Technology Integration Models

Technology integration models are theoretical models designed to help teachers, researchers, and others in the education field think about technology integration in meaningful ways.

Different groups use many technology integration models. Some models are very popular, while only very small groups of people use others

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 briefly overview 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 PIC-RAT.

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge( TPACK)

TPACK is the most commonly used technology integration model among educational researchers. The goal of TPACK is to provide educators with a useful framework 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: content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and technological 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.

Technological knowledge is knowledge of how to use technology tools.

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 understand both 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.

Video: What is the TPACK Model

Source: https://www.youtube.com/embed/yMQiHJsePOM?si=ixl0Kujx_AYxZEol

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.

Replacement, Amplification, and Transformation( RAT) & Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition(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 used either to replace a traditional approach to teaching (without any discernible difference in student outcomes), to amplify the learning that was occurring, or to transform learning in ways that were not possible without the technology (Hughes et al. , 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 in efficiency. Redefinition and transformation both deal with technology use that empowers teachers and students to learn in new, previously impossible ways.

Video: PICRAT Matrix Lesson

Source: https://youtu.be/o-Pl_gJQFeI?si=QyJJRvfCho-nZBKg

The difference between these two models rests in the center letters, wherein RAT’s amplification is separated into two levels: SAMR’s augmentation and modification. All of these levels 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.

Passive Interactive Creative (PIC): PIC-RAT

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. PIC-RAT assumes that there are two foundational questions that teachers must ask about any technology use in their classrooms:

1. What is the students’ relationship to the technology? (PIC: Passive, Interactive, Creative)
2. How does the teacher’s use of technology influence 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 of where any particular practice falls.

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 the 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.

Source:https://edtechbooks.org/encyclopedia/picrat

Further Resource: Video: PICRAT for Effective Technology Integration in Teaching

https://youtu.be/bfvuG620Bto?si=iwI2Y6LbPhiIwTja

For more information on the PIC-RAT model, please viewthis video, scripted by Dr. Kimmons and Dr. Richard E. West of Brigham Young University. 

Source:

• YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMQiHJsePOM
• Youtube:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfvuG620Bto

LICENSE

K-12 Technology Frameworks  by Royce Kimmons is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.

Use of Artificial Intelligence in Lesson Planning

How can Artificial Intelligence (AI)
AI tools help produce engaging lesson plans and class meeting activities?
This chapter explores:

• how to prompt an AI tool to produce a draft lesson plan, and how to adapt it for classroom use;
• how to use AI tools to brainstorm classroom activities.

Drafting Lesson Plans

The first steps in any writing task can be the most difficult and time-consuming. AI tools can write a first draft of a lesson plan, which can be made classroom-ready through a combination of reprompting and human editing. Here is an example of a prompt for generating a lesson plan first draft:

 A screenshot of interaction with ChaptGPT

                                                Prompting ChatGPT to produce a draft lesson plan

One RRC Polytech communication instructor, who used ChatGPT to generate a first-draft lesson plan about asking for clarification in a culinary workplace, found that the tool was useful for generating ideas and structure, but significant reworking was needed to make it useable for class. [1]

Carefully editing and refining AI output is critical to ensure that the lesson plans produced are as good or better than the instructor could create without the use of AI tools.

Consider ChatGPT’s response to the prompt in the text box above. Some instructors may wish to start the class with an intro activity that raises student interest, turn the interactive lecture into a facilitated discovery activity, or have the guest speaker visit prior to the application activities. One or two rounds of reprompting followed by the instructor’s own revisions could turn that initial output into a usable lesson plan.

For those who plan to use an AI tool to produce multiple lesson plans, adding custom instructions could save time. One example of custom instructions might be “Every time I ask for a lesson plan, make sure that each hour of class time has a ten-minute break, no portion of an activity is longer than twenty minutes, and facilitative teaching and active learning strategies are employed whenever possible.” Uploading one or more previous lesson plans with a prompt could also improve the quality of the AI tool’s initial output. For more about reprompting, custom instructions, and adapting AI outputs, please see the Writing and Refining Prompts chapter.

In addition to speeding up lesson planning, AI tools can make lesson plans more effective. One RRC Polytech instructor found that it improved their scaffolding by ensuring that they didn’t overlook important foundational skills that students would need to complete a task. [2]

When provided with information about what has already been covered in the course, AI tools can remind instructors to integrate review of previously taught concepts into lesson plans and make recommendations about how to draw connections between different course topics. [3]

AI tools can also provide suggestions for integrating multiple literacies into a lesson, such as incorporating digital or cultural literacy alongside a core topic, [4]and can be prompted to check or adapt a lesson plan according to a chosen framework or set of principles, such as Universal Design for Learning. AI tools can also review and critique an existing lesson plan, in general, or according to chosen criteria such as accessibility, active learning, or connection to course learning outcomes.

Producing Classroom Activities

Once a lesson plan has been established, AI tools are able to brainstorm ideas for interactive classroom activities, accepting input about topic, audience, style, and other requirements. One RRC Polytech instructor teaching in an education-related program reported that AI tools allowed them to brainstorm activities in new formats when they had been using the same kinds of activities over and over. [5]

 See the following screenshot for an example of how to prompt an AI tool to generate classroom activity ideas.
 Click the image to read the full conversation (ChatGPT login required).

 
Prompting ChatGPT for classroom activity ideas.

The above prompt generated eight suggestions, some of which could be directly usable or adaptable for the classroom. Once an activity is refined, AI tools can be prompted to produce a set of instructions for students or instructions that a substitute instructor could follow.

When planning activities, the most commonly reported use of AI tools among RRC Polytech staff is creating or adapting a diverse set of examples, questions, or case study scenarios. The following section outlines more information about these topics.

Generating Examples

Mollick and Mollick note that providing students with a diverse range of examples leads to increased comprehension and recall, critical thinking, and ability to apply new information. They suggest weaving examples into lectures, practice questions, and course materials. [6]

 When teaching the same course in different programs, RRC Polytech communication instructor Jacob Carewick has used AI tools to rework an existing set of examples for a new context, noting that AI tools can incorporate jargon and workplace issues from specific industries.[7]

Library and Academic Services Reference Technician Rosemary Woodby reported using AI tools to generate sample project topics for a research-related presentation to a civil engineering geomatics class.[8]

In addition to generating examples that make activities, lessons, and courses more relevant and engaging, AI tools can help vary a set of examples. This could include asking an AI tool to provide examples from varied perspectives, such as different organizational roles, generations, or backgrounds, [9] or to provide counterpoints.
[10]

 Due to bias in AI tools’ training data, AI output must be carefully reviewed to ensure that attempts to diversify content don’t perpetuate offensive stereotypes. The following screenshot shows one way to prompt an AI tool for a list of examples. Click the image for ChatGPT’s response (login required).

 
An ESL instructor prompting ChatGPT for examples

Generating Questions

AI tools can produce a large number of questions appropriate to a topic and level of knowledge. These might be questions for discussion, a review quiz, or in-class practice activities and can be based on an AI tool’s existing information, a web search, or a supplied document. For example, Jacob Carewick and other RRC Polytech instructors have used ChatGPT while preparing for mock job interview activities to produce technical questions outside their areas of expertise. [11]

See the following image for an example of how to prompt an AI tool to produce a set of questions. [12]

Click the image for a ChatGPT’s full response and user reprompting to increase the level of difficulty (login required).

 
Prompting ChatGPT to generate practice questions.

Generating Case Studies

AI prompts can also be the starting point for a range of case studies and scenarios. One RRC Polytech instructor has used ChatGPT to brainstorm ideas for communicative scenarios related to culinary employment and has found them to be more closely connected to the cultural and social context of students’ future workplaces than scenarios they had drafted on their own. They engaged students in the process of revising the scenarios, increasing both the utility and relevance of the scenarios and students’ understanding of refining AI tool outputs. [13]

AI tools can create a list of potential scenarios or case studies based on a simple prompt. Including a few sample scenarios that have already worked in a course could improve the tool’s first output. Once an AI tool has generated a list of scenarios, one technique for follow-up prompting is to indicate which ones from the list
work best and why. Also, be sure to ask for more scenarios that are along the same lines. The following image shows a sample prompt for generating case study scenarios. [14]
Click the image to view the full interaction with ChatGPT, including follow-up prompts (login required).

 

Prompting ChatGPT to generate case study scenarios.

Key Takeaways

• AI tools can produce first drafts of lesson plans that can be adapted for use in class.
• AI tools can generate ideas and instructions for classroom activities.
• AI tools are useful for brainstorming examples, questions, and case studies.

Exercises

• Consider the lesson plan generated by ChatGPT earlier in this chapter. What changes need to be made to the lesson plan before delivering it? Would reprompting be an efficient way to refine the lesson plan, or should the instructor edit it themselves?
• Experiment with prompting an AI tool to generate case studies, examples, questions, and classroom activities related to your area of instruction. How would you rate the AI tool’s output? What prompting techniques yield the best results?

License Generative Artificial Intelligence: Practical Uses in Education Copyright © 2024 by Troy Heaps is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Learning with Digital Tools

In this chapter, we will look at the use of technology in K-12 schools.
The main takeaway from this chapter should be: “Learning First, Tech Second”.

Much of the content is derived from a massive open online course (MOOC), LEADED501x Leading Ambitious Teaching and Learning, from the University of Michigan, School of Education, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

The technology integration section of the MOOC, Learning with Digital Technology Tools, is presented by  Liz Kolb, Clinical Assistant Professor, University of Michigan, School of Education.

Included will be videos and abbreviated versions of the video transcripts. In this first section, we will look at some basic guidelines for using technology for learning.

Watch the video lecture (19:48 minutes): What is Ambitious Learning Through Technology Tools?https://www.youtube.com/embed/NfalVfdT640?si=aRKyfbOSxsNFt_yV

Source: LEADed501x Leading Ambitious Teaching & Learning. (2016, Nov. 14). MCHLATLX2016-V001500. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/NfalVfdT640

Technology integration is driven by good teaching practices and not fancy tools

There’s almost this assumption that technology magically creates these amazing learning gains in the classrooms and new cognition. That does not happen. Instead, often we will see classrooms where students are all over the classroom when they have their laptop or their tablet. They look like they’re engaged because they’re excited about having it. But we have to be careful that they’re actually learning through the technology.

We tend to make the mistake of giving children a one-to-one device, thinking one-to-one is the ultimate solution for learning, and then step away and assume that the technology, the app, or the software will do the rest of the work for us.

We need to bring in those good, effective teaching methods and strategies. When we look at effective literacy learning strategies, none of them say, just give a child a book, and they will learn to read. So, we shouldn’t assume, just give a child a tablet or a mobile device, and suddenly, they’re going to learn through it. We need to integrate effective practices.

Added Value

Technology should be the last piece of the instructional sequence. It should be something that is going to add value to those good literacy or good mathematical instructional practices rather than just something that’s exciting and fun.

It’s important to ensure that math is connected to students’ everyday understanding and their world. That doesn’t mean a story problem where it talks about apples or bicycles, which are relevant to the children.  It means connecting their everyday life, what they see and do around them, to mathematical strategies and understanding. Notice many of these effective strategies have to do with collaboration, authenticity, collaboration, and inquiry. Using some of those higher-order thinking skills, or higher-cognitive thinking skills, are important in learning. These are the things we want to bring into technology learning.

When we look at the research over the last couple of decades, the research does not say we should be isolating students. They should not be using a bunch of what we call drill and practice software which is where they do a lot of multiple choice type questions. Instead, we need to do what we do in mathematics. We need to ask students to inquire, to analyze, to synthesize, to hypothesize.

It’s not so important that they’re just consuming content and answering questions really quickly or swiping to get to the game, which sometimes has negative learning gains. Instead, it’s important that we are adding value to the learning.

Key Takeaways:
Research on Effective Tech Use in Learning

• Elicit higher-order thinking around content over consumption of content. (Wenglinsky, 2006)
• Quality over quantity (Wenglinsky, 2006)
• Avoid “drill and practice” in isolation. (Wenglinsky, 1998)
• “Value-added” element to the learning (Means et al. 2009)

 We’ve learned that we need to avoid drill and practice software despite the hundreds of thousands of pieces of educational software that are drill and practice. Because those rarely have learning gains, and often, they are negative learning gains. In addition to that, it’s quality over quantity.

 What we’ve learned is that children who use technology every day have no better, and sometimes worse, learning outcomes as far as their standardized test scores and other assessments than children who use technology less frequently but with higher quality applications that reach those higher-order thinking skills. These are important things that we need to consider.

 We must focus on the time-on-task, and learning goals must come first. We need to make sure that the software is meeting those needs and not distracting from those needs.

Key Takeaways:
Research on Effective Tech Use in Learning

•  Focus on learning goals (Linnenbrink & Printrich, 2003)
• Time-on-task active engagement (Wartella, 2015)
• Co-use or joint media engagement (
  Darling-Hammond, et al,
   Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2015, Guernsey, 2012)
• Connect learning to authentic experiences (Vaala et al., 2015; Guernsey, 2012; Wartella, 2015)

So much software has many bells and whistles, and as I mentioned, games and exciting features for the students. But often, they don’t meet the learner’s needs when it comes to what we want them to comprehend and understand.

A huge part of using technology comes down to a big piece of literacy learning practices, which is this idea of co-use or joint media engagement. Students should be working together, rather than isolated in a corner. Co-use could also be a parent to a child, and it could be a teacher to a child. It doesn’t have to be a child to a child.

Technology should bridge the school experience with everyday life and the world around the student.

Technology should bridge students’ school experiences with their everyday lives, the world around them, and the things that they’re hearing on the news. Technology should connect students and teachers to experts and the real world through meaningful ways.

When we’re using technology, it’s important for the teacher to say, this is why we’re using this app or software. It is also important to ask children to work collaboratively.

We know learning is social. When using technology for learning in any content area, students should be co-using the device. They should be working together. They should collaborate rather than work in isolation. Read-alouds and think-alouds are great ways to show that students are understanding.

To make their thinking a little more visible, students using technology devices can participate in what we call share-alouds, where they share what they’re doing at different moments with other students with teachers in a written format.

Children need to have their learning monitored. Monitored comprehension means the teachers should be checking in and monitoring with the devices. They should be sitting down with the children periodically if they’re in a one-to-one classroom rather than assuming that the software is doing the work and is doing it correctly.

Children need to be reflecting, questioning, retelling, and predicting as they work; these are things that students can be doing through the software. Again, eliciting some of these higher-order thinking skills means making sure the software isn’t drill-and-practice but is actually software that allows this creativity in unique and innovative ways. 

Modeling and Guided Practice

Finally, the idea of guided practice. Teachers should be showing students how to use the software. They can do the, I do, we do, you do, format. When they’re doing that, and not just modeling how to navigate the software, but in particular, how to think as they’re navigating the software.

Ensure you are teaching students how to think about cognition and learning as they navigate the software.

What do we mean by eliciting higher-order thinking skills?

Screenshot from the video lecture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfalVfdT640

We want to make sure that the learning through technology is happening in the higher processing areas. One of the things that we’ve learned from the research over the past couple of decades is that when learning happens in drill-and-practice programs, we just don’t see learning gains and effective outcomes.

The more students use the drill and practice programs, the less effective the learning outcomes. We really want to look for software that elicits those higher processing skills.

Key Takeaways:  

• We know that technology should engage learners.
• We know that technology should enhance learning. It should add value to it.
• We know that technology should be extending learning beyond the classroom in unique ways.

What is Engaged Learning with Technology Tools?

Well, it’s really important that the focus is on the learning goals, this idea of time-on-task, and that the technology is not distracting from the learning goals, which it can easily do and a lot of software does.

The software is really motivating the students with different types of scaffolds to get them interested and invested in the learning goals.

One of the most important pieces is the idea of having an active learner. They’re not passive and just consuming knowledge. But, they’re productive, that they’re innovative, inquiring, hypothesizing, and using those higher-order thinking skills. They are not doing it isolated, rather, they’re doing it in a very collaborative way through co-use and co-construction.

When we look at time-on-task, we know that technology should be helping students focus on their learning goals. It should allow opportunities for students to learn with fewer distractions.

Co-use and joint engagement compared to individual use. When considering co-use, we want students to build a collaborative and shared understanding around content. They should be working together.

If you have a one-to-one classroom, I highly recommend that you take away a few devices occasionally and make it one-to-two or one-to-three so that students can collaborate and work together because it’s much more difficult to build a shared understanding when they’re isolated with their devices.

Another benefit of co-use is there’s just more opportunity to inquire and co-analyze and just kind of check for understanding together. Again, when it’s individual use, we just don’t see those opportunities arise as much because all the students are working on their own isolated pieces of software.

Reflections

• Do you notice co-use or joint engagement in different ways? Either students are working collaboratively with devices, or they’re choosing apps and software that are collaborative for students so they can work on it together.
• How are the teachers monitoring and checking in with the students?
• Are they modeling how to navigate the tool and comprehend the content with the tool?

What is Enhanced Learning with Technology Tools?

Watch the video lecture (3:20 minutes): Leading Ambitious Teaching & Learning

https://www.youtube.com/embed/5pLhfoybeUI?si=VQbTtu5fyUWHxJzE
 

Source: LEADed501x Leading Ambitious Teaching & Learning. (2016, Nov. 14). MCHLATLX2016-V001300. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/5pLhfoybeUI

Now that we’ve had a chance to look at what engaged learning with technology tools is all about, let’s look at the characteristics of an enhanced learner using technologies. Often, the words engaged and enhanced get thrown about together, but they’re very different when it comes to technology tools. There are three different things we want to be looking for in enhanced learners.

Technology should add value to the learning goals

First, we want to look for this idea that there’s a value-added. We should see evidence that students are able to develop a more sophisticated understanding of the content learning goals because of something that’s happening with the technology.

Technology includes supports and scaffolds to help make learning more attainable (accessible)

Technology can often bring in scaffolds, or supports, for the students, whether it’s feedback, whether it’s a way to differentiate instruction through leveled learning, that would help the student understand the learning goals better.

Do we need the technology?

If the task is something that we can easily do with traditional tools, then we don’t need to use the technology. But if it’s something that we can’t do with traditional tools, then that’s where the value-added is realized.

Technology absolutely should be something that integrates, supports, and scaffolds to help make learning more attainable. Making sure that there is this value-added is an important element we should be looking for.

A few examples of that would be differentiating learning and personalizing learning. Unfortunately, these two terms are often used synonymously, yet they have very different meanings.

When we’re differentiating learning, we’re looking at students who are learning at different learning levels. An example of differentiating learning would be software that allows students to read the same article or book based on their Lexile level of reading. If a student is at a lower Lexile level, they can read the same article that another student is reading, but the text will look different, including it being formatted differently for them to meet their learning needs.

Newsela is an example of a program that provides multiple Lexile levels of the same news article.

Personalizing learning software is software that allows the teacher to actually create different activities for different learners based on their interests and the way that they like to learn. While the students are learning, the teacher can weigh in during the process of learning. Teachers can see what students are doing as they are working and can put comments, or even drawings, on the student’s screens in real-time. Google Docs is an example of a program that can be used for personalized and collaborative learning. Google Docs allows teachers to create a value-added element to the learning with a co-use application woven throughout it as well.

Reflections

• Reflect on your own experiences using technology in the classroom, and think about how the learning is enhanced or value is added to the learning process through the technology tools. Look for scaffolds and supports for the learning that’s provided by the technology, and notice if there’s any differentiation of instruction or personalization that’s happening through the technology.

What is Extended Learning with Technology Tools?

Now that we’ve looked at the characteristics of an enhanced learner and an engaged learner using technology tools, it’s time to look at the characteristics of what an extended learner needs with technology tools. This is an exciting piece of learning with technology tools because it’s something that was much more difficult to do prior to having access to digital technology in schools.

How can technology make learning authentic?

It allows students to look at the world around them in a different way, in a very unique way. For example, they can help solve real-world problems through technologies, tools, and the different strategies and methods they learn in school.

The things we tend to look for are the ways that technology can help students connect and create this bridge to their everyday lives.

Examples:

• Bring experts into the classroom virtually.
• Skype, Google Hangout, with pen pals from across the globe so students are able to learn new languages, and learn new cultural norms from other students.
• Livestream to connect with literacy experts, such as a favorite author.
• Social studies: students collaborating with others using Minecraft

Reflections

• If you would like to watch videos of teachers in the field talking about how they extend learning with technology, go to www.edx.org, search for “Leading Ambitious Teaching and Learning,” and enroll in the MOOC. Reflect on your own teaching with technology, and look for evidence that demonstrates extended learning.

• Does the technology help the learners connect classroom learning to their everyday lives?
• Is the technology helping to connect the prior knowledge and interest of the students in the classroom learning and then bridging that back to their everyday lives?

Triple E-Resources

Liz Kolb has developed Triple E Evaluation Rubrics to use when: Evaluating the connection between the technology in a lesson plan and the learning goals of the lesson. http://www.tripleeframework.com/triple-e-printable-rubric-for-lesson-evaluation.html

Evaluating Apps and Websites for  Learning Potential  http://www.tripleeframework.com/uploads/2/2/8/7/2287991/evaluateappstriplee.pdf

Instructional Strategies to help meet the Triple E Framework. http://www.tripleeframework.com/instructional-strategies.html

Triple E Framework by http://tripleeframework.weebly.com  is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.You can learn more about the Triple E Framework at http://www.tripleeframework.com/ and on Twitter @TripleE 

Other Resources for Evaluating Technology

Kerry Gallagher (@KerryHawk02) and Ross Cooper (@RossCoops31)
posted a blog on EdSurge on April 21, 2016, “Should I Download that App? A Ten-Question Checklist for Choosing Tools Worth Your- and Your Students’- Time”   They suggest asking yourself these ten questions before tapping GET, INSTALL or BUY.  Please read the full article that includes their rationale behind each question.

1. What content do we want students to learn?
2. What skills will our students practice or refine when they use this app?
3. Will our students be consumers or creators when they use this app?
4. What are my students’ needs, and can this app meet them?
5. Is there a better app that achieves the same purpose?
6. Is there a comparable/better app at a cheaper price?
7. Is there an app on your devices that already does the same thing?
8. Does the app promote our school and district “best practices”?
9. How will we inform everyone else?
10. Have we talked to the app creators?

Gallagher, K, and Cooper, R. (2016, April 21). Should I Download that App? A Ten-Question Checklist for Choosing Tools Worth Your- and Your Students’- Time. [Blog Post]. Retrieved from https://www.edsurge.com/news/2016-04-20-should-i-download-that-app-a-ten-question-checklist-for-making-tools-worth-your-while. 

Course Technology Evaluation Tool

Course Technology Evaluation Tool-click on the link to access the evaluation tool.

Source:

• MichiganX:LEADed501x Leading Ambitious Teaching and Learning. (2017). (an Open edX MOOC). Module 2: Ambitious Learning with Digital Tools (CC NY NC ND)

LICENSE

Instructional Methods, Strategies and Technologies to Meet the Needs of All Learners Copyright © 2017 by Paula Lombardi M.Ed. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.

Selection of Educational Technology
 

• Selection of Educational Technology
   describes how preservice teachers can select technological tools and applications for various experiences and situations they may encounter as teachers.

We know that there is a problem when the devices we plan to use in our instruction are more outdated than the personal devices that students carry with them daily. A problem educators face daily is keeping their lessons innovative and interesting. The average student has an attention span that ranges from five to twelve minutes (Dunneback & Therrell, 2015). The combination of advances in technology, along with the individual needs of each student, must be considered when designing and revamping lessons. The characteristics of the “millennial” student are significantly different than students from previous generations. Millennials can be described as students who were raised by “helicopter parents” who tended to hover, over-protect, and coddle. To successfully teach them, there must be revisions to pedagogies and tools (Russo, 2013).

There is much to consider when selecting educational technology. While some of the time, your district will choose a set of tools for you to use, there are also often opportunities for teachers to decide on their own which services will best meet your teaching philosophy. Most school districts have upgraded their school campuses to be
 Wi-Fi enabled, along with having devices like Chromebooks and tablets available for students. Some schools have even received grant money for each student to have a device assigned to them individually.

Once devices have been selected for use, the security of information and student data is paramount. The student information system utilized by the school should already have security provisions in place. Firewalls and spam-blocking technology are something that individual teachers should not have to worry about. If your school/district has not upgraded its technology, then this would be your starting point. Determining the resources that will affect your ability to implement or embed technology into your plans must be considered.

Once technology devices have been selected, the next step would be to consider what type of learning system or application you would like to use. Considering what your goal or purpose is important at this point. It is recommended that you start out small. Understanding your own ability levels and how you may access these tools effectively is what educators must be focused on. If the district has a grade book or LMS that they have mandated that everyone use, this would be the starting point. The emergence and increasing use of tablet technologies and applications are changing the work of teacher educators. This change calls for the need to have tools to guide educators in the direction that will aid their intentions (Cherner, Dix, & Lee, 2014).

The Importance of Careful Selection

Choosing the right tool also includes choosing software that respects student data privacy and takes sufficient security precautions to put parents and school officials at ease. The test provides personalized learning, coupled with the right software, which meets student needs. Relevant laws that protect student privacy are also vital in the selection process. This section addresses some of the primary concerns to consider when selecting educational technology.

Legal

We must select tools that adhere to the established legal requirements. According to the US Department of Education, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) is a federal privacy law that “protects student data education records from infringement of unauthorized third-parties or users. The law applies to all schools who are eligible to receive funds from the U.S. Department of Education” (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 2015).

Written parental permission is essential to disclose any student educational information, but FERPA does allow school sites to release those records if school officials have a legitimate scholarly interest in the tools (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 2015). Such rights are then transferred to the student once they reach the age of 18 or enter a postsecondary institution. The Office of the Chief Privacy Officer (OCPO) is also responsible for implementing another law that strives to safeguard student and parental rights in education called the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA).

Privacy

Like school officials, teachers make cognizant choices regarding the privacy and security of the applications they use with students by collaborating with tech advocacy groups like The Common Sense Privacy Evaluation Initiative (What Is the Privacy Initiative?, n.d.). Over 100 schools and districts chose to participate in the initiative, creating a plan with the intention that pursues not only assessing educational technology tools but also working in partnership with K–12 educational software industry to streamline and regulate privacy and security policies (What Is the Privacy Initiative?, n.d.).

Similar to the private sector, the federal government is also moving to implement guidelines through an advisory center, the Privacy Technical Assistance Center (PTAC), managed by the Department of Education. This regulatory agency considers possible actions that a second or even third party may not consider because they figure the FERPA regulations may not apply. For instance, a third-party provider cannot use data from a FERPA-protected source, like a school, for any purpose that was not shared initially (“Protecting Student Privacy | U.S. Department of Education,” n.d.). One example is Google’s product Classroom. Significant strides were made with the feedback it received from the teachers and  administrators of Chicago Public Schools. The third largest school district in the nation they had privacy and security concerns that they were not willing to concede. The multibillion-dollar company had to adhere to the FERPA laws if it wanted to continue to do business with the K-12 education sector. The feedback proved to be invaluable in making products that meet the needs of a diverse group of students while protecting the sensitive data provided (Singer, 2017).

Because data records are distributed more widely than ever since the local district network is no longer used for software deployment. According to a recent study from Fordham University School of Law, it discovered that 95% of school districts relied on cloud services, but fewer than 25% of contracts specified the purpose for disclosing student data (Duane, n.d.).

Puffery

In advertising, puffery is when a commercial claim is exaggerated. The same thing can happen when educational technology companies make over-inflated promises about what is possible through the use of their tools. As an educator, do your due diligence in connecting the software tool with your objectives and not falling for false promises. It may seem like a daunting task, yet it can be exciting at the same time.

Legal issues, privacy concerns, and the potential for puffery are only some of the considerations we need to make when evaluating educational technology. Important questions to ask during the evaluative portion of your decision include:

1. Do the creators of educational software respect data privacy?
2. How much information does the company need to allow the product to be used?
3. Has your district, or other districts, had experience with the product?
4. What reviews are available, and how were they rated in customer service?
5. Is the product open to teacher feedback? How likely and how often is the input implemented?

These questions can assist you as you consider which tool will best fit your needs. The time you invest will protect your students, as well as your own reputation as an educator. This next section provides additional advice for adopting new technology. 

Tool Selection

The accessibility of the technology tools and apps can be overwhelming for any teacher to choose
 from. Picking the right app or tool that your students can easily navigate while driving home your lesson objectives. When you are selecting a tool, take into consideration the following items:

 Start Small

Trying to get a handle on too many technologies causes unnecessary stress. Learning a digital instrument takes time, and applying it as part of the lesson can take
 an hour to a couple of days. Knowing if it will work smoothly during the class session. You also must provide secure and specific directions that you go over, demonstrate and have availability all semester. Having clear instructions that you review, model, and have available all semester is helpful.

 Focus on Your Goals

It can be tempting to get caught up in the list of features a technology tool provides and miss determining whether or not the educational goal will be met through its use. Choose a few tools at a time and try them out. Give them a test run to see which are the easiest to learn and use. Read the reviews to gauge whether they
meet the basic needs of other customers and how likely the product will align with your lesson goals. This method leads to the actual picking of the best tools that will serve your needs. The more you try out the tools, the easier it gets because you will know what you want. Move on to another if the app no longer meets your demands.

 Assess What You Have  

Take stock of the technology available in your class and on your campus. Knowing the technology capabilities determines the app’s capacity for usefulness. Also, you should find out what websites and apps your students used in the past. Be mindful of district firewalls, therefore, check ahead if the technology is capable.

Consider the Implications of Whether or not to Pay

As a teacher, the excitement of a new tool and the possibilities of enhancing your lessons is overpowering. Getting clear on how you intend to pay for them is crucial. Questions to ask yourself include: are you willing to pay or go the free route? If you are ready to pay, who will be paying for the tool? What features are included in the tech, and how much of a difference does paying make? How does the company make its money and stay sustainable when it gives its tool away for free? Is there a potential for our students’ data to be the produce that is being bought and sold?

Revise and Reflect

Review your goals and reflect on how well the tool has fulfilled your needs. How long and often is the app used? Do any problems arise while using the new tech? Remember, if it is not working well enough, you can pick another. Determine how it will be paid for – this reflection can reinforce the digital divide if we do not think carefully about who will bear the cost.

Conclusion

The selection of tools may seem like a difficult process at first glance. However, when you take into consideration the hype of the tool, privacy, and the legal ramifications you may have using a tool, take a deep breath,
start small, and determine whether the tool you are selecting will achieve the goals you have for using it in your classroom. By utilizing the steps of selecting tools discussed in this chapter, you will be trying the best tools for your classroom that are available. Also, you will more likely implement and keep the tools you select. Therefore,
 take your time to go through the steps discussed in this chapter, and you will have plenty of powerful tools to utilize in your classroom.

Source

• Antoine, F. M, Porter, T.M., and Reye-Aceytuno, E., (2018). Igniting Your Teaching with Educational Technology :A Resource for New Teachers. Editors: Matt Rhoads & Bonni Stachowiak. Retrieved from https://edd7032017f2.pressbooks.com/chapter/5/ (CC BY)
• A complete reference list of the original ebook Igniting Your Teaching with Educational Technology: Resources for New Teachers can be viewed at:https://edd7032017f2.pressbooks.com/back-matter/references/
• Ch. 22 Selection of Educational Technology Copyright © 2017 by AND ELIZABETH REYES-ACEYTUNO; FRÉDA M. ANTOINE; and Tamika M. Porter is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.