Modelling Teachers' Digital Maturity: Literature Review and

Proposal for a Unified Model

Christine Michel

and Laëtitia Pierrot

Techné, University of Poitiers, 1 rue Raymond Cantel, Poitiers, France

Next-MSHE, University of Franche-Comté, 32 rue Mégevand, Besançon, France

Keywords: Technology Maturity Model, Technology Integration in Education, Teaching Practices.

Abstract: We present in this position paper how we conducted a literature review on teacher digital maturity models.

We extracted 11 models applicable to the field of compulsory schooling. Here, we propose a synthesis of the

constituent dimensions of each model and how these dimensions contribute to determine the digital maturity

levels of teachers. While our synthesis highlights the diversity of the dimensions included in the models, it

also reveals that most of these models provide only a partial picture of technology maturity. Moreover, most

of these models focus on the latest levels of maturity, associated with innovative or pioneering teachers, and

leave out non- or low digital user teachers, who are well represented in the French context. In the last part of

this position paper, we propose a unified model of teachers' digital maturity, called “MUME”, addressing

these two issues.

1 INTRODUCTION

Digital transformation has become one of the most

critical issues in the educational context (Antonietti et

al., 2023). These actions are all the more crucial in

France, as primary and secondary school teachers

show weak technology integration into their

practices. Additionally, the potential of technologies

for teaching and learning purposes does not depend

primarily on the type of technology or its frequency

of use, but rather on how such technologies are used

to cognitively stimulate and engage students in

learning activities (Antonietti et al., 2023). However,

the 2020 health crisis has had a stimulating effect on

digital practices, even if limited to resource

transmission and passive learning (Michel & Pierrot,

2022). Practitioners alongside researchers proposed

several models, such as TPACK (Mishra & Koehler,

2006) SAMR (Puentedura, 2012), NETS-T (ISTE,

2017) or DigCompEdu (Redecker, 2017), to describe

teachers' abilities, dynamics, levels of integration or

digital maturity. However, these models are relatively

heterogeneous.

In its common sense, maturity refers to a

complete, perfect or ready state of being that is part

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3123-913X

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1701-3783

of a system (Teichert, 2019) In organizational

contexts, maturity is the goal that guides many

transformations needs, i.e. fundamental changes in

strategies, structures and distribution of power, and

digital transformation can be seen as a continuous

process of employee adoption of a rapidly changing

digital offering (Teichert, 2019). In education,

maturity models focus on the different dimensions

that affect the integration of technologies, particularly

the management of digitization actions of structures

and teachers' professional activity. Thus, beyond the

issues of access, availability and frequency of use,

digital maturity considers questions of institutional

policy and pedagogy raised by the introduction of

technologies (Franklin & Bolick, 2007). Maturity

models are also useful for measuring, diagnosing or

supporting teachers in their use of technology

(Kimmons et al., 2020) More broadly, studying

maturity levels leads to approaching the adoption of

technologies by combining factors related to the

teacher, and professional practice context (Harrison

et al., 2014) This requires considering the learner, the

teacher and their broader context by collecting data to

measure the breadth and depth of technology

integration in an institution (Underwood et al., 2007,

Michel, C. and Pierrot, L.

Modelling Teachers’ Digital Maturity: Literature Review and Proposal for a Uniﬁed Model.

DOI: 10.5220/0011971800003470

In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2023) - Volume 2, pages 535-542

ISBN: 978-989-758-641-5; ISSN: 2184-5026

 2023 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. Under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

535

2010; Underwood & Dillon, 2004) This socio-

contextual approach to technology adoption differs

from work on the expected "good" use of technology

and invites us to focus in particular on teachers as

"agents of change" or even "leaders" who implement

the tool (ISTE, 2017; Leite & Lagstedt, 2021). We

carried the current literature review from this

perspective.

The multitude of existing models on teachers'

digital maturity compete with empirical observations

of conceptualized practices, theoretical proposals not

tested in the field and others validated empirically.

However, these models become the basis for

empirical analyses and strategies for teacher training

or school diagnostics. These models are also useful

for building training curricula or adapting digital tools

to the profile of learners, whether students or

teachers.

Therefore, our study's objective is to analyse the

different maturity models and propose a unified

version with a holistic dimension based on our

literature review. Our general research question (RQ)

is: which model best represents teachers' digital

maturity? More specifically, according to which

areas to define it (QR1)? According to what levels

should it be characterized (QR2)?

2 METHOD

We worked according to a hermeneutic review

method (Sackstein et al., 2022) i.e. by identifying: (1)

teacher maturity models based on previous systematic

literature reviews on models of integration and digital

maturity in education (Carvalho et al., 2018; Franklin

& Bolick, 2007; Harrison et al., 2014; Kimmons et

al., 2020; Leite & Lagstedt, 2021; Solar et al., 2013)

and other organizations (Pee & Kankanhalli, 2009;

Teichert, 2019) (2) by following all the work cited in

the article or citing the article to discover other

models until there are no new ones. Only models

applicable to the context of compulsory education

were selected, i.e. 21 models ((Michel & Pierrot,

2023). We then compared these models considering

scope (generic G, or Specific S), the description of the

professional activity (Partial P or Global G), the place

of the learner (W Weak or Present P), the

specification of maturity levels (Yes Y or No N), the

usefulness (description De, diagnosis Di, or Support

S), the origin of model design (empirical E or

Theoretical T) and validation (Yes Y or No N). On

this basis, we have chosen the 11 models (see Table

1) that are the most generic in terms of scope and

description of professional activity, the most precise

in terms of description of levels, and which are based

on empirical studies or which have been validated.

2.1 Comparing Maturity Models'

Design Features

Most models (see Table 1) consider the context of

digital use as a generic element, 2 models specify this

context. Five models have the particularity of wanting

to consider the entire professional activity of teachers,

including tasks outside the classroom (preparation,

planning, etc.). Six models cover both teachers’ and

learners’ activity. Four models do not measure

maturity levels. These models are primarily

descriptive. In the other seven models, the digital

maturity of teachers is considered an element of

professional development, hence the presence of

diagnostic tools or even guides or roadmaps to

promote the deployment of technologies.

The modelling of the integration of technology in

Table 1: Summary of models according to their main characteristics.

Models Scope

Professional

activity

Learner’s

place

Maturit

level

Usefulness Origin Validation

BECTA GG W Y DiE

CIT Model GG W

CompEdu SG P Y ST Y

ICAP GP P Y ST Y

ICTE-MM GG P Y SE Y

LoTi GP WY DiT Y

NETS-T SG P

SE Y

PICRAT GP P

De T

SAM

GP WY DeE

TIM GP P Y DiE Y

TPACK GP W

De T Y

CSEDU 2023 - 15th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

536

education comes essentially from work based on the

observation of practices: 5 of them have a precise

theoretical anchoring and 7 models have been

empirically validated.

3 MATURITY MODELS

3.1 Models Based on Teachers'

Appropriation Dynamics

According to Puentedura, SAMR encourages

educators to "pass" levels of education through

technology, while maintaining the value and

importance of pedagogy and curriculum (Puentedura,

2012). Four steps define the SAMR: substitution,

increase, modification and redefinition of the

teaching task. The model was developed from

observations and without theoretical foundations, but

it is widely used and cited in scientific work (Blundell

et al., 2022).

The CIT model (Leite & Lagstedt, 2021)

considers the collective process of building a group's

knowledge (teachers, office heads, principals) and

how the culture of the organization can support (or

hinder) the integration of educational technologies

into school practices. The model has 4 states, rather

than steps, to signal that these states are not linear and

can be experienced simultaneously by teachers:

shock, negotiation, empowerment and exploration.

3.2 Model Based on Teacher’s

Maturity Dimensions

The TPACK (Mishra, 2019; Mishra & Koehler, 2006)

is considered one of the most important models

describing teachers' skills for successful teaching

with technology. Its added value is not to consider

individually the technological (TK), content (CK)

and pedagogical (PK) births, but rather their

interactions materialized by the overlapping areas

(TCK, PCK, TPK). In 2019, TPACK is evolving to

include contextual knowledge (XK) on how to

integrate organizational and situational constraints

(Mishra, 2019). The success of their efforts thus

depends not so much on their knowledge of T, P, C

and their overlaps, but also on their ability to

implement them according to the context.

http://mytechmatrix.org and https://fcit.usf.edu/matrix/

matrix

3.3 Models Based on Teacher Efficacy

ICAP (Chi et al., 2018) differentiates 4 types of

learning activities: interactive, constructive, active

and passive. It does not specifically describe a level

of maturity or ability from the teachers' perspective,

but rather the cognitive processes involved in

building knowledge structures and reflects learners'

levels of cognitive engagement, defined as the

investment of cognitive effort in the learning process

(Antonietti et al., 2023)

LoTi aims to evaluate the effectiveness of

technology implementation through 7 levels (from

level 0, for non-use, to level 6, corresponding to the

level of refinement. Conceptually, LoTi describes 5

dimensions (teaching/learning, assessment, student

creativity, professional development and digital

citizenship). The use of tools and resources in the

classroom for teaching and learning is measured

using empirically validated tools (Moersch, 1995;

Stoltzfus, 2006) that contribute to the professional

development of teachers.

3.4 Mixed Models Articulating

Educational Efficacy and Maturity

Levels

PICRAT (Kimmons et al., 2020) studies how the

student is engaged and learns while using technology

(PIC, passive, interactive, creative) and how such

technology modifies pedagogical settings (RAT,

replacing, amplifying or transforming teaching

practices), i.e. 9 possible combinations. For each of

the categories, the model distinguishes between

teaching methods, students' learning processes and

didactic objectives.

TIM

(Kozdras & Welsh, 2018) appears in the

form of a technology integration matrix. It includes 5

levels (entry, adoption, adaptation, infusion and

transformation) and 5 features for the learning

environment (active, collaborative, constructive,

authentic and goal-oriented) that revolve around best

practices. It helps the teacher choose how to use

technological tools to achieve learning objectives.

3.5 Mixed Models Articulating Skills

and Maturity Levels

DigCompEdu was developed to define teachers'

digital competencies, for all levels or subjects to be

taught, at the European level (Redecker, 2017)

Modelling Teachers’ Digital Maturity: Literature Review and Proposal for a Uniﬁed Model

537

DigCompEdu considers professional, pedagogical

and learner skills according to 6 domains (themselves

broken down into 3 to 6 subdomains) and 6 levels of

use in education.

NETS-T (National Educational Technology

Standards for Teachers) includes 5 domains

describing 4 types of activities (ISTE, 2017). Overall,

these standards are designed for self-diagnosis and

the creation of educational programs that enable

teachers to change their attitudes towards new

technologies (Crompton & Sykora, 2021).

3.6 Descriptive Models of

Organisational Maturity

The model designed by Becta in 2008 aims to help

higher education institutions reach digital maturity

through a self-assessment tool around 5 domains

(leadership, context, resources, learning support and

teaching and learning) and 5 levels for decision-

makers and teachers (BECTA, 2008). The model was

completed in 2018 (Ristić, 2018) to describe school

contexts and cultures that promote the systematized

development of technology (integration) by

managing and supporting teaching and learning

activities.

ICTE-MM (Solar et al., 2013) is a proposal that

aims to move closer to international standards such as

Capability Maturity Model Integration

and NETS-T

model. ICTE-MM includes 3 dimensions that can

support educational processes (information criteria,

ICT resources, and leverage areas). The model offers

a self-assessment tool and roadmap to guide school

leaders on technology management.

4 TOWARDS A UNIFIED MODEL

OF TEACHER DIGITAL

MATURITY: MUME

4.1 MUME: Descriptive Domains

We structured the characterization domains of the

models by considering the most general integration

models to move towards the most specific by

integrating all the domains as much as possible (see

Figure 1). The models have been integrated in such a

way as to preserve the domains and structure of each

model as much as possible, as they were initially

designed. We carried out various restructurings to

articulate the models together in a unified view. When

https://www.cmmiinstitute.com/

a domain was already present, we chose not to display

it in the structuring. Thus, all the domains of LoTi do

not appear in the modelling, they are already present

in the other models. The 4 structuring models that

build this unified view, called MUME, are TPACK,

ICTE-MM, DigCompEdu and ICAP. We chose to

include in the TPACK only the dimensions that

concern the integration of technologies, namely

TPCK and XK.

We restructured ICTE-MM and DigComp Edu:

learners have been integrated into the areas of

DigCompEdu which concern the teacher since it is

the actions of the teacher towards the learners that are

considered and not the actions of the learners

themselves. Thus, these areas are attached under the

teacher, in the management of learners. Other

DigCompEdu’s subdomains (from domain 3) have

been restructured around: ICAP pedagogical

practices (to integrate TIM and PICRAT) and student

management (to integrate the "consulting"

subdomain). ICTE-MM's education management has

likewise been integrated into the administrators'

domain. The dimensions of BECTA could be added

on this basis.

The NETS-T domains have been more difficult to

integrate because of the role rather than competency

structure. We added them as a complementary feature

of the finest dimensions of the model, even if their

structuring mechanism makes the exploitation of

NETS-T difficult in this context. On the other hand,

from a UX design perspective, it can provide

interesting help for the design of means or support

services for maturity.

The proposed unified model has 3 main areas:

teachers, administrators and infrastructure. The

teaching domain has been reduced to 4 subdomains:

professional engagement, digital resources, teaching

and education, and assessment. The subdomains

"teaching and learning" and "assessment" could be

merged, similar to the choice adopted in the NLCC-

Edu, but we have chosen to distinguish them given

the variety of subdomains of "assessment", in

particular the capacities for analysis and feedback

from the evidence that falls within the scope of an

analyst role.

4.2 MUME: Integration Levels

We perceive many differences when comparing the

different models in terms of level. Few models do not

mention gradations in practices or skills (such as

TPACK or NETS-T). The other models consider

CSEDU 2023 - 15th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

538

Figure 1: Criteria used from other models to define the MUME.

several levels ranging from 3 to 7. Only

DigCompEdu, NETS-T and organizational maturity

models consider the leadership role that the teacher

can play in disseminating uses and practices through

collaboration and sharing. This activity is critical for

the dissemination of uses, we choose to keep it. In the

same way, only the CIT, TPACK, LoTi and

organizational maturity models consider non-use. To

the extent that not all practices are instrumented and

that the choice not to instrument one's practices is not

necessarily a lack of competence among teachers

(outside the COVID context), but rather a

pedagogical choice, we keep this category and

integrate it into the population as a group of non-

users.

The models also have different things in common.

None of the models considers the TEL used. All

integrate a gradation of maturity ranging from an

"entry" level, which corresponds to the simplest uses,

to a "transformation" level, corresponding to the

creation of innovation of use with technology. In most

models (SAMR, CIT, ICAP, LoTi, TIM,

DigCompEdu, BECTA, ICTE-MM), this gradation

considers expertise in terms of techno-pedagogical

skills with a core at 4 levels, globally aligned with the

definitions of ICAP (passive, active, collaborative,

interactive) and a level 5 which corresponds to the

ability to innovate towards new techno-pedagogical

forms.

If we add a level of "non-use" to Rogers' Diffusion

of Innovation (DOI) Model (2003) we can see that

levels 6, 5, 3, 2, 1 ("Innovators", "Early Adopter",

"Laggard" and "Non-Use") are consistent across all

models (see Table 2). Levels 1 and 2 correspond

respectively to a non-maturity and an entry into the

process of integrating technologies mainly through

simple design practices and transmission of training

materials. Level 3 is a phase of exploration of

possibilities and is embodied in active pedagogical

strategies. Levels 4 and 3 (early majority and active

majority). Rather, Level 5 is characterized by

leadership practices and sharing with other

community members, as well as management and

analysis. Level 6 is characterized by innovation

capabilities and complete mastery of technology

integration. Level 4 is less consistent. It is often

distinguished in specific models for education in 2

levels: (expert, integrator) for the DigCompEdu,

Modelling Teachers’ Digital Maturity: Literature Review and Proposal for a Uniﬁed Model

539

Table 2: Summary of models according to maturity levels.

Models Levels description Levels

DOI

Innovator Early Adopter Early Majority Late Majority Laggard 5

ICTE-MM

Optimised Managed Defined Developing Initial 5

BECTA

Maturity Advanced Qualified Autonomous

maturity

DigCompEdu Pioneer C2 Leader C1 Expert B2 Integrator B1 Explorer A2 Newcomer A1 6

LoTi

Perfecting Expanding Integrating Infusing Exploring

Raising

awareness

Non-

using

ICAP

InteractiveCollaborative Active Passive

PICRAT

Transformation Amplification Replacement

TIM

Transformation Infusion Adaptation Adoption Entry

SAM

Redefinition Modification Augmentation Substitution

CIT Model

Explorer Autonomous Negotiation Shock 4

TPACK

TK, PK,

NETS-T

Synthesis

Transformation Development Integration Improvement Substitution Non-use 6

Pioneer Leader Expert Explorer Newcomer Non-user 6

(Infusion, Integration) for the LoTi, and (Infusion,

Adaptation) for the TIM. This level of distinction

seems useful to us only to distinguish between

interactive and collaborative practices. Indeed,

interactive practices are currently underdeveloped

and could correspond to an "early adoption" level, but

do not correspond to this category's dissemination

and leadership capacity. We, therefore, choose first to

integrate them into level 4 and will verify the

consistency of this choice through an empirical study.

We recommend using a 6-level model:

▪ Transformation, Development, Integration,

Improvement, Substitution, Non-use,

considering the characteristic processes,

▪ Pioneer, Leader, Expert, Explorer, Newcomer,

and Non-user, if we consider the roles of the

actors.

The corresponding curve is shown in the

following figure (see Figure 2), for information only.

Rogers' classification was also presented for

comparison.

Figure 2: Comparison of diffusion curves of technologies

for education for the DOI (Rogers, 2003) and unified model

MUME.

5 DISCUSSION AND

PERSPECTIVES

This article offers a literature review on teachers'

digital maturity. We identified 11 models: 9 models

specific to teachers' professional practices (sections

2.1 to 2.5) and 2 models addressing their professional

context (section 2.6). Based on a comparative

analysis of these models, we propose a unified

MUME model, considering individual aspects related

to the teacher, and organizational and contextual

aspects. This choice makes it possible to use it for

global work on the integration of technology in

several schools, at a regional or district level, or for

specific guidance with a smaller group of teachers,

working individually on their practices. In addition,

this model has the advantage of covering the entire

professional activity of the teacher, rather than just his

teaching tasks. The unified model is composed of 6

levels broadly consistent with those of DigCompEdu,

Rogers’ DOI and ICTE-MM. It also has the

particularity of integrating a maturity level 0 (level 1),

corresponding to a non-use that we consider a choice

of the teacher rather than a hindrance, and to merge

levels B1 and B2 of the DigCompEdu. This choice is

justified by the fact of proposing a tool that can be

mobilized, in the long term, for diagnosis and support

for the integration of technology.

The unified maturity model is our first

contribution to the observation and analysis of

teachers' digital maturity levels. At this point, we

identify three perspectives for this work.

CSEDU 2023 - 15th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

540

The first two are to evaluate this model and to

work on tools to make it operational. To evaluate the

model, we plan to conduct empirical studies in order

to confirm (or reject) the proposals made. These

studies will allow us, for example, to verify whether

the organization of the different items is meaningful

and understandable for teachers or school principals.

It will also make it possible to illustrate the current

practices of teachers in the different categories and

thus to refine the characteristics of each profile

presented in figure 2, and possibly to rename them

according to a more representative nomenclature. In

this regard, technology deployment projects in

schools such as those developed as part of projects

“Territoires numériques éducatifs”

represent a good

opportunity. Indeed, these projects, at the level of

French departments, consider technology as a factor

of systemic transformation. Considering the context

and its specificities are essential in this context and

we believe that our unified model responds to this

challenge.

The second perspective is to build data collection

tools to make the model operational for measuring

maturity levels. We are presently studying how to

build a self-assessment questionnaire as exists for

some models such as SELFIE for DigCompEdu,

TPACK-TS for TPACK, etc. At the same time, we

are studying how to include other modes of data

collection (Teichert, 2019; Tomczyk & Fedeli, 2021).

Indeed, even if these tools are sometimes empirically

validated, they rely primarily on self-reporting. We

are investigating how to leverage the potential offered

by Learning and Teaching Analytics work based on

activity traces with TELs. Our ultimate goal is to

propose a blended approach based on these two

means for observing and analyzing teachers' digital

maturity levels.

The third perspective, which extends the second

one, is to conduct field studies to describe and analyze

the maturity level of teachers. The description can be

done in a global way by drawing the curve presented

in figure 2, or in a more precise way by illustrating

the practices related to each category presented in

figure 1. The analysis will first explain the maturity

levels according to the TELs used, the organizational

contexts or the personal characteristics of the

teachers. In a second step, and using longitudinal

analyses, we hope to be able to describe how teachers

can move from one level to another.

https://tne.reseau-canope.fr/

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was done in collaboration with the

company Open Digital Education and financed

within the framework of the CoAI-DataStim project

(Academy of Paris), the TNE25 project (Bourgogne-

Franche-Comté academic region) and the NEXT

program (Maison des sciences de l'homme et de

l'environnement).

REFERENCES

Antonietti, C., Schmitz, M.-L., Consoli, T., Cattaneo, A.,

Gonon, P., & Petko, D. (2023). “Development and

validation of the ICAP Technology Scale to measure

how teachers integrate technology into learning

activities”. Computers & Education, 192.

BECTA. (2008). Measuring e-maturity amongst work-

based learning providers 2008: Final report. British

Educational Communications and Technology Agency

(BECTA).

Blundell, C. N., Mukherjee, M., & Nykvist, S. (2022). A

scoping review of the application of the SAMR model

in research. Computers and Education Open, 3.

Carvalho, J., Pereira, R. H., & Rocha, Á. (2018). Maturity

models of education information systems and

technologies: A systematic literature review.

Chi, M. T. H., Adams, J., Bogusch, E. B., Bruchok, C.,

Kang, S., Lancaster, M., Levy, R., Li, N., McEldoon,

K. L., Stump, G. S., Wylie, R., Xu, D., & Yaghmourian,

D. L. (2018). Translating the ICAP Theory of Cognitive

Engagement Into Practice. Cognitive Science, 42(6),

1777–1832.

Crompton, H., & Sykora, C. (2021). Developing

instructional technology standards for educators: A

design-based research study. Computers and Education

Open, 2.

Franklin, C., & Bolick, C. (2007). Technology Integration:

A Review of the Literature. 1482–1488.

Harrison, C., Tomás, C., & Crook, C. (2014). An e-maturity

analysis explains intention–behavior disjunctions in

technology adoption in UK schools. Computers in

Human Behavior, 34, 345–351.

ISTE. (2017). ISTE Standards for Educators. International

Society for Technology in Education. https://

www.iste.org/standards/iste-standards-for-teachers

Kimmons, R., Graham, C. R., & West, R. E. (2020). The

PICRAT Model for Technology Integration in Teacher

Preparation. Contemporary Issues in Technology and

Teacher Education, 20(1), 176–198.

Kozdras, D., & Welsh, J. (2018). Enter the Matrix: A

Pedagogy for Infusing Technology. Society for

Information Technology & Teacher Education

International Conference, 536–541.

Modelling Teachers’ Digital Maturity: Literature Review and Proposal for a Uniﬁed Model

541

Leite, L., & Lagstedt, A. (2021). The Collective Integration

of Technology (CIT) Model: Helping Teachers

Incorporate Technology Meaningfully in their

Everyday Work. The International Journal of

Education and Development Using Information and

Communication Technology, 17, 249–268.

Michel, C., & Pierrot, L. (2022). Towards Modelling the

Technology Integration in Elementary School. A

Diachronic Study of Teachers’ Digital Practices During

and After Covid-19 Lockdown. In I. Hilliger, P. J.

Muñoz-Merino, T. De Laet, A. Ortega-Arranz, & T.

Farrell (Eds.), Educating for a New Future: Making

Sense of Technology-Enhanced Learning Adoption (pp.

201–214). Springer International Publishing.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16290-9_15

Michel, C., & Pierrot, L. (2023). Les modèles de la maturité

numérique des enseignants Lot 1—État de l’art (Projet

Covalence 1 (DataStim)).

Mishra, P. (2019). Considering Contextual Knowledge:

The TPACK Diagram Gets an Upgrade. Journal of

Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 35(2), 76–78.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological

Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for

Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6),

1017–1054.

Moersch, C. (1995). Levels of Technology Implementation

(LoTi): A framework for measuringclassroom

technology use. Learning and Leading with

Technology, 23(3).

Pee, L. G., & Kankanhalli, A. (2009). A Model of

Organisational Knowledge Management Maturity

Based on People, Process, and Technology. Journal of

Information & Knowledge Management, 08, 79–99.

Puentedura, R. (2012). SAMR - A research perspective.

http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2014/11

/28/SAMRLearningAssessment.pdf

Redecker, C. (2017). European Framework for the Digital

Competence of Educators: DigCompEdu. Punie, Y.

(ed). EUR 28775 EN. Publications Office of the

European Union.

Ristić, M. (2018). E-Maturity in Schools. Croatian Journal

of Education, 19(Sp.Ed.No.3/2017), 317–334.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.).

Free Press.

Sackstein, S., Matthee, M., & Weilbach, L. (2022).

Theories and Models Employed to Understand the Use

of Technology in Education: A Hermeneutic Literature

Review. Education and Information Technologies.

Solar, M., Sabattin, J., & Parada, V. (2013). A Maturity

Model for Assessing the use of ICT in School

Education. Educational Technology & Society, 16,

206–218.

Stoltzfus, J. (2006). Determining Educational Technology

and Instructional Learning Skill Sets (DETAILS): A

New Approach to the LoTi Framework for the 21 st

Century.

Teichert, R. (2019). Digital Transformation Maturity: A

Systematic Review of Literature. Acta Universitatis

Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis,

67(6), 1673–1687.

Tomczyk, Ł., & Fedeli, L. (2021). Digital Literacy among

Teachers -Mapping Theoretical Frameworks: TPACK,

DigCompEdu, UNESCO, NETS-T, DigiLit Leicester

(pp. 244–252).

Underwood, J., Baguley, T., Banyard, P., Coyne, E.,

Farrington-Flint, L., & Selwood, I. (2007). Impact

2007: Personalising Learning with Technology

[Other]. BECTA. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.

gov.uk/20110130111510/http://research.becta.org.uk/i

ndex.php?section=rh&catcode=_re_rp_02&rid=14202

Underwood, J., Baguley, T., Banyard, P., Dillon, G., &

Farrington-Flint, L. (2010). Understanding the Impact

of Technology: Learner and School level factors 2010.

Underwood, J., & Dillon, G. (2004). Capturing complexity

through maturity modelling. Technology, Pedagogy

and Education, 13(2), 213–225.

CSEDU 2023 - 15th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

542