Technology Integration Models

[Extracts from Kimmons & Hall, 2016]

Technology integration models are frameworks that one can use to guide thinking around the use of emerging technologies in education and as such provide a way to examine the myriad ways stakeholders make decisions pertaining to technology use, adoption, and integration. …. As theoretical constructs, technology integration models empower researchers and practitioners to ask certain questions and to understand technology integration in key ways. Much like the lens of a telescope, these models have great practical value for improving perceptions and guiding inquiry, and it is for this reason that various technology integration models have been posited in recent years as means for understanding technology integration phenomena. Some prominent examples include the Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) model, Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) model, Replacement Amplification Transformation (RAT) model, Technology Integration Matrix (TIM), Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), and Technology Integration Planning (TIP) model. 

Below are the descriptors for what I am judging the Models on.

Compatibility

The notion of compatibility is derived from Rogers’ (2003) work on the diffusion of innovations and refers to the alignment between a technology integration model’s design and existing educational and pedagogical practices. Some models are created with practitioners in mind and seek to be easily applied, while others threaten to disrupt or alter practice or have no clear bearing on the day-to-day work of educators. This means that models exhibiting high compatibility will likely be welcomed by practitioners for their directedness and ease of implementation, while models with low compatibility would be rejected due to burden of implementation and lack of connection to existing goals and practices Kimmons & Hall, p.54).

Scope

The concept of scope emerges from the works of Kuhn (2013) and Papert (1987) and deals with the depth of questioning inherent in a model and the intended purposes for integration. Some models are developed to interrogate fundamental problems of teaching, learning, and educational practice, dealing with the “why” of integration and a global scope, while others take a more technocratic approach, dealing with the “how” of integration and a local scope. Models that exhibit a more global scope may seek to catalyze social reform through effective integration, while those that exhibit a more local scope may focus on improving a single lesson plan (Kimmons & Hall, 2016, p.56).

Fruitfulness

The concept of fruitfulness is derived from Kuhn (2013), who explains that a good theoretical model should “be fruitful of new research findings . . . [and] disclose new phenomena or previously unnoted relationships among those already known” (p. 75). In this sense, a fruitful technology integration model would be adopted by a diversity of users for diverse purposes and yield valuable results crossing disciplines and traditional silos of practice. In contrast, an unfruitful model would be generally ignored or only be adopted in a manner that promotes siloing and dissuades interdisciplinary practice (Kimmons & Hall, 2016, p.58).

Role of technology

Technology plays different roles in different models. As alluded to in the discussion of scope above, technology can be seen as a means to an end or as an end itself. Some models view technology as a means for achieving socially valuable ends or for improving learning, while other models may treat technology integration itself as the goal. Because technology integration occurs within social contexts wherein attempts at integration may be mandated or expected, some may feel compelled to integrate technology without having a firm understanding of how such integration will meaningfully influence the learning environment. This may compel such adopters to view technology integration as the goal, thereby adopting models that treat technology as an end (Kimmons & Hall, p.59).

Student outcomes

In our current culture of high-stakes testing and mandatory improvement, discernible student outcomes are of great interest (chapter 10), and much of the rhetoric surrounding technology integration focuses on improving student achievement. Yet not every technology integration model includes the incorporation of student outcomes or the expectation that integration will produce discernible impact. Similarly, though some models may allude to student outcomes, they may not give these outcomes a primary role in the technology integration process. On the other hand, some models incorporate student outcomes into their core formulations and encourage adopters to consider these outcomes prior to commencing technology integration.(Kimmons & Hall, 2016, pp.60-61).

Clarity

Finally, technology integration models vary in their clarity, in terms of both their formulation and their ongoing refinement. Clear models are simple and easy to understand conceptually and in practice, while unclear models are confusing and may be misinterpreted. Reasons for variations in clarity may vary, but some models are clearer because they are simply stated and have limited scope. Others are unclear, because much has been written to refine and extend them. In general, clear models benefit from being easier to explain and utilize, while fuzzier or more confusing models are difficult to explain, or introduce uncertainty(Kimmons & Hall, 2016, pp. 61-62)

Criterion	UDL	CONN	SAMR	TAM	TIM	TPACK
1.What does the model claim to describe, explain and / or enable?	Designs curricular materials and activities with the flexibility to meet individual learners' strengths and needs.	Emphasises the role of social and cultural context in how and where learning occurs.	Helps teachers to infuse technology into teaching and learning.	It predicts user acceptance and usage behaviour.	Provides a framework for describing and targeting the use of technology to enhance learning.	Leaves room for researchers and practitioners to adapt its framework to different circumstances.
2.Compatibility	Yes with students and teachers	Not necessarily with everyone.	Yes with all concerned in education	No	Yes with students and teachers	Yes with all concerned in education
3.Scope	Local scope	Global scope	Global scope	Local	Initially local scope. As students develop knowledge it becomes a global scope.	Global scope depending on teachers confidence in TPACK
4.Fruitfulness	Fruitful	Fruitful	Fruitful	Unfruitful for students	Fruitful	Fruitful
5.Role of technology	Integrated into the learning	Integrated into the learning	Edtech integration but not as an end	N/A	Goal to use and integrate technology	Edtech integration but not as an end
6.Student outcomes	Drives engagement in students	Depends on the management and leadership	Students academic and digital achievement	Teacher based	Student based digital achievement.	Teacher based
7.Clarity	Unclear	Unclear	Clear	Unclear	Clear	Clear
8.Which model, or combination of models will you use in your Practice-based Change			Preferred http://elearning.tki.org.nz/Professional-learning/Teacher-inquiry/SAMR-model http://www.schrockguide.net/samr.html		Preferred https://fcit.usf.edu/matrix/matrix/

Examples of Preferred Models:

TIM: https://fcit.usf.edu/matrix/matrix/#

Reference:

Kimmons, R. & Hall, C. (2016). Emerging Technology Integration models. In G. Veletsianos (Ed.), Emergence and Innovation in Digital Education (pp. 51-64). Edmonton: AU Press. Retrieved from: