# data[].attributes.body
PROS:

-Models flexible knowledge needed for tech integration

-Works as a concept

CONS:

-Figuring out what TPACK actually looks like in the class

-Requires a practical tool to assist teacher

-Considered overly complicated by educators

EVOLUTION:

- Improve and simplify tech integration

-Focus on measuring techs impact on student ability

# data[].attributes.body
PROS:

-Looks at practicality of tech in the classroom

-Useful to educators focused on "how" students and tech interact

CONS:

-Doesn't focus on learning goals

-Differences in the five levels and measurments makes TIM more time-consuming

EVOLUTION:

-Integration of meaningful learning strategies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In a perfect world, teachers would always start with a consideration of student needs and curriculum goals. Then they would snap their fingers and all of the most appropriate technology would magically appear and knowledge of how best to use these technologies would be downloaded directly into student and teacher brains alike.

The real world is just a bit messier. We have to start somewhere when planning instruction and there is no technology magic. The important thing is not so much where we start, but whether we consider all three components and the relationships among them when planning instruction.

At FCIT we are big on emphasizing that technology should not drive instruction. The tail shouldn't wag the dog. Student learning is the goal and technology use (or non-use!) should always be in service of that goal. However, that doesn't mean that we don't ever start by looking around our classrooms to see what tech is available. Quite the contrary. We should always be cognizant of what technologies are available to ourselves and our students. Furthermore, we should also seek to understand the affordances and limitations of those available technologies so we can best match them up with student needs and curriculum demands.

Once we start thinking about the three areas of the TIM Instructional Planning Model, all sorts of important relationships become apparent. A careful consideration of these questions will go a long way toward avoiding dysfunctional instruction. When combined with the Technology Integration Matrix itself, teachers have a great roadmap to transformational learning.

If you are interested in further unpacking these ideas, consider taking the "TIM for Instructional Planning" course.

# data[].attributes.body
PROS:

-Simple to follow

-Various tech tools can be easily plugged

-Helpful tech utilization explanations

CONS:

-Confusion whether hierarchy is intended or simply categories

EVOLUTION:

-Adding how the tech adresses learning goals

# data[].attributes.body
PROS:

-Sets clear learning goals

-Focuses on quality and impact of student tech use

CONS:

-Proper planning to avoid student distraction

-All three components must work together for proper implementation

EVOLUTION:

-Enhances the ways that tech can be used within all four frameworks

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What is the Triple E?
The Triple E is a practical framework that measures the degree to which the technology in a lesson is helping students meet the learning goals. Unlike other technology frameworks, the Triple E Framework focus is on the learning goals, and not specific technology tools. The framework draws on educational research concerning effective and ineffective practices with technology tools from the past two decades. The Triple E measurement tool was developed specially for K-12 teachers and administrators to use in lesson plan development, evaluation of the potential effectiveness of educational apps in learning, and evaluation of the potential effectiveness of tech tools in lesson plans. The framework is based on three components: Engagement in learning goals, Enhancement of learning goals, and Extension of learning goals. While these terms are often used interchangeably, they are distinct and different. The Triple E Framework defines each component shares what makes each piece unique. While not a perfect science, the Triple E measurement tool provides a benchmark for what educators should be thinking about when considering a technology tool for learning.

The Triple E Framework draws on a considerable amount of research about what works and does not work when it comes to technology in learning. In particular it emphasizes the following as its theoretical foundation...

Pragmatism: Active, social, creative, and authentic learning (Dewey, 1897)

Focus on the learning goals (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003)

Meaningful use of technology in the classroom requires teachers to integrate technological affordances with pedagogical approaches for the specific subject matter to be taught (Mishra & Khoeler, 2006).

The significance of instructional strategies in cooperation with using technology tools (Pane et al., 2017; Montrieux et al., 2015; Okojie et al., 2006)

The importance of time-on-task active engagement (Wartella, 2015)

Co-use and Joint-Media Engagement with technology devices and software (The American Academy of Pediatrics, 2013; Darling-Hammond et al., 2014; Zack & Barr, 2016)

Social aspect of learning through technology tools (Vaala et al., 2015; Guernsey, 2012)

Value-added strategies such as promoting student self-reflection, self-assessment, and self-explanation (Means et al. 2009)

The type of use--avoiding "drill and practice" which can have negative effects on learning outcomes and integrating more real world problem-solving and creating (Vaala et al., 2015)

The quality of technology use rather than quantity (Wenglinsky, 2006; Wenglinsky, 2008)

Technology itself does not lead to positive effects in student learning but can be an 'intellectual and social amplifier' which can help make good schools better but also can increase problems at less successful schools when not implemented strategically. (Warschauer, 2006)

Helping students connect existing knowledge with new knowledge (Wartella, 2015)

Knowledge needs to be situated in authentic contexts (Brown, Collins, and Duguid, 1989; Lave & Wenger, 1990)

Read more about the research and links here

The Development of the Triple E
The Triple E Framework, developed in 2011 by Professor Liz Kolb at the University of Michigan, School of Education, was created to address the desire for K-12 educators to bridge research on education technologies and teaching practice in the classroom. There are decades of reliable and useful research that provides guidelines on effective practices when using technology tools for eliciting learning growth. The research clearly points out that effective technology integration begins with good instructional strategies and not fancy tools. The Triple E Framework was designed for educators to easily evaluate how to select tools to meet their learning goals, and ultimate design learning experiences so the tools have a positive impact on student achievement and learning outcomes. The Triple E Framework is meant to be used as a coaching tool to support teachers in their instructional choices around and with technology tools.

is the Triple E Valid and Reliable?
​Yes! A recent independent mix-methods study conducted in 2018, published in 2019 by Dr. Shelia Schatzke at the University of North Texas. found the Triple E to be both valid and reliable.
​
WHY Triple E?
The research on technology and learning over the past decade is fairly clear, technology should be integrated based on what we already know about good teaching and pedagogical practices. Dating back to the late 19th century, the foundation of current teaching practices is based on the work of pragmatism. Pragmatists like John Dewey (1897) pushed for learning to be embedded in the student's authentic everyday lives, socially constructed knowledge, active/hands-on learning and full of choice. Since the early 1990s Research has found that educational technology with a "drill and practice" approach often has no effects on learning or cognition. Yet, most technology tools created for education are still drill and practice and in the lower-order of Blooms Taxonomy.

Despite media often claiming a new piece of technology will "revolutionize" learning, that is almost never the case. The Triple E framework takes this fallacy of technology as the magic bullet learning into account, and allows teachers to become critical consumers of making mindful choices around technology tools in their teaching. It is a simple framework, based on research around teaching and learning practices with technology tools. The framework is intended to help educators create lessons that allow students to use technology to meet and add value to learning goals as active, social, creative learners, in authentic ways. The framework also helps K-12 administrators evaluate the connection between potential learning outcomes and the technology they are seeing in their teacher's classrooms.

How Triple E is Different than other Tech Integration Models
Some educators tend to be haphazard with technology tools, often trying new hardware or software because it's shiny or new, dismissing older technologies with an assumption that older=poor technology use. Today, few educators would argue that technology is a TOOL to help students reach learning goals. How do educators measure a tools ability to help students reach learning goals? There are a number of frameworks that teachers use for integrating technology (SAMR, ADDIE, TIM, TPACK, RAT), while all of them have benefits, none directly focus on how technology helps students achieve learning goals. While TPACK, developed by Mishra & Khoeler (2006)--technology knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and content knowledge is the heart of integration, it is a conceptual framework and just needs a practical tool to help teachers envision what it may look like in practice. The Triple E is that practical tool that brings together instructional strategies, learning goals and purposeful tool selection. Most frameworks focus on how technology substitutes for traditional tools or if the technology use is creative, but not if the tools were able to actually leverage the learning goals. As the U.S. has become focused on standardizing learning and outcomes, making sure that students are using their time to meet learning goals is even more vital when integrating technology. This is where the Triple E Framework can help to extend the current models.

Significance of Instructional Strategies
No digital tool is a magic bullet for learning. While some tools have effective learning strategies built into them (eg...collaboration, differentiated instruction...etc), many do not. Even when a tool includes good pedagogical practices, teachers supports and instructional strategies around the tool are still a vital component to the lesson plan (Okojie et al., 2006). The type of tool selected is not nearly as significant as the instructional strategies a teacher creates when using the tools. Instead of tossing out effective teaching strategies when using technology tools, teachers who use technology effectively are able to integrate instructional moves to leverage better learning with the digital tools. The Triple E Framework makes certain to consider that while a tool may be "drill and practice", the teacher can create structures around the tool to help meet the three different components of the framework. For example, a teacher could pair students up while working on a piece of software (co-use), or students could participate in reflective thinking practices such as making predictions while they are using the technology tools, so they can reflect upon their learning. This is one reason why the framework is not built around using a certain type of tool for learning, rather it is built around making sure students are on-task and meeting their learning goals through the technology tools. ​
See examples of instructional strategies here

# data[].attributes.body
-Each framewokr is meant to assist the educator

-Technology implimentation should align with learnig goals

-Pedagogy should play a role in tech use