Pedagogy First: Frameworks for Integrating Technology and AI With Purpose in ELT 

Technology has long been a fixture in English Language Teaching (ELT), from cassette tapes and language labs to mobile apps and adaptive platforms. But in today’s educational landscape, where generative AI and digital tools proliferate at record speed, educators are inundated with new platforms that promise to enhance instruction, personalize learning experiences, and boost student engagement.

Yet, the essential question remains: How can teachers integrate these tools meaningfully, without losing sight of pedagogy?

This article presents a practical exploration of frameworks designed to support teachers in integrating technology and AI in ways that align with learning goals, promote student autonomy, and reflect diverse classroom contexts. It also examines the systemic conditions needed to foster teacher readiness and encourage innovation in both academic and workplace learning environments.

What Makes Tech Implementation Successful?

At its core, any successful tech or AI integration begins with pedagogy. When tools are selected in service of clearly defined instructional goals, they are far more likely to deepen learning and support engagement.

Technology should never be an afterthought; instead, it should help learners reach specific outcomes more effectively or efficiently than traditional methods alone. While teachers might feel enticed by new products on the market, it’s critical to ensure that these shiny new tools aren’t being used for their own sake, and that instead they’re augmenting the experience for the learner and serving a pedagogical purpose.

The most successful implementations prioritize alignment with curriculum goals and learner needs.

Strong implementations consider the learner experience and their outcomes. Integration of tools in alignment with proficiency standards like the CEFR (Common European Framework of Reference) or benchmarking tools like Pearson’s GSE (Global Scale of English) helps ensure content is developmentally appropriate and caters to the learners’ proficiency needs. From there, adaptive platforms can tailor practice and feedback based on the learner, enabling more personalized instruction.

For example, chatbots can provide speaking practice in a low-stakes environment; grammar assistants can support accuracy in writing; and spaced repetition apps can reinforce vocabulary acquisition. These tools, when used intentionally, create opportunities for just-in-time support, reinforcing key skills and giving learners greater control over their learning.

The human-in-the-loop (HITL) approach, where technology works in tandem with human insight, is essential for effective tech use. While AI tools can generate content or feedback, they lack awareness of learner nuance and instructional context. For example, an AI writing assistant might flag grammar issues, but a teacher can help a student decide which errors matter most based on their communicative goal.

This is equally true with non-AI tools. A quiz platform like Kahoot can gamify review, but it’s the teacher who selects meaningful questions, spots patterns in student misconceptions, and adapts future lessons accordingly.

In both cases, technology enhances learning only when guided by thoughtful, pedagogically informed decisions.

Explore ways to use AI as your personal teaching assistant.

Why Frameworks Matter

For teachers, it’s easy to feel overwhelmed by the pace of educational technology. Frameworks provide structure, supporting reflection that allows time to connect digital tools with teaching goals and make planning more intentional.

Whether introducing an asynchronous collaboration platform, like VoiceThread, integrating a speaking practice tool, like FLOWSpeak, for outside-of-the-classroom practice, or experimenting with AI-driven writing feedback using Brisk Teaching, frameworks can help clarify how and why to use a tool. 

Educational frameworks offer essential guidance for thinking critically about technology use. Rather than relying on intuition, teachers can use these models to understand the purpose of the integration before a full roll-out. 

“I’ve always tried to bring more tech into my classroom,” shares Marcus Toledo, a Filipino educator currently teaching in the Tokyo Metro Area, Japan. “I just haven’t had a way to think about doing so in a careful way.”

For both teachers and administrators, these frameworks create a shared vocabulary that helps demystify integration and keeps the focus on impact, rather than features.

“My staff is eager to use new tools, but sometimes I think they’re not always connecting back to why they’re using them,” shares an English language coach working in a primary school, also based in Japan.

Delve deeper into how technology is revolutionizing English language teaching.

Frameworks for Effective Integration

Several EdTech-specific frameworks offer essential guidance for thinking critically about technology use, helping teachers move from isolated use to integrated pedagogy. 

SAMR Model

The SAMR model, developed by Puentedura in 2006, offers a structured way for educators to think about the level of transformation a tool brings. SAMR stands for “Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, Redefinition,” and can be applied to a wide variety of learning contexts and content.

At the Substitution level, technology simply replaces traditional tools, such as using a digital PDF instead of a printed worksheet. Augmentation adds functional improvements – for instance, having students listen to audio recordings of texts to build fluency while following along with a transcript.

Modification allows for significant task redesign, like students creating a narrated screencast to explain a grammar point instead of delivering a live presentation. At the highest level, Redefinition enables entirely new learning experiences, such as students using AI tools to simulate job interviews in real time and receive adaptive feedback on their responses.

By moving up the SAMR ladder, educators can use technology not only to support learning but to expand its scope and depth in a meaningful way. 

To reflect on where their planned activities fall on the SAMR ladder, teachers can consider the following:

Substitution: Is tech simply replacing an analog task (e.g., typing instead of handwriting)? 
Augmentation: Is it improving efficiency or accessibility? 
Modification: Does it allow redesign of a task to include collaboration, personalization, or multimedia?
Redefinition: Does the tech create a task that wouldn’t otherwise be possible?

Dr. Serhat Kurt, in their 2023 article about SAMR for EducationalTechnology.net, reminds us that “certain learning experiences might be perfectly optimized at the enhancement stages and don’t necessarily require escalation to transformational tiers.”

Teachers need to ask themselves whether the tool meaningfully improves or transforms the learning experience. Sometimes small changes make a sizable difference from a pedagogical perspective.  

“The SAMR model, in its essence,” he articulates, “underscores an adaptive, reflective approach, urging educators to continuously evolve and align their methods with the evolving landscape of technology in education.” 

ELT educators use SAMR to scaffold technology integration in vocabulary and writing tasks, progressively encouraging students to use digital tools for both receptive (reading, memorizing) and productive (writing, creating) language skills. Research shows that as learners progress through the SAMR stages, their use of technology and learning strategies diversifies and deepens.

TPACK Model

The TPACK model (Koehler & Mishra, 2006) underscores that meaningful technology integration happens at the intersection of Technological Knowledge (TK), Pedagogical Knowledge (PK), and Content Knowledge (CK). It reminds educators that tech should not stand alone; it must support both what we teach and how we teach it.

While it’s easy to focus on mastering new tools, TPACK reframes the process: start with the content (what learners need to know), align it with pedagogy (how to help them learn it), and only then choose technology that enhances the experience.

TPACK Components in ELT:

Content Knowledge (CK): English language systems (grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation), and the four core skills (reading, writing, listening, speaking).
Pedagogical Knowledge (PK): Strategies like task-based learning, communicative approaches, scaffolding, or peer feedback.
Technological Knowledge (TK): Tools like collaborative docs, LMSs, AI chatbots, pronunciation platforms, or digital flashcards.

When these three areas overlap, technology becomes a purposeful tool, not a distraction.

For example, A teacher designing a persuasive writing unit (CK) might use modeling, drafting, and peer review (PK), supported by a collaborative tool like Google Docs (TK). The platform enables real-time feedback, revision tracking, and audience awareness, bringing the pedagogy to life and enhancing the writing process without overwhelming it.

When applying TPACK, teachers can consider:

What is the specific content I am teaching, and what methods support it best? 
Does the technology reinforce or disrupt this pedagogical approach? 
How can technology deepen conceptual understanding without replacing or overshadowing the core language content? 
Is there a balance between technological fluency and language skill development?

While widely used in science and STEM education, TPACK is gaining traction in ELT, especially in blended and hybrid contexts. It supports thoughtful decision-making for integrating tools that match both the proficiency needs of learners and the instructional goals of the teacher.

PICRAT Model

The PICRAT model was developed by Kimmons and colleagues Graham and West as a framework for technology integration in teacher preparation. It builds on the earlier RAT model created by Hughes, Thomas, and Scharber (2006) and was proposed to better capture both the teacher’s use of technology and the student’s relationship with technology in educational settings. 

It combines two dimensions:

• The type of student engagement – Passive, Interactive, or Creative (PIC)
• The teacher’s use of technology – Replacement, Amplification, or Transformation (RAT)

This matrix encourages educators to reflect not just on how a tool functions, but on how it shapes classroom interactions and learning experiences.

By applying the PICRAT model, teachers can design lessons that go beyond mere substitution and instead use technology to enhance learning through meaningful interaction and creation.

For example, a lesson that replaces a printed textbook with a digital version would fall under Passive Replacement – a direct swap that doesn’t alter the task. But lessons that use interactive tools or allow for learner-generated content move up the matrix into more impactful territory.

PICRAT in Action: A Scenario from a Business English Classroom

In a Business English class focused on persuasive communication, the original task involved reading sample pitches from a textbook and drafting one on paper. Using PICRAT to reframe the lesson, the teacher makes a few key shifts:

First, learners watch authentic video pitches using an interactive tool like Edpuzzle, where they answer comprehension questions embedded in the video. This change introduces Interactive Amplification, prompting learners to engage more actively with input while reinforcing listening and vocabulary skills.
Then, students create their own pitches using VoiceThread, recording audio and adding supporting visuals like charts or slides. They post their videos for peer feedback, receiving voice or text comments directly within the platform.

This redesigned task becomes Creative Transformation – students aren’t just observing or responding; they are producing authentic language, shaping their own messages, and engaging with a real-world communication genre. The teacher, meanwhile, shifts from instructor to facilitator, coaching students through each phase of their process.

One of the learners, Maria Cristina, reflects on the experience. “It was the first time I heard myself giving a pitch in English. It felt real. And my classmates’ comments helped me see what I could improve.”

Cristina, an aspiring small business owner from Colombia, appreciated the relevance of the activity and how thoughtfully her teacher layered the use of VoiceThread into instruction.

“We didn’t have the pressure to perform in the moment. We got to go home, re-record as much as we need [to] and take our time giving feedback to our peers, too,” she reflected. “I hope we use this tool again.”

PICRAT helps answer questions like: 

Are students using the tech to create language or just consume content?
Is the tool changing how students interact with peers, ideas, or language? 
Is the teacher’s role shifting in meaningful ways (e.g., from instructor to facilitator or coach)?

A benefit of the PICRAT framework is that it allows teachers to center and reflect on what they’re already doing in the classroom and envision infusing technology to amplify learner participation and ultimately, learning outcomes.

Masaru, a high school teacher in Osaka, Japan, shares his excitement about the framework. “I know that technology can boost engagement inside the classroom, and the [PICRAT] framework provides a way to more conscientiously use it in my current situation as a teacher here,” he says. “I think this is going to make me a better teacher.”

By aiming for the top-right quadrant – Creative + Transformative – educators move closer to creating dynamic, student-centered lessons that support deeper engagement and more personalized learning outcomes.

The goal of utilizing the PICRAT framework is not a complete overhaul; rather, an increase in awareness and intentionality for the teacher, moving from instructor to reflective practitioner.

Choosing the Right Model

Each model serves a unique purpose, and educators often benefit from using them in combination to achieve the most effective technology integration.  

Use SAMR when you want to analyze or improve how technology is changing your teaching tasks and student experiences. 
Use TPACK when designing instruction to ensure a balanced, integrated approach that considers content, pedagogy, and technology together.
Use PICRAT when your focus is on student engagement and creativity, and you want to reflect on both student activity and pedagogical shifts. 

Adopting a critical approach to technology integration asks teachers to start with their instructional goals and student needs, and select technologies that enhance literacy, engagement, or skills, meeting authentic learning objectives, and not serving as an end in itself.

Discover AI-enhanced speaking tools to help your students improve their English speaking skills both in and outside the classroom.

Technology with a Conscience: A Humanizing Lens for Integration

While the aforementioned frameworks focus on instructional design and tool integration, critical pedagogy asks us to take a broader view: Who is being served by these tools, and whose voices are centered?

Critical pedagogy, rooted in Paulo Freire’s seminal work Pedagogy of the Oppressed, emphasizes education as a collaborative, humanizing process that challenges traditional power dynamics in the classroom.

Rather than viewing students as passive recipients of knowledge (a concept Freire termed the “banking model”), critical pedagogy advocates for recognizing students’ full humanity, fostering flexibility to accommodate their diverse experiences, and promoting mutual understanding over coercion.

This approach encourages instructors and students to co-construct knowledge, leading to increased engagement, deeper learning, and a more inclusive educational environment. Critical Pedagogy invites teachers to reflect on equity and student identity in the classroom, which extends, of course, to potential tech use.  

Integrating critical pedagogy with digital tools necessitates a thoughtful examination of how technology can either support or hinder these human-centered educational goals. It’s about asking:

Does this tool serve all learners, including those with limited access or diverse cultural backgrounds? 
How does the technology reflect, or obscure, student identities and lived experiences? 
Are learners given agency to shape their use of digital tools?
Is the tool aligned with a broader vision of inclusive, empowering language education?

By applying the aforementioned frameworks through the lens of critical pedagogy, educators can ensure that technology serves to empower students and facilitate meaningful, collaborative learning experiences. 

Centering Learner Experience and Agency 

Too often, discussions about tech integration focus on tools and training, leaving out the learner’s voice. But students are not passive users; they bring their own experiences, preferences, and needs to the digital classroom.  

Deci and Ryan’s Self-Determination Theory (1985) identifies three core psychological needs that foster intrinsic motivation: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Technology can enhance all three, if implemented with care. These principles can serve as an additional lens when evaluating the role of technology and AI in the English Language classroom.

Autonomy: Technology can empower learners to make choices about what, how, and when they learn. AI tools that allow learners to select topics, adjust difficulty, or receive individualized feedback support this sense of control. However, choice must be meaningful and accompanied by teacher guidance. 
Competence: Immediate, scaffolded feedback from AI tools (e.g., writing revision suggestions, pronunciation insights) can help students feel more capable and see progress over time. Clear success criteria, progress tracking, and opportunities for revision further promote a sense of mastery. 
Relatedness: While some tech tools are self-directed, others can support social learning. Collaborative digital projects, peer editing with comment tools, or shared discussion threads foster interaction and a sense of classroom connection, which is especially helpful in remote or hybrid settings.

Using Self-Determination Theory as a guiding principle helps ensure that tech is both efficient and motivational. Teachers can ask: 

Does this tool enhance students’ sense of ownership over their learning? 
Does it help them feel successful and capable? 
Does it support connection to peers, the teacher, or real-world audiences?

Learners thrive when they have some control over their learning process. Tools that allow them to track progress, set goals, or choose topics foster autonomy. Feedback-rich environments help build a sense of competence. And collaborative platforms, such as shared boards, discussion forums, or peer review apps, create opportunities for social connection and meaningful dialogue. 

However, teachers should not assume students know how to use these tools effectively. Digital natives are not necessarily digitally literate. Learners may know how to navigate social media but may never have used a collaborative document or learning management system.

Instruction in digital literacy combined with time for exploration, trial, and feedback is essential. Teachers must also avoid overloading learners with too many tools too quickly. Allowing time for mastery and maintaining transparency about why a tool is being used can go a long way in supporting student engagement.

Learn how to create content and materials for your ESL lessons while also saving time with these AI-powered content creation tools.

Institutional Conditions for Sustainable and Equitable Tech Integration

For technology to enhance English language teaching and learning, schools must create the conditions for long-term integration.

This begins with institutional readiness: investing in infrastructure, establishing clear policies, and ensuring leadership models purposeful tech use. Reliable access to devices and connectivity is essential, but it’s only the starting point. Institutions must also provide tech support, ensure tools align with ethical standards, and build educator capacity to use them effectively. 

Equity must remain central to these efforts. Tools that assume consistent access to high-speed internet or personal devices risk excluding learners.

A 2024 survey conducted by SMART Technologies’ Lumio software showed that 56% of educators reported that their classrooms are operating with technology that is too outdated for today’s students. Likewise, content that fails to reflect diverse identities or lacks accessibility features can perpetuate barriers. Inclusive planning requires schools to close digital divides, involve a range of stakeholders in procurement decisions, and ensure the tools they adopt serve all learners, regardless of background or ability. 

Even with solid planning and established frameworks like TPACK, SAMR, and PICRAT, many educators feel resistant or uncertain when it comes to integrating new tech. Common pitfalls include adopting tools without clear learning goals, overwhelming students with multiple platforms, and expecting innovation without providing time or support.

When technology feels imposed or disconnected from practice, it can lead to frustration or burnout rather than transformation. 

Schools that succeed in overcoming these challenges treat integration as an ongoing, collaborative process. They offer job-embedded professional development, provide space for reflection and experimentation, and promote peer mentorship. Purposeful strategies, like showcasing student impact, celebrating teacher innovation, and addressing concerns transparently, create an environment where technology feels supportive, not burdensome. 

Explore ways to use AI tools for English language proficiency placement, leveling, and progress monitoring.

A Reflective Path Forward 

Meaningful tech and AI integration begins not with tools, but with intention. Start by defining what learners need to achieve, then consider how technology can support that outcome. Frameworks like TPACK, SAMR, PICRAT, and Critical Pedagogy help educators evaluate their plans through a pedagogical lens, ensuring alignment with both context and purpose. 

Effective implementation is iterative. Pilot new tools with students, model their use, allow time to practice, and adjust based on feedback. At the institutional level, integration requires systems that prioritize learning goals over trends, involve teachers as core stakeholders, and provide sustained support through coaching, collaboration, and time for reflection. 

Shared reflection, collaborative planning, and flexible implementation timelines can help bridge the gap between intention and reality.

Teacher Checklist: From Intention to Integration

Define your learning objective clearly 
Ask: What problem does this tool solve, or what learning does it deepen?
Select a guiding framework (TPACK, SAMR, PICRAT)
Pilot with one class or lesson. Start small!
Model the tool, scaffold its use, and set expectations 
Invite learner feedback: Did the tool support the learning? 
Reflect, revise, and decide whether to expand use 

Conclusion: Pedagogy First, Technology with Purpose

AI and educational technology can expand what’s possible in ELT, but only when integrated with intention. Frameworks can help educators stay grounded in learning goals, context, and student needs. When technology is selected to serve these aims, it becomes a tool for empowerment rather than distraction. 

Effective integration is not about adopting the most popular or advanced tool, but rather choosing the right one for the learning task at hand. Teachers should ask: Does this tool help learners achieve a goal more effectively? Is it intuitive, accessible, and adaptable to diverse learning needs? Will it foster autonomy, build competence, or strengthen classroom connections? 

When schools support this kind of reflective, pedagogy-first approach, they empower teachers to make intentional choices about technology use. By investing in infrastructure, building teacher capacity, and creating space for experimentation, technology becomes more than a feature. It becomes a force for equity, engagement, and growth. 

As tools continue to evolve, the goal isn’t mastery of every new platform, but a commitment to thoughtful, purposeful use rooted in sound pedagogy and a deep respect for the learner experience.

Register for our upcoming Expert Series webinar, Technology Trends and Tools in ELT, to explore micro learning, virtual exchange, and immersive learning with our expert panel.