like UDL and Triple E help anchor teachers in purpose-driven decision-making, ensuring technology supports rather than overwhelms learning. This mindset shift—from fixed methods to iterative design—builds long-term capacity in teacher preparation.
Dr. Jackson: “Even though we have all of these tools, there isn't a one-size-fits-all. You really have to engage in that instructional design practice: what is the environment like, what are the students like, what kind of tools do they have access to? You're going to constantly need to be thinking, adapting, learning… this is not static. It's a continuous growth process.”
Q5: What implications do you see for future research, and what are some questions we might be asking?
Dr. Jackson emphasized that future research should focus on how AI tools align with learning theories and how educators can critically evaluate these tools through a pedagogical and ethical lens. As not all AI systems are designed with the same assumptions about learning, it's important to investigate which tools support which types of instruction and which students need. She stressed the importance of exploring questions such as: What learning theories underlie emerging AI tools? How can educators identify and evaluate those foundations? Educators who understand learning theory and design principles will be better equipped to make informed, ethical decisions about using AI to support individualized learning, avoiding bias and overreliance.
Dr. Jackson: “Thinking about how we're going to use a technology integration framework to guide that process with pedagogy that addresses ethics, bias, and understanding how these technological tools are matched to learning theory. Some may be more behavioristic, some may be more social constructivist. Educators need to be more knowledgeable about learning theory and the evolving background of design.”
Q6: What else should teacher preparation programs consider moving forward?
Q7: Are there any specific technologies you would suggest?
Dr. Jackson stressed that teacher preparation programs should embrace a contextual and iterative mindset. Instead of offering static solutions or promoting specific tools, programs should train educators to evaluate the classroom environment, student needs, and the evolving landscape of technology. She highlighted the importance of modeling ongoing reflection, referencing UDL’s fifth step, “Reflection and New Understandings,” as a crucial practice in instructional planning. This continual process of evaluating what worked and what didn’t ensures that educators remain responsive and adaptive to student variability and technological advancements.
Rather than endorsing specific technologies, Dr. Jackson emphasized that intentionality and instructional alignment should drive technology selection. She encouraged educators to begin with clear learning goals and relevant pedagogy, then evaluate which tools support those aims. This helps avoid the common pitfall of choosing trendy tools without considering their impact on learning. Her advice serves as a reminder that instructional design, grounded in theory and student need, should guide technology integration, not the other way around. This mindset equips teachers to navigate the overwhelming array of options with clarity and purpose.
If you are interested in learning more, please read the publication written by Drs. Jackson and Rosenblatt.
Resources and References
Jackson, H. A., & Rosenblatt, K. (2025). In-service educators’ changes in reasoning about technology integration. Journal of Special Education Technology, 01626434251314043. https://doi.org/10.1177/01626434251314043
Mosher, M., Dieker, L., & Hines, R. (2024). The past, present, and future use of artificial intelligence in teacher education. Journal of Special Education Preparation, 4(2), 6–17. https://doi.org/10.33043/8aa9855b
Suggested Citation
Seung, Y., Jackson, H. A., & the CIDDL Team. (2025). In-service educators’ changes in reasoning about technology integration. The Center for Innovation, Design, and Digital Learning.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.