Un enfoque sistémico para la integración de tecnología: El marco SETI

Helen Crompton

doi:10.9781/rep.2025.412

Authors

Helen Crompton Old Dominion University https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1775-8219

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.9781/rep.2025.412

Keywords:

SETI, socio-ecological technology integration, socio-ecological, technology integration, education, frameworks, TPACK, SAMR

Abstract

The Socio-Ecological Technology Integration (SETI) framework offers a systems-oriented perspective on effective technology integration in education. Unlike earlier models that primarily focus on teacher practice, such as TPACK and SAMR, the SETI framework situates the educator within a complex set of socio-ecological systems, including the microsystem of school environments, the exosystem of district-level support structures, and the macrosystem of national policies and cultural norms. This paper builds upon prior conceptualizations of SETI by unpacking it further in terms of how educators and educational leaders can utilize SETI, and also presents a set of newly developed practical resources that support its implementation. These resources include reflection tools, integration checklists, and strategic planning guides that help educators and educational leaders examine the multiple interdependent factors necessary for successful technology integration. The SETI framework offers a significant contribution to the educational technology literature by repositioning effective integration as a systemic responsibility rather than an individual task. In doing so, it enables educators and leaders to identify barriers, coordinate strategic responses, and promote sustainable, equitable technology use aligned with institutional and policy contexts.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Helen Crompton, Old Dominion University

Dr. Helen Crompton is the Executive Director of the Research Institute for Digital Innovation in Learning at ODUGlobal and Professor of Instructional Technology at Old Dominion University. Dr. Crompton earned her Ph.D. in educational technology and mathematics education from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Recognized for her outstanding contributions, Dr. Crompton is on Stanford’s esteemed list of the Top 2% of Scientists in the World in the field of artificial intelligence. She has published over 200 papers, and her work in technology integration has garnered her numerous accolades, including the SCHEV award for Outstanding Professor of the Year in Virginia. Dr. Crompton’s expertise extends beyond academia to practice, as she frequently serves as a consultant for various governments, bilateral, and multilateral organizations, including the United Nations and the World Bank, leveraging her knowledge and experience to drive meaningful change in the field of educational technology.

References

Bakir, N. (2016). Technology and teacher education: A brief glimpse of the research and practice that have shaped the field. TechTrends, 60(1), 21-29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-015-0013-4

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Casany, M. J. et al. (2012). Moodbile: A framework to integrate m‑learning applications with the LMS. Journal of Research and Practice in Information Technology, 44(2), 129–149.

Chen, B., Gallagher-Mackay, K., y Kidder, A. (2014). Digital learning in Ontario schools: The “new normal”. People for Education. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261537481_Digital_learning_in_Ontario_schools_The_'new_normal'

Crompton, H. (2017). Moving toward a mobile learning landscape: Presenting a mlearning integration framework. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 18(2) 97-109. https://doi.org/10.1108/itse-02-2017-0018

Crompton, H., y Burke, D. (2024). The educational affordances and challenges of ChatGPT: State of the field. TechTrends 68, 380-392 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-024-00939-0

Crompton, H., Chigona, A., y Burke, D. (2023). Teacher resilience during COVID-19: Comparing teachers’ shift to online learning in South Africa and the United States. TechTrends https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00826-6

Dinçer, S. (2018). Are preservice teachers really literate enough to integrate technology in their classroom practice? Determining the technology literacy level of preservice teachers. Education and Information Technologies, 23(6), 2699–2718. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9737-z

Gorlacheva, E., et al. (2019). Impact of Socio-Cultural Factors onto the National Technology Development. In: Alexandrov, D., Boukhanovsky, A., Chugunov, A., Kabanov, Y., Koltsova, O., Musabirov, I. (eds) Digital Transformation and Global Society. DTGS 2019. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1038. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37858-5_26

Ibáñez, M. B. et al. (2020). Impact of augmented reality technology on academic achievement and motivation of students from public and private Mexican schools. A case study in a middle-school geometry course. Computers & Education, 145, 103734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103734

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2016). National Educational Technology Standards, International Society for Technology in Education, Eugene, OR.

Ivone, F., M., Jacobs, G. M., y Renandya, W. A. (2020). Far apart, yet close together: Cooperative learning in online education. Studies in English Language and Education 7(2), 271-289. http://dx.doi.org/10.24815/siele.v7i2.17285

Koole, M. L. (2009). A model for framing mobile learning. In M. Ally (Ed.), Mobile learning: Transforming the delivery of education and training, 25–50. AU Press.

Kurt, A., et al. (2013). FATİH projesinin pilot uygulama sürecinin değerlendirilmesi: Öğretmen görüşleri [Evaluation of the FATİH project pilot implementation process: Teacher views]. Journal of Instructional Technologies & Teacher Education, 2(1), 1-23.

Mishra, P. y Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge, Teachers College Record, 108 (6), 1017-1054.

Park, Y. (2011). A pedagogical framework for mobile learning: Categorizing educational applications of mobile technologies into four types. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(2), 78-102.

Puentedura, R. R. (2009). As we may teach: Educational technology, from theory into practice. Retrieved from http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/000025.html

Raymond, K. M., Ethridge, E. A., y Fields, K. (2024). What it Takes to Be an Advocate: Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Strengths and Challenges. Action in Teacher Education, 47(1), 46-62. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2024.2383744

Saltan, F., y Arslan, Ö. E. (2016). The use of augmented reality in formal education: A scoping review. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(2), 503–520. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00628a

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.

Tondeur, J., et al. (2012). Preparing preservice teachers to integrate technology in education: A synthesis of qualitative evidence. Computers & Education, 59(1), 134-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.009

Uden, L. (2007). Activity theory for designing mobile learning. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organization, 1(1), 81-102.

Xiao, J., Bozkurt. A., et al. (2025). Venturing into the unknown: Critical insights into grey areas and pioneering future directions in educational generative AI research. TechTrends 69(3), 582-597 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-025-01060-6

Yilmaz, M. R. (2018). Augmented reality trends in education between 2016 and 2017 years. In State of the art virtual reality and augmented reality know how. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74943

Yu, A. (2009). Mobility at MIT. [Unpublished report]. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/hcrompto/Downloads/Mobility-at-MIT2009-11.pdf

Zurita, G., y Nussbaum, M. (2007). A conceptual framework based on activity theory for mobile CSCL. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 211-235. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00607.x