# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In this moment, we must ensure we are taking care of each other as human beings first. Before engaging in this, or any guide, we encourage you to assess your head and your heart. In order to be of optimal service to students, we must first reflect on where we are and what we need from ourselves and our community. We want to remind you that learning can't happen when students don't feel safe. In order to establish a safe space, we need to prioritize building and re-building community with students, their families, and our colleagues. We must remember to center what's important, not just what's urgent in order to be of service to all learners. This is not a linear process and your feelings and experiences, and those of your students, will fluctuate. We ask you to keep this actively in mind as you use this guide.

Introduction

As technology shapes our public discourse, and students engage with technology on a daily basis, it becomes imperative for classrooms to serve as spaces to teach about the responsible and ethical uses of technology while meeting the diverse needs of students and the various ways they access technology. There is an additional level of urgency as our classrooms have swiftly moved to remote learning with little, if any, preparation of teachers or acknowledgment of the equity issues access may present for families, students, and the learning community. We need to remember that our teaching should not focus on the tools, but rather the students' needs as human beings, interests as learners, community building, and the content. Our collective work is to be ready and prepared to seize the unexpected opportunities this disruption gives us to actually create a more equitable educational system for all learners.

The Technology Integration Practices (TIP) Guide supports school districts, schools, teachers, and instructional coaches to infuse technologies and research-based pedagogy to ensure that instructional practices are anchored in the learning needs and interests of all students.

Teachers create learning experiences that are driven by students' interests.

Teachers use both low tech and high tech digital tools to provide opportunities for students to produce and create a wide variety of media that is shared with audiences beyond the classroom.

Social media use as a platform to generate conversations and encourage common goals and interests among students.

Barron, B., Walter, S. E., Martin, C. K., & Schatz, C. (2010). Predictors of creative computing participation and profiles of experience in two Silicon Valley middle schools. Computers and Education, 54(1), 178-189.

Davidson, C. N., & Theo Goldberg, D. (n.d.). The Future of Learning Institutions in a Digital Age.

Ito, M., Gutierrez, K. D., Livingstone, S., Penuel, B., Rhodes, J., Salen, K., ... Watkins, C. (2013). Connected Learning: A Research Synthesis Report of the Connected Learning Research Net- work. Irvine.

Chicago Learning Exchange's Connected Learning Guide

Co-construct with students and families to set measurable, achievable and realistic learning goals.

Seek and use feedback from authentic audiences to drive learning.

Optimize digital learning environments to support individual learning needs (i.e. text to speech, audiobooks, podcasts).

Offer opportunities for peer support and feedback in smaller group settings.

Chita-Tegmark, Gravel, J. W., Serpa, M. D. L. B. ., Domings, Y., & Rose, D. (2012). Using the Uni- versal Design for Learning Framework to Support Culturally Diverse Learners. Journal of Education, 192(1), 17-22.

ISTE. (2016). Redefining learning in a technology-driven world A report to support adoption of the ISTE Standards for Students.

Co-construct norms and expectations with students and consider how the community will respond if a problem arises.

Have open conversations around the navigation of the digital world (i.e. opening programs, finding websites, etc.).

Establish class protocols for switching between digital and asynchronous tasks.

Teacher thinking aloud while using technology to make clear to students patterns and processes for productive technology use.

Explicitly teach collaborative skills through modeling to show students how they may be utliized in an online learning environment.

Mishra, P., Koehler, M., & Harris, J. (2009). Teachers' Technological Pedagogical Content Knowl- edge and Learning Activity Types : Curriculum-based Technology Integration Reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393-416.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Integrating Technology in Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

Schrader, C., & Bastiaens, T. J. (2012). Educational Computer Games and Learning: The Re- lationship Between Design, Cognitive Load, Emotions and Outcomes. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 23(3), 251-271.

Zielezinski, M. B. (2017). Finding a Path Toward Innovation in a Land of Stagnation.

Students record themselves performing a task or activity and post the video for others to view and offer feedback.

Student interests and passions are used as avenues for exploration of a topic and share their work with authentic audiences.

Learning activities integrate culturally relevant practices, foster student development of expertise, and highlight this expertise by providing opportunities for students to share their knowledge and skills with authentic audiences.

The student work has authentic audiences beyond the teacher. This may include:

Peers in class

Local community members

Families

Zielezinski, M. B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2016). Promising Practices: A Literature Review of Technology Use by Underserved Students. In Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Educa- tion (pp. 1-42).

Garcia, A. (2017). Good Reception: Teens, Teachers, and Mobile Media in Los Angeles.

Mishra, P., Koehler, M., & Harris, J. (2009). Teachers' Technological Pedagogical Content Knowl- edge and Learning Activity Types : Curriculum-based Technology Integration Reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393-416.

Warschauer, M., & Grimes, D. (2007). Audience, authorship, and artifact: The emergent semiotics of Web 2.0. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 1-23.

Zielezinski, M. B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2016). Promising Practices: A Literature Review of Technology Use by Underserved Students. In Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Educa- tion (pp. 1-42).

Land Talk Lesson Plans

Students are given a choice about their modality of expression (slides, written, video).

Students given a choice about which digital tool to use.

Technology used to allow students to observe one another's ideas.

Technology used to allow students to engage critically with one another's ideas.

Activity structures focus on discovery and exploration rather than direction instruction.

Ito, M. (2010). Hanging Out, Messing Around and Geeking Around. MIT Press.Mouza, C., & Lavigne, N. (2013). Emerging technologies for the classroom: A learning sciences perspective. Emerging Technologies for the Classroom: A Learning Sciences Perspective.

Rose, D. H. (David H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the Digital Age: universal design for learning. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Students engage in content creation to communicate ideas about the material they are studying by creating reports, graphic representations of data they have researched or developed, websites, PowerPoint presentations, video production, or digital storytelling.

Interactive programs that allow students to see and explore concepts from different angles using a variety of representations.

Students curate a collection of articles, images, audio, or videos, that all share some common attribute or theme about material they are studying.

Chita-Tegmark, Gravel, J. W., Serpa, M. D. L. B.., Domings, Y., & Rose, D. (2012). Using the Univer- sal Design for Learning Framework to Support Culturally Diverse Learners. Journal of Educa- tion, 192(1), 17-22.

Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Weigel, M., Clinton, K., & Robison, A. J. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Building the Field of Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Rose, D. H. (David H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the Digital Age : universal design for learning. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Hohlfeld, T. N., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Barron, A. E., & Kemker, K. (2008). Examining the digital divide in K-12 public schools: Four-year trends for supporting ICT literacy in Florida. Computers and Education, 51(4), 1648-1663.

Levine, M. H., & Jeanne Wellings. (2009). The Digital Promise: Transforming Learning with Inno- vative Uses of Technology.

Zielezinski, M. B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2016). Promising Practices: A Literature Review of Technology Use by Underserved Students. In Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Educa- tion (pp. 1-42).

Students create video showcasing their understanding of a procedure or series of steps.

Students are given creative opportunities that honor students' roles as experts, and allow them to share their understanding with the teacher, peers, and other audiences.

Chita-Tegmark, Gravel, J. W., Serpa, M. D. L. B. ., Domings, Y., & Rose, D. (2012). Using the Uni- versal Design for Learning Framework to Support Culturally Diverse Learners. Journal of Education, 192(1), 17-22.

Figg, C., Mccartney, R., & Gonsoulin, W. (2010). Impacting academic achievement with student learners teaching digital storytelling to others: The ATTTCSE digital video project. Contempo- rary Issues in Technology, 10(1), 38-79.

Downes, T., & Zammit, K. (2001). New literacies for connected learning in global classrooms.

Providing a system for ongoing student self-reflection that is read and responded to by the instructor.

Digital exit surveys that provide opportunities for feedback on content knowledge and design of class.

Cornwell, W. R., & Cornwell, J. R. (2006). Connected Learning: A Framework of Observation, Research and Development to Guide the Reform of Education. The Center for Internet Research, 1-49. Retrieved from Connected Learning Framework.

Penuel, W., & ... J. R. (2007). Designing formative assessment software with teachers: An analy- sis of the co-design process. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Technology Integration Practices (TIP) Guide

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this moment, we must ensure we are taking care of each other as human beings first. Before engaging in this, or any guide, we encourage you to assess your head and your heart. In order to be of optimal service to students, we must first reflect on where we are and what we need from ourselves and our community.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Learning Objectives

Develop a foundational understanding of learning theories driving current technology development and adoption for K-12;

Develop a foundational understanding of prominent technology integration models;

Consider your own values guiding effective technology integration in the classroom.

Technology Integration in education refers to the meaningful use of technology to achieve learning goals. This chapter seeks to answer the question: what is effective technology integration? Though on the surface this may seem like a simple question, it is actually quite difficult to answer, because any answer will be based upon our beliefs and values, how we view learning, and how we view technology's role in the learning process. To approach this question, we will proceed in this chapter by (1) revisiting some common learning theories and how they might influence our perspective of technology's role in learning, (2) exploring the beliefs and values that individuals and institutions might apply when evaluating technology use in the classroom, and (3) providing an overview of some common technology integration models that are used to help teachers better understand the process and goals of technology integration.

Watch on YouTube

Key Terms

Behaviorism

a learning theory popularized in the mid-20th century, it treats learning as a response to stimulus and it conditions students to properly react to stimuli; the brain's processes are not considered and viewed as a "black box"

Cognitivism

a learning theory that focuses on brain functions and how information is processed, stored, retrieved, and applied

Compliance

legal, ethical, and institutional requirements of technology use (in contrast to their pragmatic use)

Connectivism

a learning theory that believes that learning need not be isolated to the mind, but becoming a learned and capable citizen in a digital society requires learners to become connected with one another in such a way that they can make use of the network as an extension of their own mind and body

Constructionism

a learning theory in which students construct artifacts in the outside world that support and reflect their internal construction of knowledge

Constructivism

a learning theory that considers individual and social factors by holding that learning is constructed by learners on top of previous experience, attitudes, and beliefs

Facility

the ease at which a new technology can be learned, implemented, or managed at the teacher- or student-level

Institutionalization

infrastructural compatibility, cost, lifespan, and management scale of new technologies

Proof

evidence-based efficiency or efficacy of a technology to help improve student learning

RAT

a technology integration model that holds that technology use either Replaces, Amplifies, or Transforms (RAT) pedagogical practices (Hughes, Thomas, & Scharber, 2006)

Technology Integration

the meaningful implementation of technology in educational settings to achieve learning goals

TPACK

a technology integration model that illustrates the complex interplay between Technological Knowledge, Pedagogical Knowledge, and Content Knowledge

Learning Theories

Ever since there have been educators trying to teach students, there have been theories that guide how those educators view the learning process. These learning theories encompass our beliefs about the nature of knowledge and how a person learns.

Debates surrounding learning theories have existed for millennia, and even in the modern world, there is great diversity in how scientists, psychologists, and educators view learning. Some of the major learning theories that shape modern conversations surrounding technology integration include behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism, constructionism, and connectivism. Each of these theories has been studied and written about at length, and it is impossible to devote sufficient time and attention to each theory in the limited space provided in this chapter. Rather, all educators should study competing learning theories and develop their own understanding of how people learn. In this chapter, we will merely provide an extremely high level overview of each of these theories, briefly explaining what each entails and what each might mean for teaching and learning with technology.

Behaviorism

Behaviorism was popularized in the mid-20th century as psychologists studied behavior patterns and response systems in humans and other animals. Behaviorism treats learning as a response to stimulus. That is, humans and other animals are trained to respond in certain ways to certain stimuli, such as salivating when a dinner bell rings or repeating a memorized fact to receive some external reward. Teaching and learning, then, is a process of conditioning students to properly react to stimuli, and technology can help facilitate this training by providing incentives to learning, such as games or other rewards, or by providing systems to efficiently develop stimulus-response conditioning, such as drill-and-kill practices.

Cognitivism

Cognitivism arose as an alternative to behaviorism in part because behaviorism treated the processes of the brain as an imperceptible black box, wherein understanding how the brain worked was not considered important for helping people learn. Cognitivism, therefore, dealt with brain functions and how information is processed, stored, retrieved, and applied. By treating humans as thinking machines, rather than as animals to be trained, research in cognitivism for teaching and learning focused on helping people develop efficient teaching and studying strategies that would allow their brains to make meaningful use of presented information. Through this lens, technology can help in providing information and study resources that assist the brain in efficiently storing and retrieving information, such as through the use of mnemonic devices or multiple modalities (e.g., video, audio).

Constructivism

However, both behaviorism and cognitivism tended to treat learning the same for all humans, despite their age, culture, or personal experiences. Recognizing that these factors might influence how learning occurs, constructivism arose as a means for understanding how individual and social factors might influence the process of learning for different groups of people and individuals. Constructivism holds that learning is constructed by learners on top of previous experience, attitudes, and beliefs. This means that for learning to occur, new learning experiences must take into consideration these human factors and assist the individual in assimilating new knowledge to their existing knowledge constructs. Thus, if you are teaching students about fractions, you must teach them using language that they will understand and connect their learning to experiences in their own lives that will have meaning for them. Technology can help the constructivist learning process by making abstract concepts and facts more grounded in personal experiences and the values of learners and also by allowing the learning experience to be differentiated for individual learners (e.g., through personalized developmentally-appropriate software).

Constructionism

Believing that knowledge is constructed in the mind, some then took constructivism to the stage of a pedagogical process and called it constructionism. From the constructionist viewpoint, the most effective way to teach in a constructivist manner is to have students construct artifacts in the outside world that support and reflect their internal construction of knowledge. For instance, if a student needs to learn about basic engineering concepts, in order to build the internal mind models necessary to understand engineering, students must construct external models, which might take the form of a bridge or catapult. Technology can support constructionist approaches to teaching and learning by empowering students and teachers to create and construct external models reflecting internal mind models with resources and possibilities not available in the real world. By using a simulation, for instance, students can construct any structure or machine without the need of expensive materials, or they might seek to understand economic principles of supply and demand by creating a simulated community that allows them to influence supply chains in ways that would not be possible in the real world.

Connectivism

Even with these competing theories, some still believed that learning experiences and processes as they actually exist in the real world were not fully represented, and this has become especially obvious now that we live in a society that is heavily networked and connected via electronic and social media. All traditional views about learning had placed knowledge and learning squarely in the mind or body of the student, but modern technologies in particular lead us to consider whether all memory, information processing, and other aspects of learning traditionally ascribed to the mind might not also be distributed with external devices. Connectivism holds that the process and goals of learning in a highly networked and connected world is different than learning in the predigital world, because learners are now persistently connected to information sources and other resources through their electronic devices, such as smartphones or laptops. From the connectivist perspective, learning need not be isolated to the mind, but becoming a learned and capable citizen in a digital society requires learners to become connected with one another in such a way that they can make use of the network as an extension of their own mind and body. Thus from a connectivist perspective, the goal of education is to more fully and efficiently connect learners with one another and with information resources in a manner that is persistent and in which learners can make ongoing use of the network to solve problems. From this perspective, technology can be used to improve learning experiences by more fully connecting students with one another and information resources in a persistent manner.

Differing Assumptions

Each of these learning theories views the learner, the learner's relationship with society, and the learner's relationship to technology quite differently. For that reason, when we begin to consider what constitutes effective technology integration, we must acknowledge that different people and groups who have differing assumptions about how students learn will view technology integration very differently. A connectivist would believe that guiding students to use modern technologies to develop networked relationships with peers and experts in the field is an essential element of learning. However, this may require very little information processing and recall to be occurring in the mind of the learner, which would seem dubious to a cognitivist. Similarly, a constructionist would look to an architecturally sound structure created in a physics engine as evidence of understanding of mathematical engineering concepts, while a behaviorist might consider such an artifact useless in determining the student's ability to recite foundational mathematical equations that every engineer should know. In short, the effectiveness of technology integration requires evidence that the integration is effective, but what is believed to be effective for learning will depend upon our view of learning.

Thus, the first step toward defining effective technology integration for yourself is to consider how you define learning and what constitutes evidence of learning. Similarly as teachers work within educational institutions, the criteria by which they and their students are evaluated will rely upon one or more of the learning theories mentioned above. If there is misalignment between how the teacher views learning and how the institution views learning, then misunderstandings will arise, because what the teacher views to be effective technology integration may not be recognized or valued by the institution and vice versa.

As such, teachers need to decide for themselves what learning is to them and also understand what learning means in the institutions in which they operate. So, before you can ask yourself what is effective technology integration, you must first ask yourself the following two questions:

What are my beliefs about learning and how learning occurs?

What are my institution's beliefs about learning and how learning occurs?

Learning Check

Which learning theory emphasizes networked thinking?

Behaviorism

Connectivism

Constructivism

Cognitivism

Which learning theory emphasizes stimulus and response relationships?

Behaviorism

Connectivism

Constructivism

Cognitivism

Which learning theory emphasizes the inner workings of the mind?

Behaviorism

Connectivism

Constructivism

Cognitivism

Which learning theory emphasizes prior personal and cultural experiences?

Behaviorism

Connectivism

Constructivism

Cognitivism

Beliefs and Values

Once you understand how both you and your institution view the learning process, then you can move to the next step and consider your beliefs and values with regard to technology. Some people might value the acquisition of technical skills for the sake of technical skills to be a good thing, while others might believe that technology should only be used if it is helping students to learn content better or to learn more. Though all students should learn some level of technical skill competency in order to make them suitable for the modern workplace (e.g., productivity software, keyboarding, basic programming), most technologies in education are not focused on this type of learning.

Rather, when we talk about technology integration, we are generally talking about using technology to improve the learning of content knowledge, such as science, math, history, or language arts. When viewed in this way, teachers and institutions need to consider how well new technologies will help them to teach age-old content in better or more efficient ways and what are the opportunity costs associated with a shift to new technologies.

student_ipad_school, Brad Flickinger via Flickr, CC BY 2.0

There is a common myth in education related to technology adoption that older or more experienced teachers are less likely to adopt new technologies and to innovate upon their practice than younger teachers. Though this may sometimes be the case, many people do not stop to consider why this might be happening. Evidence suggests that age ultimately has nothing to do with a person's willingness to innovate, but rather, experience may help people to more quickly identify the transient nature of some changes or that some so-called innovations are actually harmful or ineffective for students.

In the case of technology in education, experienced teachers may have a wealth of understanding of how their students learn and how they can teach in effective ways, whereas new teachers may be eager to try new things and to adopt technologies that they think will help them be effective in the classroom. The problem is that sometimes the most eager teachers are also the least capable of making informed decisions, because they may lack the experiential knowledge necessary to make informed choices about these technologies, how much time to invest in learning them, and what to expect in terms of student outcomes. In every case, a teacher's beliefs and values will drive how they view technology integration, whether old or young, and their willingness to use technologies in their classrooms.

Similarly, schools and districts have their own beliefs and values about technology, how it should be used, and how it will impact students. For this reason it is important for us to understand each of these groups' beliefs and values, how they may be different, and how this influences the process of technology integration. Though personal beliefs and values are complicated and will vary between different people, we will consider four areas of belief and value that guide teachers and institutions in their technology integration practices. These include: Proof, Facility, Compliance, and Institutionalization.

Proof

First, proof deals with the efficiency or efficacy of a technology to help improve student learning. Proof requires some form of discernible or measurable outcome and will be most important to teachers in the classroom or to principals and other administrators who invest time and money into technology and must prove that it is improving student achievement. From a teacher's or principal's perspective, if a technology does not directly improve students' ability to learn in a discernible or measurable way, then the value of that technology will be dubious. Teachers are stressed for time and they do not want to invest the effort necessary to learn and implement new technologies if they are not going to see actual results in how their students are learning. Likewise, principals face financial and other stressors which require them to provide evidence of student learning and that they are being wise stewards of institutional resources.

Proof might be slightly different for teachers and principals, however, due to their level of vision and operation. A teacher will want evidence that a technology works in her classroom through the creation of student artifacts or saved time, while a principal might want evidence that a technology works in all classes, preferring more generalizable research evidence over anecdotal evidence from one or two teachers. This means that teachers and principals might not always see eye-to-eye when it comes to identifying meaningful evidence for technology integration, because a classroom teacher will not care about what the research says if she is not seeing success in her classroom, and a principal might not care what an individual teacher says as long as the evidence from other teachers is strong.

Facility

Second, facility (as in facile or easy) deals with the ease at which a new technology can be learned, implemented, or managed at the teacher- or student-level. Teachers want to use tools that are easy to learn, and the greater the learning curve associated with a new technology the less likely a teacher will be willing to invest the time and energy necessary to learn it. Similarly, if the technology requires teachers to invest a large amount of time troubleshooting or providing tutorials to students, then they are much less likely to use it. Teachers value technologies that they can pick up, easily use, and put away. Technology support personnel value these technologies as well, because it means that they can provide less support to teachers in learning and troubleshooting them, but principals and other administrators may not believe that facility is very important in comparison to other values, because in their eyes the value of the technology for learning would outweigh the difficulties in terms of time or effort. Thus, a principal might require all teachers to learn a new technology, because she believes that it will drastically improve student learning, even though that technology is very difficult to use and requires high levels of support.

Compliance

Third, compliance deals with the legal and ethical requirements of technology use in contrast to their pragmatic use. Those who value compliance will ensure that new technologies meet security requirements or legal requirements regarding student security. Teachers and administrators rarely think about compliance when integrating new technologies, or if they do, they only do so as an afterthought. Rather, strategic technology support personnel deal most heavily with this issue and seek to ensure that technologies that are used in the classroom and across institutions will not pose legal risk to the institution. Thus, the teacher may have students use an online blogging platform without letting school or district personnel know, because those same personnel might tell her to stop, because the platform does not meet mandated security, accessibility, or privacy requirements. Similarly, filtering of web searches is typically managed at the school or district level to ensure compliance with state and federal regulations, while classroom teachers might complain about how strict filtering systems are or may have little say in determining what is allowed and what is banned. In short, compliance is an essential consideration for schools to ensure safe, legal, and ethical technology use, but it is typically only considered by those in specialized positions, such as technology administrators or those in a disabilities office.

Institutionalization

And fourth, institutionalization deals with infrastructural compatibility, cost, lifespan, and management scale of new technologies. When a teacher purchases a new device or set of devices for her classroom she may not think ahead about the long-term costs associated with those devices (e.g., the price of apps or software updates, breakage, replacement), whether or not the devices are compatible with the school's technology infrastructure (e.g., can they access the network?), or the work involved in keeping those devices up-to-date and working. Rather, technology support personnel often understand these issues very well, and this will guide them to prefer certain technologies over others. For instance, technology personnel might want to provide Chromebooks to students (which are easy to manage at scale) instead of iPads (which are not), even though teachers might want iPads. This can create a tension between technology personnel and teachers, where teachers want to use technologies that may be too difficult to support or technology personnel might want to use technologies that have limited classroom value.

Differing Beliefs and Values

Based on these four values, it is easy to see why technology integration in school settings can be so complicated. On the one hand, a principal might value proof by wanting to use technologies that are shown through research to improve student learning, while the teacher may want to use a technology that is easy to learn, and a technology support professional might want to use a technology that is compliant and that can easily be implemented at an institutional level. The problem is that a single technology rarely does all things well, and for that reason, certain groups will gravitate toward certain technologies while others will take a very different view.

Thus, though a classroom teacher might want to purchase iPads, a technology administrator might want to purchase Chromebooks, and a principal might want to purchase PC or Mac laptops. Each person in this scenario has certain values driving why they are picking one technology over another, and if the teacher does not understand the reason why a principal or tech support professional might have a differing view about what technologies to adopt, this can cause problems for integrating technology, because the teacher may not be able to get the technologies that she wants, she may not have the support necessary to manage and support them, or she might be required to use a technology that she does not want to use.

In all cases, the best approach to technology integration involves considering the beliefs and values of everyone involved in the institution and making selections and necessary compromises to best meet their needs. As a teacher, you must understand at least at a basic level the beliefs and values that principals and technology support personnel are working under so that you can understand their perspectives and help to inform technology decision-making with your own. So, you must consider the following:

What are the most important factors that will guide my own technology integration decision-making?

How do I communicate and collaborate with others who may have different values?

Learning Check

Which two values would probably be most important to a classroom teacher?

Proof

Facility

Compliance

Institutionalization

Which two values would probably be most important to a technology administrator?

Proof

Facility

Compliance

Institutionalization

Which two values would probably be most important to a principal?

Proof

Facility

Compliance

Institutionalization

Technology Integration Models

Once you have a basic grasp of your own approach to learning and the beliefs and values that will guide your technology integration, you are ready to begin exploring how to make this happen effectively. Technology integration models are theoretical models that are designed to help teachers, researchers, and others in the education field to think about technology integration in meaningful ways. There are many, many technology integration models that are used by different groups. Some models are very popular while some are only used by very small groups of people, and some are very similar to one another, while others are very unique. Rather than provide an exhausting description of each technology integration model, we will now proceed by providing a brief overview of a few that we believe to be most widely used or valuable to help you begin thinking about technology integration in your classroom. The models we will explore will include the following: TPACK, RAT, SAMR, and PICRAT.

TPACK

TPACK is the most commonly used technology integration model amongst educational researchers. The goal of TPACK is to provide educators with a framework that is useful for understanding technology's role in the educational process. At its heart, TPACK holds that educators deal with three types of core knowledge on a daily basis: technological knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and content knowledge. Content knowledge is knowledge of one's content area such as science, math, or social studies. Pedagogical knowledge is knowledge of how to teach. And technological knowledge is knowledge of how to use technology tools.

Reproduced by permission of the publisher, © 2012 by tpack.org

The TPACK model

These core knowledge domains, however, interact with and build on each other in important and complicated ways. For instance, if you are going to teach kindergarten mathematics, you must both understand mathematics (i.e. content knowledge) and how to teach (i.e. pedagogical knowledge), but you must also understand the relationship between pedagogy and the content area. That is you must understand how to teach mathematics, which is very different from teaching other subject areas, because the pedagogical strategies you use to teach mathematics will be specific to that content domain. When we merge content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge together, a hybrid domain emerges called pedagogical content knowledge. Pedagogical content knowledge includes knowledge about content and pedagogy, but it also includes the specific knowledge necessary to teach the specified content in a meaningful way.

TPACK goes on to explain that when we try to integrate technology into a classroom setting, we are not merely using technological knowledge, but rather, we are merging technological knowledge with pedagogical content knowledge to produce something new. TPACK or technological pedagogical content knowledge is the domain of knowledge wherein technology, pedagogy, and content meet to create a meaningful learning experience. From this, educators need to recognize that merely using technology in a classroom is not sufficient to produce truly meaningful technology integration. Rather, teachers must understand how technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge interact with one another to produce a learning experience that is meaningful for students in specific situations.

Learning Check

Knowing how to send an email would be an example of what kind of knowledge?

PK

CK

TK

TPK

Knowing how to teach biology would be an example of what kind of knowledge?

TPK

TCK

PCK

TPACK

Knowing how to use virtual reality headsets to teach about the Renaissance would be an example of what kind of knowledge?

TPK

TCK

PCK

TPACK

How useful does TPACK seem to you?

RAT and SAMR

RAT and SAMR are very similar technology integration models, though RAT has been used more often by researchers and SAMR has been used more often by teachers. Both of these models assume that the introduction of technology into a learning experience will have some effect on what is happening, and they try to help us understand what this effect is and how we should be using technology in meaningful ways.

RAT is an acronym for replace, amplify, and transform, and the model holds that when technology is used in a teaching setting, technology is either used to replace a traditional approach to teaching (without any discernible difference on student outcomes), to amplify the learning that was occurring, or to transform learning in ways that were not possible without the technology (Hughes, Thomas, & Scharber, 2006). Similarly, SAMR is an acronym for substitution, augmentation, modification, and redefinition (Puentedura, 2003). To compare it to RAT, substitution and replacement both deal with technology use that merely substitutes or replaces previous use with no functional improvement on efficiency. Redefinition and transformation both deal with technology use that empowers teachers and students to learn in new, previously impossible ways.

A comparison of the levels of SAMR and RAT

Comparing RAT and SAMR

The difference between these two models rests in the center letters, wherein RAT's amplification is separated into two stages as SAMR's augmentation and modification. All of these stages deal with technology use that functionally improves what is happening in the classroom, but in the SAMR model, augmentation represents a small improvement, and modification represents a large improvement.

Both of these models are helpful for leading educators to consider the question: what effect is using the technology having on my practice? If the technology is merely replacing or substituting previous practice, then it is a less meaningful use of technology. Whereas technology use that transforms or redefines classroom practice is considered to be more valuable.

PICRAT

The PICRAT Model

Building off of the ideas presented in the models above, we will now provide one final model that may serve as a helpful starting point for teachers to begin thinking about technology integration. PICRAT assumes that there are two foundational questions that a teacher must ask about any technology use in their classrooms. These include:

1. What is the students' relationship to the technology? (PIC: Passive, Interactive, Creative)

2. How is the teacher's use of technology influencing traditional practice? (RAT: Replace, Amplify, Transform; cf. Hughes, Thomas, & Scharber, 2006)

The provided illustration maps these two questions on a two-dimensional grid, and by answering these two questions, teachers can get a sense for where any particular practice falls.

Teachers should seek to move their practice toward the top-right of PICRAT

For instance, if a history teacher shifts from writing class notes on a chalkboard to providing these notes in a PowerPoint presentation, this would likely be categorized in the bottom-left (PR) section of the grid, because the teacher is using the technology to merely replace a traditional practice, and the students are passively taking notes on what they see. In contrast, if an English teacher guides students in developing a creative writing blog, which they use to elicit feedback from peers, parents, and the online community on their short stories, this would likely be categorized in the top-right (CT) section, because the teacher is using the technology to transform her practice to do something that would have been impossible without the technology, and the students are using the technology as a tool for creation.

Experience has shown that as teachers begin using technologies in their classrooms, they will typically begin doing so in a manner that falls closer to the bottom-left of the grid. However, many of the most exciting and valuable uses of technology for teaching rest firmly in the top-most and right-most sections of this grid. For this reason, teachers need to be encouraged to evolve their practice to continually move from the bottom-left (PR) to the top-right (CT) of the grid.

Application

With these foundational understandings, you are now ready to apply your knowledge to real-life scenarios. Here are a few brief descriptions of how teachers might use technology in a classroom setting. As you read each, consider whether these examples exhibit effective technology integration, what more information you might need to make an informed evaluation, and what factors you believe are most important for making this determination:

1. A teacher uses PowerPoint as part of her lecture.

2. Students are asked to keep an online journal in a blog.

3. Students pass a touch-enabled tablet around the room and write a collaborative poem.

4. Students play an online role-playing game about John Smith and Pocahontas.

5. Students write answers to math problems on an interactive whiteboard.

6. Students organize geometric shapes in patterns on an iPad.

7. A teacher creates a video to introduce herself to her students on the first day.

8. Students make an animated video to tell a story.

9. A teacher designs a WebQuest (inquiry-driven online lesson) for students to complete on their own time.

10. A teacher uses Facebook to remind her students about homework.

Learning Check

What does PCK stand for?

Passive Content Knowledge

Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Passive Creative Knowledge

Pedagogical Creative Knowledge

What does PIC in PICRAT stand for?

Pedagogical, Informational, Constructive

Primary, Interactional, Concomitant

Practical, Intuitive, Collaborative

Passive, Interactive, Creative

What does RAT stand for?

Replace, Amplify, Transform

Redefinition, Augmentation, Transition

Remedial, Acceptable, Transitive

Represent, Approximate, Triangulate

How useful does PICRAT seem to you?

Model Comparison

Which model do you think would be most useful to you in the classroom?

Conclusion

This chapter has provided a theoretical foundation for considering how we might determine the effectiveness of technology integration in educational settings. As you can probably tell, there are no easy, universal answers for determining whether a particular use of technology is meaningful or effective. Rather, our determination of effectiveness relies heavily upon our own understanding and acceptance of learning theories, our beliefs and values, and the technology integration models that guide our thinking. Thus, as you approach technology integration in your own teaching, you should use these foundational understandings to articulate the value of your decisions and to guide you in making choices that will be beneficial for your students.

References

Kimmons, R., Graham, C., & West, R. (2020). The PICRAT model for technology integration in teacher preparation. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 20(1).

Hughes, J., Thomas, R., & Scharber, C. (2006, March). Assessing technology integration: The RAT-replacement, amplification, and transformation-framework. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1616-1620). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Develop a foundational understanding of learning theories driving current technology development and adoption for K-12; Develop a foundational understanding of prominent technology integration models; Consider your own values guiding effective technology integration in the classroom. Technology Integration in education refers to the meaningful use of technology to achieve learning goals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Drexel University School of Education
Technology provides instant accessibility to information, which is why its presence in the classroom is so vital. Smart phones, computers, and tablets are already an omnipresent element of everyday life for students and teachers alike. It's only natural that the use of technological devices in the classroom are explored to create meaningful learning experiences for students of all ages.

Utilizing different types of technology in the classroom, including a virtual classroom, creates learners who are actively engaged with learning objectives. The implementation of technology also creates pathways for differentiated instruction to meet the unique needs of students as individual learners within a broader classroom climate.

What Does Technology Integration Mean in Education?

Integration of technology in education simply refers to the use of technology to enhance the student learning experience. Utilizing different types of technology in the classroom, including a virtual classroom, creates learners who are actively engaged with learning objectives. The implementation of technology also creates pathways for differentiated instruction to meet the unique needs of students as individual learners within a broader classroom climate.

How to Integrate Technology in the Classroom

There is a common misconception that the integration of technology in the classroom can be a financial burden for school districts, but students do not necessarily need their own tablets or laptops to succeed with technology. The use of technology during whole-class instruction can foster student engagement for auditory and visual learners. Integrating simple technologies Power Points, games, internet homework assignments, or online grading systems can be difference makers in students' growth in the classroom.

Power Points and Games

Powerpoint presentations can be used to introduce a classroom concept while providing the opportunity for engagement. Along with the use of graphics and bulleted information, links to videos that accompany the ideas presented in the Powerpoint can be embedded within the slides.

Educational apps in the classroom like Kahoot can be used to review information after a lesson or unit. Teachers can create and share Kahoots with one another while students can create anonymous user names to participate in the game. This allows for whole-class participation from students who may usually be reluctant to participate in class. Kahoot is accessible to play on phones or computers and teachers can determine if they want students to work independently or be assigned to teams.

Internet Homework Assignments

Posting homework assignments online (via learning platforms like Blackboard, Brightspace, and Moodle) is one way many teachers can begin to integrate technology in the classroom. Assignments are easily accessible, which can increase student engagement and help students become more organized.

Online grading Systems

Communication is a key element in education that helps teachers, administrators, parents, and students recognize a student's strengths and areas for improvement. Online grading systems such as PowerSchool open and facilitate lines of communication where teachers can post grades, analyze student attendance patterns, and manage transcript data.

Classroom Tablets

For classrooms that are fortunate enough to have tablets for students, technology can allow teachers to implement differentiation throughout instruction. Students can work at their own pace during assignments and teachers have the opportunity for one-on-one instruction.

Listserv

Software such as Listserv allows parents to manage and organize their emails. Parents can receive updates from teachers about important announcements, newsletters, and discussions that keep frequent lines of communication open.

Strategies of Implementation for Age Groups

The benefits of technology can enhance any contemporary classroom. However, the way technology is implemented and used in classrooms of various grade levels and content areas will differ.

Ways to Incorporate Technology in the Elementary Classroom

For younger students, technology can be used to build fundamental skills to prepare them for future independent learning. Students can use interactive games to reinforce math, spelling, phonetic, and reading skills. Sites like Spelling Training permit students or teachers to upload their own word lists to practice word pronunciation and create interactive games. Parents can also use these sites to exercise fundamental skills beyond the walls of the classroom.

Using Technology in the Middle School Classroom

As students begin to take steps to transform into independent thinkers, they can use technology to develop basic life skills. Students at the middle school level will gain independence by having different teachers for each subject. Using technology to acquire skills such as conducting research can be applied to any content area. Websites like Easy Bib guide students to find credible sources through a variety of search engines and teach students to correctly cite those sources to avoid plagiarism.

Technology in High School Classrooms

Once students reach their secondary education, they can discover ways to use technology that can be beneficial for college and career development. Familiarization with Microsoft Office and Google Drive teach students to make spreadsheets, slide show presentations, and share documents where they can receive fluid feedback on their work. Many careers use these elements of Microsoft and Google to organize information and collaborate between colleagues or clients.

Why is it Important to Integrate Technology in the Classroom

Teachers often find success when they present the opportunity to use technology in the classroom. There are various benefits and effects when technology is used for educational instruction and some may argue that not all of the effects are positive. Having an infinite flow of information and entertainment available at any given time could be seen as a distraction, but if technology is integrated into the classroom with routines in place that are monitored or assessed, the pros of using technology in the classroom outweigh the cons.

Keeping students engaged

Active engagement is a key part of any lesson plan. Whether students are working independently or collaboratively, technology engages students because it is interactive.

Helps students with different learning styles

Not all students learn and retain information in the same way or at the same speed. Technology is an opportunity for teachers to differentiate instruction to modify information for the appropriate learning capabilities of their students. The use of technology can also allow students to work at their own paces.

Prepare students with life skills

Technology has become its own form of literacy because of how often it is used in everyday life. Many careers use at least one aspect of Microsoft Office or Google Drive on a daily basis: balancing budgets on spreadsheets, creating decks or slide shows to be presented, or attaching documents to emails to communicate important information. Allowing students to learn and refine these skills prepares them for life beyond the classroom.

For additional information about programs or certifications associated with technology in the classroom, visit Drexel University's School of Education Instructional Technology Specialist Certification program.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Integrate Technology in the Classroom - School of Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Check out our list of tips for the best ways on how to use technology in the classroom. Learn the benefits & effects of technology with Drexel University.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ms. Hart's classroom hums with activity. Scattered about are two dozen students working in small groups on their latest project: making a shoebox glide through the air.

Three students are searching for design principles on the web. Another group interacts with a drawing on the smart board - they touch the white surface, rotate the object to view it from different angles, and give each other fist bumps to celebrate their discovery. Across the room, a couple of students wait for the printer to stop its run. Their reproduced "airplane skins" are almost ready to be applied to their aircraft.

At the end of the project, the groups will video their shoebox flights. Then they'll upload these digital records to the class webpage, along with a written analysis of their findings.

Ms. Hart's students incorporated mathematics and scientific principles to design, construct, and test their creations. As they worked, they researched, evaluated, applied, and justified their decisions. The project would not have been so successful if it weren't for the appropriate integration of technology in the classroom.

According to the International Society for Technology in Education ( ISTE), classes like the one described above allow instructors to "rethink education and create innovative learning environments."

What does technology integration really mean?

Technology integration is the well-coordinated use of digital devices and cloud computing as tools for problem-solving, deeper learning, and understanding.

Technology facilitates access to curriculum but is not the curriculum itself. Teachers guide their students in using technology as a tool for accessing and understanding educational content.

The success behind technology integration in education

There are two keys to successfully integrating technology in the classroom. The first lies in understanding the role of technology in the classroom. Keeping students - not the technology - at the center of instruction is the second.

Authentic and meaningful technology integration is a relationship between the teacher, the student, and the curriculum. Technology is the vehicle that makes it happen.

In Ms. Hart's classroom, students used technology as an appropriate medium for completing their assignment. Their focus remained on the learning objectives and project goals - the tech was just a tool. Learning how to use the available technology also supplemented their learning experience and helped them work more efficiently.

Digital automation and machinery alone will never make school a better place. Technology integration in education doesn't shift the focus from instruction. Instead, it enhances an existing educational program by serving as a learning device.

Photo credit: Google

Benefits of technology integration

First, technology meets students where they are in the learning continuum by assessing their strength and weaknesses. Then, the programs identify appropriate learning objectives and establish learning pathways for each student.

Second, instructional software allows students to access their classwork anytime. Students may extend their learning by working on programs outside of class: before school, during lunch time, or from home if they have access to the apps from their own devices.

Third, learners find technology responsive and engaging. In the classroom, students with access to technology have useful tools that assist with active learning and problem-solving. Integrated technology encourages engagement and exploration in a way that traditional textbooks can never fill. Classroom lessons are less about the technology itself and more about deep learning. Students use technology to achieve the task at hand: understanding content.

Additionally, software and digital voice assistants provide alternative, reliable sources of information or fact-checking. These programs patiently repeat directions and lessons, customizing instruction through differentiation.

Finally, as learners engage with software and other technology, certain algorithms can collect data about student achievement for teachers to analyze. This data allows them to better plan future lessons and attend to their students' needs.

Integrated technology that improves learning

Computers and internet access have become staples of many modern classrooms, and we often take them for granted.

The diverse technology available in today's classrooms has transcended the personal computer, taking alternative forms such as:

Artificial reality/virtual reality

Digital smart boards

Intelligent gamification

Digital voice assistants/teaching robots

Interactive displays

But these tools alone are not enough for technology integration in education. How will the learners use the technology to create something new, like a blog, a video, or yes, even a shoebox that flies?

School administrators are trained to observe how students interact with technology in the classroom. Many principals watch classroom activities closely to ensure that every student in class is using the provided devices and instructional software. They pour over reports indicating how much time a given student has spent using software or devices like Kindles.

Simply logging screen time doesn't tell you whether students are benefiting from technology. Instead, school leaders should assess the various ways in which students interact with the available digital tools. It's critical to note how skillfully the learners use technology and for what reasons.

Expertise comes from understanding how and when to use digital tools. Edtech apps and solutions for classrooms continue to develop new products every year. The adoption of new edtech depends on one factor: teacher proficiency.

Photo credit : Google

Classroom technology integration begins with teachers

Teachers are the determining factor in successful technology integration. For technology integration to be so seamless that its inclusion is almost automatic, teachers must be competent in its use.

This kind of proficiency is the result of ongoing professional development. Teachers need specific technology skills, including:

Hardware maintenance

Acquiring basic troubleshooting skills.

Caring for equipment properly.

Developing an awareness of computer security and copyright laws.

Working with software

Downloading and installing computer software.

Creating and using documents, spreadsheets, and presentation slide decks.

Managing emails and other electronic messages.

Developing an understanding of social media platforms and how/when to use them.

Learning web navigation and search engine best practices.

Designing and maintaining websites.

Incorporating educational software that supplements classroom instruction.

Collecting and analyzing student achievement data.

Using video conferencing tools.

Perhaps most importantly, teachers need a willingness to use new technologies in the classroom as a part of the instructional process.

Technology integration is a dynamic process

Technology integration in education is more than the sum of hours spent on computer programs. It's a dynamic process coordinated by skilled teachers and supported by school leaders.

Not all students intuitively know how to use technology for educational purposes, but they are eager learners who depend on their teachers to make that technology available to them. In turn, school administrators must assist teachers in understanding technology's role in the classroom and learning how to integrate it. The effort requires not only professional development for teachers but also sufficient time for them to practice using technology in class.

Finally, it's important to keep in mind that the intent behind integrating technology is to supplement existing resources and instructional content. Students are, and always will be, the central focus of education, so technology needs to be effectively and appropriately employed for their learning to thrive.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What does "technology integration" mean? - Classcraft Blog

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Take a look at how integrating learning technology in the classroom actually works and see the positive impacts is has on teachers and students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(10% discount on all IGI Global published Book, Chapter, and Article Products cannot be combined with most offers. Discount is valid on purchases made directly through IGI Global Online Bookstore ( 10% Discount on All IGI Global published Book, Chapter, and Article Products through the Online Bookstore www.igi-global.com)
and may not be utilized by booksellers and distributors. Offer does not apply to e-Collections and exclusions of select titles may apply. Offer expires December 31, 2022.) Browse Titles

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
(10% discount on all IGI Global published Book, Chapter, and Article Products cannot be combined with most offers. Discount is valid on purchases made directly through IGI Global Online Bookstore ( 10% Discount on All IGI Global published Book, Chapter, and Article Products through the Online Bookstore www.igi-global.com)and may not be utilized by booksellers and distributors.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Is Successful Technology Integration?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Well-integrated use of technology resources by thoroughly trained teachers makes twenty-first-century learning possible. From our Technology Integration Professional Development Guide.