Research Article

Integration of digital technologies in social studies education in Bulgarian schools–A comparative analysis and evaluation based on the PICRAT model

Maya Petrova Vasileva 1 * , Katya Borislavova Misheva 1
More Detail
1 Sofia University, Sofia, BULGARIA* Corresponding Author
Contemporary Educational Technology, 18(2), April 2026, ep649, https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/18427
Published: 17 April 2026
OPEN ACCESS   47 Views   14 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)
This study is part of a comprehensive research initiative designed to evaluate the current state of digitalization in Bulgarian education. This initiative is conducted under the auspices of the SUMMIT project (BG-RRP-2.004-0008), which is financed by the European Union through NextGenerationEU and the National Recovery and Resilience Plan. The project is spearheaded by Prof. Roumiana Peycheva-Forsyth, PhD.

ABSTRACT

The present study specifically examines the integration of digital technologies in the domain of social studies education. Its main objective is to examine the current level of digital technology integration in Bulgarian schools, using social studies instruction as a case in point. In this context, the research seeks to address three key research questions (RQs): RQ1: What role does the social studies teacher play in integrating digital technologies into the instructional process? RQ2: What is the role of the student in lessons involving the integration of digital technologies in social studies education? RQ3: For what purposes and in the execution of which didactic and methodological tasks are digital technologies employed during social studies lessons? To achieve these objectives and address the research questions, a comparative analysis and evaluation are conducted based on the PICRAT model. This model is applied to assess the interplay between teachers' use of technology and students' cognitive engagement. The comparative analysis focuses on three target groups: teachers of Geography and Economics, teachers of History and Civilizations, and teachers of Philosophy and Civic Education. The findings of the study reveal a lack of intentionality, coherence, and consistency in the integration of digital technologies in social studies education in Bulgaria. Additionally, the research demonstrates that the PICRAT framework is applicable in the context of Bulgarian schools in two major ways: (1) as a tool for instructional planning, and (2) as a framework for the implementation and evaluation of social studies lessons.
Keywords: digital technologies, social studies education, PICRAT model, teaching, learning, functions of digital technologies

CITATION (APA)

Vasileva, M. P., & Misheva, K. B. (2026). Integration of digital technologies in social studies education in Bulgarian schools–A comparative analysis and evaluation based on the PICRAT model. Contemporary Educational Technology, 18(2), ep649. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/18427

REFERENCES

  1. Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
  2. Burkhardt, H., & Schoenfeld, A. H. (2003). Improving educational research: Toward a more useful, more influential, and better-funded enterprise. Educational Researcher, 32(9), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032009003
  3. Harmes, J. C., Welsh, J. L., & Winkelman, R. J. (2016). A framework for defining and evaluating technology integration in the instruction of real-world skills. In Y. Rosen, S. Ferrara, & M. Mosharraf (Eds.), Handbook of research on technology tools for real-world skill development (pp. 137-162). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-9441-5.ch006
  4. Hughes, J., Thomas, R. & Scharber, C. (2006). Assessing technology integration: The RAT – Replacement, amplification, and transformation - framework. In C. Crawford, R. Carlsen, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2006--Society for information technology & teacher education international conference (pp. 1616-1620). https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/22293/
  5. Kestler, F. (2020). Einführung in die Didaktik des Geographieunterrichts. Grundlage der Geographiedidaktik einschlieβlich ihrer Bezugswissenschaften (3. aufl.) [Introduction to the didactics of geography teaching. Foundations of geography didactics including its related sciences (3rd ed.)]. Verlag Julius Klinkhardt.
  6. Kimmons, R., & Hall, C. (2016a). Emerging technology integration models. In G. Veletsianos (Ed.), Emergence and innovation in digital learning: Foundations and applications (pp. 51-64). Athabasca University Press. https://www.aupress.ca/app/uploads/120258_99Z_Veletsianos_2016-Emergence_and_Innovation_in_Digital_Learning.pdf
  7. Kimmons, R., & Hall, C. (2016b). Toward a broader understanding of teacher technology integration beliefs and values. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 24(3), 309-335. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/172627/
  8. 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. https://citejournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/v20i1general2.pdf
  9. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70. https://citejournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/v9i1general1.pdf
  10. Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). The University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226458106.001.0001
  11. Mizova, B., Peycheva-Forsyth, R., & Meller, H. (2025). Mnogostanen podhod za izsledvane ravnishcheto na digitalizatsiya v podgotovkata na budeshti uchiteli [A multifaceted approach to exploring the level of digitalization in the preparation of future teachers]. Strategii NA Obrazovatelnata i Nauchnata Politika, 33(1), 28-53. https://doi.org/10.53656/str2025-1-2-mul
  12. Moersch, C. (1995). Levels of technology implementation (LoTi): A framework for measuring classroom technology use. Learning and Leading with Technology, 23, 40-42.
  13. Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. In I. Harel, & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism: Research reports and essays (pp. 1-17). Ablex Publishing.
  14. Peycheva-Forsyth, R., & Mizova, B. (2025). Digitalna pedagogicheska kompetentnost na balgarskite uchiteli v samootsenychen plan–Implikatsii za obrazovatelnata i izsledovatelskata praktika [Exploring digital pedagogical competence in bulgarian teachers: Insights from a self-assessment survey and their impact on educational practice and research]. Pedagogika, 97(6), 743-760. https://doi.org/10.53656/ped2025-6.01
  15. Puentedura, R. R. (2003). A matrix model for designing and assessing network-enhanced courses. Hippasus.
  16. Rinschede, G., & Siegmund, A. (2022). Geographiedidaktik [Geography didactics] (5. aufl.). Brill Schöningh. https://doi.org/10.36198/9783838558622
  17. Roblyer, M. D., & Doering, A. H. (2013). Integrating educational technology into teaching: Transforming learning across disciplines (6th ed.). Pearson.
  18. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
  19. Willingham, D. T. (2012). When can you trust the experts? How to tell good science from bad in education. Jossey-Bass.