# data[].attributes.body
1. Nearpod: https://nearpod.com

Nearpod helps educators make any lesson interactive, whether in the classroom or virtual. The concept is simple. A teacher can create interactive presentations that can contain Quizzes, Polls, Videos, Collaborate Boards, and more.

2. Whiteboard.chat: https://www.whiteboard.chat

Whiteboard Chat is a virtual whiteboard for teachers, students, remote colleagues, parents, and kids for collaborative learning. It is free to use, connects up to 100 people to a board simultaneously, and exports boards to PDF. It also enables you to easily observe and teach many user boards at the same.

3. Canva Education: https://www.canva.com/education

Canva for Education is a free tool for K-12 teachers and their students, powering creation and collaboration in every classroom. Teachers and students can create and personalize their own designs from scratch, or choose from thousands of high-quality, educational templates.

4. Gimkit: https://www.gimkit.com

Gimkit is a classroom game-show platform where students compete by answering questions on their electronic devices. Instead of earning points, students earn virtual currency, which they can "invest" during the game to boost their score.

5. Actively Learn: https://www.activelylearn.com

Actively Learn is a web-based reading platform where students can highlight, annotate, and discuss texts as they read. Teachers can assign texts to students solo and in groups so that whole classes can read, annotate, and interact around texts at their level.

6. iorad: https://www.iorad.com

The iorad Tutorial Builder enables users everywhere to create stunningly efficient tutorials and share them.

7. Wakelet: https://wakelet.com

Wakelet is a content curation and sharing platform where teachers and students can save and organize links, social media posts, videos, and images. These collections might tell a story, give directions, deliver lessons, gather research, or encourage collaboration.

# data[].attributes.body
Mishra and Koehler (2006) expanded on Shulman's (1986) concept of PCK by including technology, and they defined the resultant TPCK as the fusion of technology, pedagogy, and content. TPCK was later renamed TPACK, and it is an approach that concentrates on the intricate relationships between an instructor's pedagogical knowledge (PK), content knowledge (CK), and technological knowledge (TK) (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). One must consider adaptive interconnections like pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK), and technological content knowledge (TCK) when combining technology with pedagogy in a certain subject field. Mishra and Koehler (2006) note that an instructor who can traverse these interrelationships is a specialist who is differentiated from a topic matter, technology, or pedagogy expert. The advent of digital technologies has changed how instructors and learners interact and learn in a technologically advanced setting, making technology an indispensable part of their lives. Initial attempts at integrating technology considered it a distinct subject from content and pedagogy that needed mastering.

# data[].attributes.body
The framework encourages instructors to advance to higher levels of technology-assisted teaching to achieve greater improved learning and teaching levels. At the lowest level (substitution), digital replaces analog technology; however, there is no resultant functional change. At the second lowest level (augmentation), there is a technology modification, and the tool's or task's functionality is improved. For example, children in a kindergarten classroom could utilize mobile gadgets to listen to and read individualized digital stories rather than a teacher-led, entire group read-aloud session. In such a situation, portable technology helps with reading.

Technology integration at the Modification level necessitates a considerable task redesigning (Hamilton et al., 2016). For instance, a class teacher modifies how students learn about light by switching from displaying a graphic of light travel to presenting an immersive light simulation using a computer, with parameters that students may adjust. Instructors attain the top-most level redefinition when they create new tasks using technology (Hamilton et al., 2016). For instance, a fifth-grade teacher may ask students to develop and present their ideas through independently generated and edited films rather than directing them to write persuasive essays based on historical studies.

The SAMR paradigm has drawn some criticism even though it frequently arises in discussions about incorporating digital technology into educational practice. For starters, SAMR portrays learning and teaching as a product by focusing on tasks done with digital technology. Nevertheless, Hamilton et al. contend that one can best define learning and teaching as processes rather than products. Another criticism is that since SAMR is expressed in brief assertions subject to interpretation, instructors' and researchers' perspectives about how to tie practices to the paradigm may differ. The occurrence becomes clear when researchers build on the framework or use it in conjunction with other models when analyzing literature. Additionally, SAMR fails to recognize the impact of context. So, crucial contextual elements are not acknowledged, including technological infrastructure and resources, instructor expertise and support for utilizing technology, learners' collective and individual needs, and community support.

Finally, the hierarchical depiction of SAMR makes upward progress seem too stiff to accurately capture the fluid nature of utilizing digital technology in teaching and learning across particular settings. This illustration similarly emphasizes redefinition and prioritizes change above augmentation. It is essential to emphasize that while SAMR has received criticism, such objections have not been supported by thorough literature appraisals. A methodologically rigorous examination of SAMR's application in research is, thus, required.

Reference:
Hamilton et al., 2016

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is the SAMR Model and what does it look like in schools?

# data[].attributes.body
Kimmons et al. developed a matrix depicting PIC on the x and RAT on the y axes, resulting in nine elements (CR, CA, CT, IR, IA, IT, PR, PA, and PT). A teacher may categorize every lesson plan, exercise, or teaching technique into one of the nine cells by asking this pair of guiding questions about technology usage. The goal of this approach, which deliberates how these two issues overlap, is to encourage debates about how best to use technology in a given lesson to increase student involvement and accomplishment.

Although one can argue that allowing students to be creative is frequently more advantageous than allowing them to be passive and that integrating technology in a way that morphs a lesson rather than essentially substituting conventional practice is more valuable, instructors must be advised against presuming that each lesson must aim for the right corner (CT). Nevertheless, PICRAT's developers stress that the matrix is only relevant at the activity rather than the course or instructor levels. Contrary to other earlier models, such as SAMR, which purport to categorize a person's or a classroom's aggregate technology utilization, this model acknowledges that instructors must employ a range of technologies to be efficient, and usage must include exercises spanning the whole matrix. RAT is an evaluation model for comprehending the impact of technology in learning, teaching, and curricular routines, initially devised for PK–12 education.

Reference: Kimmons et al., 2020

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
PICRAT for Effective Technology Integration in Teaching