TIM Technology Integration Matrix (Part II)

Characteristics of the Learning Environment

Venn Diagram of TPAK

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

Last year, I discussed what TPaCK is and how it should affect our teaching. I delineated the acronym stands for Technology, Pedagogy and Content Knowledge in my previous post. You can read the TPaCK blog post here. Earlier this year I wrote about the Technology Integration Matrix (TIM) Part I and you can read that blog post here. As mentioned in my previous post, while examining SAMR, I discovered the Technology Integration Matrix or TIM! I like the simplicity of the SAMR acronym, but it is not as detailed as the Technology Integration Matrix. This two-part blog post will explain the Technology Integration Matrix. It is a five-by-five matrix, the columns comprising levels of technology integration and the rows comprising the characteristics of the learning environment. Since, we have already examined the Characteristics of the Learning Environment let’s explore the Five Levels of Technology Integration.

For those of you unfamiliar with it, Technology Integration Matrix (TIM) was developed by the Florida Center for Instructional Technology (FCIT) at the University of Central Florida. It was established in 1982, working for over 30 years with educators in integrating technology into curriculum. The Florida Center for Instructional Technology developed the matrix as a guide for the convoluted task of evaluating technology integration within classrooms. The matrix affords common language for comprehensive pedagogical technology integration by all actors within the learning environment as well as their ancillaries. This theoretical framework is based on the constructivist theory of learning being an active, constructive and thereby continually evolving process, as well as an educator’s best practices.

Diagram of levels of technology integration.

As mentioned earlier it is a five-by-five matrix delineating the Levels of Technology Integration and the Characteristics of the Learning Environment. In this blog post I am going to focus on the Five Levels of Technology Integration. Each column of the TIM constitutes a level of technology integration. Every level of integration then ascends through increasing levels of technology integration. These five Levels of Technology Integration are: Entry, Adoption, Adaption, Infusion and Transformation. Let’s investigate each level in isolation.

Entry Level of Technology Integration begins when teachers use technology tools to deliver curriculum content to students (Florida Center for Instructional Technology, n.d.). Each level of Tech Integration then elevates through the five Characteristics of the Learning Environment: Active Learning, Collaborative Learning, Constructive Learning, Authentic Learning and Goal-Directed Learning. In Entry Active Learning the setting is arranged for some direct instruction and individual seat work also known as “drill and practice activities.” Students may receive curriculum from the teacher and/or other sources. Therefore, students access to technology may or may not be limited, but more than likely is highly regulated.  Entry collaborative learning, is still arranged for direct instruction with individual seat work. However, students work alone utilizing technology, but may collaborate with peers without technology. During entry constructive learning, students receive information from teacher through technological means. Likewise, all students have access to the educator’s presentation. Moving on to entry authentic learning, resources available through technology are within the instructional setting such as textbooks and other supplemental materials. In other words, technology use is completely unrelated outside the instructional setting, Finally, entry goal-directed learning, occurs when directions, guidance and feedback all thru technology. This includes skill-building applications and the educators to track students progress across all levels.

Adoption Level of Tech Integration occurs when educators are directing students in the conventional as well as the procedural use of tech tools (Florida Center for Instructional Technology, n.d.). At the adoption level the teacher makes decisions about what technology to utilize as well as when and how to use it. Individual student exposure to technology may be limited; however, some tasks may require procedural knowledge of the technology tool. The active adoption learning stage, is designed for direct instruction and individual seat work with students having limited, but regular access to technological resources. Collaborative Adoption demonstrates using technology tools in conventional ways albeit collaboratively. This may be within the classroom, school, district or other location. Likewise, the constructive adoption displays a guided conventional use of technology for building knowledge by students. Moving on to Authentic Adoption, occurs when students are engaged in guided activities with meaningful content. And finally, Goal-Directed Adoption in which students are using technology in a conventional and procedural manner to plan and/or monitor. While students are still using technology in conventional ways, local control is still with the educator.

The Adaptation Level is the next stage of technology integration (Florida Center for Instructional Technology, n.d.). This is when the fun begins! Teacher facilitate students into exploring and independently using technology tools. Learning now becomes more student-centered instead of teacher-centered. One of my favorite sayings is, “guide on the side, not sage on the stage.” technology tools are now an integral of the lesson. While most technology decisions are left up to the instructor, students are guided in their independent use of technology. Students have a more familiarity with technology and a greater conceptual understanding of its uses. Therefore, students can work with less procedural instruction and explore different uses of technology tools.

The Adaptation Level consists of active adaptation, the conventional yet independent use of technology with some student exploration and choice (Florida Center for Instructional Technology, n.d.). Tools are now being utilized collaboratively with a little student choice and exploration in collaborative adaptation. In constructive adaptation students are building knowledge independently, while in authentic adaptation activities are connected to students lives. Finally, in goal-directed adaptation students are using tools purposefully to plan and monitor progress. Interestingly, in all five characteristics of the learning environment for the adaptation level, there is some student choice and exploration.

In the Infusion Level of technology integration the educator provides the learning context and  the students choose the technology tools to achieve the desired outcome (Florida Center for Instructional Technology, n.d.). What makes the infusion adaptation level so different is a wide array of technology tools are integrated seamlessly and flexibly into teaching and learning. Technology is in sufficient quantities to benefit all students in making informed decisions about when and how to utilize different technology tools. It is important to note that the instructional focus is NOT on the technology tool, but rather student learning.

First, in the active infusion level of integration, students have a choice of tools with regular, consistent self-directed use (Florida Center for Instructional Technology, n.d.). Within the collaborative, constructive and authentic stages, students have their choice of tools for regular use in collaboration, building of knowledge and participation in meaningful activities. Last but not least, is the flexible and seamless use of tools in planning and monitoring progress in achieving the expected outcomes. Once again, it is important to note, students have regular, self-directed use of technology tools of their choosing.

Transformation is the last level of technology integration. This is where the real change takes place. In transformation the teacher encourages new and innovative uses for technology tools (Florida Center for Instructional Technology, n.d.). In transformation tech tools are utilized in a manner facilitating higher-order activities that more than likely would not have been possible without technology. Students now employ tools to acquire a specific learning outcome. This is achieved after receiving a conceptual understanding of the tools, paired with extensive practical knowledge about how their are used. Therefore, students apply their understanding and knowledge as well as extending their use of technology tools. Encouragement to use technology in unconventional ways by educators serving as guides and mentors is prevalent.

In the active transformation stage, students demonstrate extensive and unconventional use of tech tools (Florida Center for Instructional Technology, 2018). As with the infusion stage, in the collaborative, constructive and authentic levels of integration, students are collaborating, building knowledge and finding innovative uses for higher order learning not possible without the use of technology. Lastly, in goal-directed transformation, extensive and higher order use of technology to plan and monitor their progress towards achieving specific goals.

Each one of the five Levels of Technology Integration progresses through each Characteristic of the Learning Environment. As mentioned briefly earlier these are the Active, Collaborative, Constructive, Authentic and Goal-Directed Learning Environments. In Part I, I delineated each of the Characteristics and how they related to each of the Levels of Technology Integration. Below I have included a diagram of Technology Integration Matrix for your viewing. Last year I reviewed TPaCK and what it was, as well as SAMR. As you can now see TPaCK is a concept between Technology, Content and Pedagogy. SAMR is brief explanation of technology and how to go about integrating it. The Technology Integration Matrix (TIM) provides a comprehensive and detailed perspective between the Levels of Technology Integration and the Characteristics of the Learning Environment. Hopefully, the information I have provided on TIM will assist you when integrating technology into your classroom.

All images and content used with the permission of the Florida Center for Instructional Technology at the University of South Florida.

References

Florida Center for Instructional Technology. (n.d.). The Technology Integration Matrix. Retrieved from http://mytechmatrix.org/matrix

Technology Integration Matrix (Part I)

TIM

Characteristics of the Learning Environment

Previously, I discussed what TPaCK is and how it should affect our teaching. I delineated the acronym stands for Technology, Pedagogy and Content Knowledge in my previous post. You can read my blog post here. Twenty or thirty years ago, long before the explosion of technology in education, teachers worked at perfecting their craft or pedagogy along with their mastery of subject area content knowledge. TPaCK gives educators an overview of technology integration in relation to content and pedagogical knowledge. What it does NOT do is delineate how educators are to achieve TPaCK or what it should ‘look like.’ In writing about TPaCK, I frequently found another acronym that intrigued me…SAMR, or Substitution, Augmentation, Modification and Redefinition.

While examining SAMR, I discovered the Technology Integration Matrix or TIM! I like the simplicity of the SAMR acronym, but it is not as detailed as the Technology Integration Matrix. This two-part blog post will explain the Technology Integration Matrix. It is a five-by-five matrix, the columns comprising levels of technology integration and the rows comprising the characteristics of the learning environment. Since, we can all relate to the learning environment, and it is probably the easiest, I will examine the Characteristics of the Learning Environment first. However, let me provide a little background.

Diagram of levels of technology integration.The Technology Integration Matrix (TIM) was developed by the Florida Center for Instructional Technology (FCIT) at the University of Central Florida. It was established in 1982, working for over 30 years with educators in integrating technology into curriculum. The Florida Center for Instructional Technology developed the matrix as a guide for the convoluted task of evaluating technology integration within classrooms. The matrix affords common language for comprehensive pedagogical technology integration by all actors within the learning environment as well as their ancillaries. This theoretical framework is based on the constructivist theory of learning being an active, constructive and thereby continually evolving process, as well as an educator’s best practices. The matrix was originally established between 2003-2006, with a second version completed in 2010-2011. In this most current version the descriptions of the matrix were revised and even expanded with video references in Language, Science, Math and Social Sciences. Even background, what is the Technology Integration Matrix (TIM)?

As mentioned earlier it is a five-by-five matrix delineating the Levels of Technology Integration and the Characteristics of the Learning Environment. In this blog post I am going to focus on the Characteristics of the Learning Environment. Each row of the TIM constitutes a characteristic of the learning environment. Every level of the learning environment then ascends through increasing levels of technology integration. These five Characteristics of the Learning Environment are: Active Learning, Collaborative Learning, Constructive Learning, Authentic Learning and Goal-directed Learning. Let’s investigate each level in isolationcharacteristics_intro_title

Active Learning occurs when students are actively engaged in using technology as a tool rather than passively receiving information from the technology (Florida Center for Instructional Technology, 2018). This characteristic then climbs through five different levels of integration: Entry, Adoption, Adaptation, Infusion and Transformation. In Active Entry students are passively receiving information, similar to watching a video. Next is the Active Adoption Level in which students are using tools but in a conventional and procedural manner, much like writing an essay on Google Docs or Microsoft Word. This is followed by the Active Adaptation Level whereby students still have a conventional use of tool, but now there is some choice and exploration by students. This is similar to making a presentation, regardless of the modality. Near the top is the Active Infusion Level where students conduct regular, self-directed use and choice of tools. Finally, the Active Transformation Level, occurs when students use technology tools extensively in an unconventional way. This might be similar to students doing a green screen video as an on-site news reporter.

Collaborative Learning occurs when students use technology tools to collaborate with others rather than working individually at all times (Florida Center for Instructional Technology, 2018). At the Entry level, Collaborative Entry, students use tools individually. No collaboration among classmates occurs. During Collaborative Adoption, students are using technology tools in a conventional way, but collaboratively, such as a classmate editing a document. Collaborative Adaptation occurs when there is student choice and exploration collaboratively. An example might be, students deciding which application to utilize and then working together to complete it. Collaborative Infusion is regular use and choice of tools when collaborating. Finally, Collaborative Transformation is working together with peers as well as outside resources in a manner not possible without technology. For example, participating in a book study with another class within their district OR someplace else in the United States.

Constructive Learning commences when students use technology in connecting new information with their own information rather than just passively receiving the information. During Constructive Entry information is just delivered to students, and nothing more. Constructive Adoption is when technology use is guided for conventional knowledge building. This would similar to watching a video. Constructive Adaptation is similar to Constructive Adoption, but now technology use by students is independent and there is a little student choice and exploration. Constructive Infusion is where the change really occurs. During Infusion students are regularly using technology of their choice to maintain, acquire and build  knowledge. Finally in Constructive Transformation is where the change really occurs. Here students build knowledge extensively through an unconventional use of technology.

The easiest way to explain Authentic Learning is relevance. This is when students use technology tools to interact with learning activities in the world outside the classroom instructional setting. A prime example of this would be Problem Based Learning or PBL. Authentic Entry level learning is unrelated to the world outside the classroom door. It is important to note students may find this boring. Change begins to take place in the Adoption Level where there is guided use of technology tool and activities with some relevance to the outside world. Authentic Adaptation displays students choice and exploration using technology independently in some way connected to their lives. This might be observed whens students write to the mayor about the homeless problem. Authentic Infusion Learning is when students now take adaptation to a new lever, using technology on a regular basis in a meaningful activity. Last, but not least, Authentic Transformational Learning in which students use technology in a local or global context innovatively for higher order thinking and learning.

Finally, is Goal-Directed Learning where students use their technology tools to set goals, plan activities, monitor their progress and then evaluate the results NOT complete assignments with no type of reflection. Goal-Directed at the Entry Level directions are given and the instructor performs step-by-step task monitoring. Goal-Directed Adoption is the normal policy and procedural use of tools to plan and monitor goals. This might be similar to using Google calendar for setting due dates and see what is coming up. Goal-Directed Adaptation, occurs when students have some choice and exploration and use tools in a purposeful way to meet their goals. This may be like using Google hangouts to converse with team members. A flexible and integrated use of technology tools to plan and monitor progress towards goals is visible in Goal-Directed Infusion Learning. Lastly, students using technology extensively to plan as well as monitor progress is within Goal-Directed Transformational Level.

Each one of the five Characteristics of a Learning Environment progresses through each Level of Technology Integration. As mentioned briefly earlier these are the Entry, Adoption, Adaptation, Infusion and Transformation Levels. In Part II, I will delineate each of the Levels and how they relate to each of the Characteristics. Below I have included a diagram of Technology Integration Matrix for your viewing. Earlier I had review TPaCK and what it was as well as SAMR. As you can now see TPaCK is a concept between Technology, Content and Pedagogy. SAMR is brief explanation of technology and how to go about integrating it. The Technology Integration Matrix (TIM) is a comprehensive and detailed matrix of technology integration and the learning environments. We will dig deeper into the matrix next time.

All images and content used with the permission of the Florida Center for Instructional Technology at the University of South Florida.

Technology in Our Teaching

TPACK-new-1024x1024

By Timothy Costello

What is TPACK and how does it play a role?

I will be the first to admit when I started teaching; I resorted to my “comfort zone” of what I knew. This was notes on the whiteboard, work sheets and/or assigned homework out of a student consumable…LOTS of consumables. Was this efficient? Yes it was, the same thing had been done for decades. However, I began to ask myself if it was effective? My answer was no…it was busy work, time consuming and labor intensive (for students and teacher). And oh the response and looks on students faces when handing out more worksheets. So, entering from stage right, technology. The question then became how do I integrate technology into my teaching more than just a document camera or a projector? I discovered TPACK.

Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge, or TPACK, focuses on the complex and multi-dimensional aspects of teacher knowledge while simultaneously determining the information required by instructors for technology integration within their teaching. The core of TPACK’s foundation is the interconnection of the three primary forms of knowledge: Content Knowledge (CK), Pedagogical Knowledge (PK) and Technological Knowledge (TK). However, each of these primary forms does not exist in isolation; they overlap each other much like a Venn diagram (see above).

Effective technology integration within our teaching regarding pedagogy and specific subject matter necessitates developing relationships between each component. There are many factors such as grade-level, culture (schools and student body) and instructional staff affecting technology integration. Therefore, no combination of technology, content or pedagogy will pertain to every teacher or school. Let’s examine the relationships between the core principles of TPACK.

For the sake of time and space, I will not define technology, pedagogy or content knowledge, we all know what they are. However, it is the interplay between each of them we will examine:

Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK): transpires when the subject matter is transformed for teaching. This occurs when the instructor interprets the material and then finds multiple ways to represents it. This incorporates everything including curriculum, instruction, learning and assessment and pedagogy. Hence, the reason it is classified as PCK (Shulman, 1986).

Technological Content Knowledge (TCK): teachers need to understand how technology and content hinder and influence one another. Teachers can no longer master just the subject matter they teach, but how it can be changed by utilizing certain technologies. Instructors should understand what technologies are best suited for their subject domain and how the relationship may change both the technology and the subject matter (Koehler and Mishra, 2009).

Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK): this is exemplified when technology is used in particular ways in altering teaching and learning. This includes knowing the limits of tech tools as related to pedagogical designs and strategies (Koehler and Mishra, 2009).

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): TPACK is different from the knowledge of all three disciplines individually. It is effective teaching with technology, demanding an understanding of concepts using technology, pedagogical strategies exploiting technology in ways to teach the content as well as pedagogical strategies when activating student’s prior knowledge in learning content.

In conclusion, when I discovered TPACK I had to ask myself where I fell in the diagram. Last year, as a brand-new intern teacher, I was confident in my content knowledge. However, I had very little confidence in my pedagogy and I was fairly confident with technology. This year, as a part of EdTech Cadre I have discovered more tech tools and their effectiveness with different pedagogical strategies, while I am still working on my pedagogy. My question to all of you is: Where are you on the TPACK Venn Diagram?