1. TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION STRATEGY STATEMENT (950 WORDS)
1.1. SAMR
1.1.1. SAMR is a good “jumping off” point if a teacher is looking to quickly assess a technology’s usefulness, and may perhaps be the best option for most teachers. It can stand alone as it is a student-centered model (Hilton 2016, p. 72), and as such teachers would not be doing students a disservice by adhering solely to this model.
1.2. CONTEXT
1.2.1. SAMR without a contextual lens, however, is not particularly useful as SAMR is a “face value” framework that is solely focused on the technology, not those using it or the environment it’s being used in. Context is extremely important to consider first, as it can determine the level of technology that a teacher can implement. Of course we would love for every technology to modify or redefine learning, but what if the environment prevents that? This doesn’t mean that technology shouldn’t be used, especially if it would be an ideal delivery system, but it may mean that a teacher will need to look at technologies that could be suitable on a substitution or augmentation level. SAMR then becomes useful, as it can help a teacher in this kind of scenario decide whether or not the learning solution should or even can be delivered using technology, or if the learning solution should be changed to reflect the context of where learning is taking place.
1.3. SAMR VS TPACK
1.3.1. Once a contextual analysis has been conducted, including the use of SAMR through a contextual lens, teachers versed in instructional design will find that TPACK serves to enhance SAMR’s line of questioning through a more robust paradigm of intersecting, overlapping, and related contexts.
1.3.1.1. This does not mean that SAMR is a lesser version of TPACK, as they are very different constructs used for very different purposes. SAMR can be used to determine a technology’s inherent usefulness in a general sense, which shouldn’t be overlooked.
1.4. TPACK
1.4.1. TPACK involves a more deliberate assessment of the connections between technology, content, and pedagogy, whereas SAMR is more focused on the technology itself. In other words, SAMR does not inherently pay attention to context as a stand-alone model and cannot accurately predict educational outcomes, but it still can assess technologies in a general sense which has its uses in curriculum (Hamilton et al. 2016, p. 436).
1.4.1.1. Using TPACK as a framework will ensure that the teacher can consider the deeper impacts of how integrating technology will serve pedagogical purposes and deliver meaningful learning via content knowledge, after which they could use SAMR to evaluate different technology solutions’ inherent usefulness. Even though SAMR is more student-centered, ultimately it is more important for a teacher to be considering the contexts and ways that technology may or may not serve to deliver effective and impactful learning before selecting a specific technology, if any.
1.4.1.1.1. In that vein, it is important to note that TPACK is not an integration model by itself, but rather a means to measure how teachers are engaging in sound instructional design practices that include technology (Green 2014, p. 41). If you remove the “T” from TPACK, what you are looking at are sound instructional design principles without technology that have nothing to do with technology. Sometimes the best answer to an instructional design problem is not integrating advanced technology at all! TPACK is simply a framework by which teachers create meaningful learning experiences that may not end in technology integration at all, or at least not in the sense of what SAMR is suggesting we do.
1.5. TPACK & CONTEXT
1.5.1. Context cannot be ignored here either, as even with the best use of the TPACK framework, if the allowances and limitations placed on the learning environment are not accounted for then the learning solution may be doomed to failure. Teachers must, after considering all aspects of TPACK, consider which technology solution to use. This is the “integration” part of the equation; up until now, the teacher has been engaging in the deep level work involved in determining how to deliver content in a purposeful and meaningful way.
1.5.1.1. Through TPACK, the teacher should have determined that a technology solution would be a preferred mode of delivering meaningful content. To what extent technology can be used will be determined by the context of the learners, the school, the teacher’s comfort and experience, and the availability of technology in and out of the classroom. Most of this should already be known through the initial contextual analysis, but again until now the teacher should not be married to any particular technology. Such single-track thinking can limit the potential of the learning solution. For example a teacher might determine that virtual simulation would be the best way to facilitate learning, but the teacher should not be married to a specific simulation. The teacher should have first determined, via TPACK, what they want the virtual simulation to be able to do, and then determine if that solution (or one that is close) exists after utilizing TPACK to guide the development of the learning solution.
1.6. CONCLUSION
1.6.1. In this way, the teacher starts and finishes with context. There is no more important aspect of any instructional design than this, as context ultimately determines how we teach. To be a student-centered teacher means that different contexts will require different solutions, and simply selecting a technology without considering context is a disservice to students. Sandwiched in between this is TPACK, which is not how we select technology but how we want to deliver meaningful learning experiences, technology or not.
1.6.1.1. Technology is a vehicle for learning, but not the only one, and it’s important for teachers to remember that at the end of the day we have many vehicles in our teaching garage. Engaging with the TPACK framework within the boundaries of context helps teachers to pick which vehicle to drive.
2. SAMR
2.1. Purpose
2.1.1. Surface-level framework for technology integration.
2.1.2. Kirkland (2014) explains, “designing a rich learning task is a challenge for any teacher, and trying to synthesize the dynamic world of technology into the mix adds an extra element of risk and uncertainty.”
2.2. Application
2.2.1. “Substitution” and “Augmentation” could initially be seen as surface-level change, and alone they are. If viewed on a continuum towards “Modification” and “Redefinition,” however, we see that they are crucial questions that lead towards questioning related to pedagogy and content (PCK), technology and pedagogy (TPK), and technology and content (TCK).
2.2.2. SAMR is limited as a framework as although it is not meant to be hierarchical, it is often visualized that way which leads teachers to look for ways to use technology to redefine learning when in fact the technology they are considering was never meant to do that (Hilton 2016, p. 71).
3. TPACK
3.1. Purpose
3.1.1. Integrated, deep contextual framework for technology integration.
3.1.2. "TPACK…envision[s] effective teaching with technology as existing in the space in which pedagogy, content, and technology overlap in the classroom" (Archambault and Barnett 2010; Koehler and Mishra 2009; Mishra and Koehler 2006).
3.2. Application
3.2.1. TPACK is primarily in conjunction with newer technologies versus older ones. As a technology becomes ubiquitous to the point of its use being common knowledge, "knowledge of [using the technology] would not draw on TPACK but instead result from pedagogical content knowledge (PCK)" (Cox and Graham 2009; Hofer and Grandgenett 2012, Hilton 2016, p. 70).
4. CONTEXT
4.1. Purpose
4.1.1. Determining what allowances and limitation environments, learners, teachers, and institutions place upon instructional technology design and integration.
4.1.2. “Access to technology has been identified as a significant variable in other studies of technology integration (Inan and Lowther 2010; Proctor and Marks 2013) and, clearly, access to the technology in the classroom is an antecedent to technology integration” (Liu et al. 2017, p. 807).
4.2. Application
4.2.1. “Timely and relevant professional development opportunities should be planned for teachers and administrators to heighten their awareness, knowledge, skill, and dispositions towards technology” (Ritzhaupt et al. 2012; Schrum et al. 2011) considering “that teacher use of technology has a strong and durable effect on classroom technology integration” (Miranda and Russell 2012; Liu et al. 2017, p. 807).