Effective Technology Integration

by Lorraine D. Ledger, M.S.

---

When the U.S. Department of Education (DOE, 2017) released its National Educational Technology Plan (NETP) in 2010, educators and policymakers were given a common vision and plan of action to reform schools for the 21st century. The NETP provided guidance on developing technologically-driven educational programs, for both children and adults, that will help build competitively skilled workforces and a more interactive and engaged society. Revised in 2017, and expected to be revised again in 2022, the NETP aspired to increase critical thinking and collaborative problem-solving skills and to incorporate “multimedia communication into the teaching of traditional academic subjects” (DOE, 2017, p. 10). The NETP’s primary goal was, and continues to be, improvement of the nation’s schools and businesses through use of information and communication technologies. This article covers some effective methods of technology integration for education that have been developed and implemented in direct response to the NETP.

Teachers must do more than simply replace analog learning materials with digital ones.

The top priority of 21st century schools is to provide environments that are conducive to transformative student learning, so for full technology integration teachers must do more than simply replace analog learning materials with digital ones. Teachers must find ways to fully incorporate digital resources and tools into all classroom activities and assignments, so that students become creators and constructors of their own learning, rather than merely passive observers. Recent research has shown that, as a method for improving technology integration in schools, teacher professional development may be a critical factor. Furthermore, the teacher’s influence–on whether, or how, the inclusion of technology may impact student learning–cannot be overstated (Joo et al., 2018; Ottenbreit-Leftwich & Kimmons, 2020; Watson et al., 2020). Teachers’ beliefs, attitudes, and values concerning technology use in the classroom have been identified as the most important factors in the success or failure of technology integration initiatives. For instance, Joo et al. (2018) found that teachers who were personally comfortable using technology were more likely to believe in its usefulness for teaching.

The 2017 NETP stated that “Schools should be able to rely on teacher preparation programs to ensure that new teachers come to them prepared to use technology in meaningful ways” (DOE, 2017, p. 35-36). Schmidt-Crawford et al. (2019, para.1), however, concluded that “The theory and practice of preparing teacher candidates to teach with technology is inconsistent at best and ineffective at worst.” A gap existed that needed to be bridged. To resolve this problem, new models to aid teachers in classroom technology integration have been developed, and better technical skills training has been incorporated into standard teacher education curricula. Foulger et al. (2017) concluded that teacher certification and training programs were critical to development of teachers’ technology competencies and positive attitudes toward integrating technology in their classrooms. For this reason, teacher educators have also become the focus of reforms, and new standards have been developed for professors, to further improve preservice teacher training.

Researchers with the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education (SITE) published a set of 12 Teacher Educator Technology Competencies (TETCs) in 2017 for improving teacher prep programs (Foulger et al., 2017). Three core knowledge areas—technological knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and content knowledge— taken from the popular TPACK technology integration model, formed the theoretical basis of the TETCs (Foulger et al., 2017; Ottenbreit-Leftwich & Kimmons, 2020). Listed under each competency were recommendations for ways to apply the competency. For example, Competency 3 recommended that teacher educators “support the development of the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of teacher candidates as related to teaching with technology in their content area,” and teacher educators were encouraged to guide preservice and new teachers in using technology that aligned with their own content knowledge and specific proven classroom pedagogies (TETCs, n.d.). Most also recommended professors model the desired behavior (i.e., use of technology). According to the SITE website (site.aace.org), the standards have been fully adopted and are in use in college programs.

Four models have been developed to help teachers to meaningfully introduce technology into their instruction. These are known by their acronyms, TPACK, RAT, SAMR, and PIC-RAT (Ottenbreit-Leftwich & Kimmons, 2020). Due to its flexibility and emphasis on the teacher’s role, TPACK is the model most used for teacher training programs. TPACK is based on three overlapping core knowledge areas that teachers must maintain and balance to be effective: technological skills, subject-matter expertise, and pedagogy. SAMR, which stands for Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, or Redefinition, describes the different forms that technology may take in enhancing the teaching-learning process. 

Effective technology integration should go beyond mere substitution or augmentation of traditional course materials, and instead technology should be integrated seamlessly into the curriculum so that it enables transformative student learning (DOE, 2017; Ottenbreit-Leftwich & Kimmons, 2020). When students interact fully with both the technology and course content, the learning process and performance outcomes are considered high-impact and transformative. RAT and PIC-RAT models, both, viewed transformation as the highest goal of learning. PIC-RAT guides teachers in determining whether a potential lesson plan, activity, assignment, or learning resource will likely result in a Passive, an Interactive, or a Creative relationship between the student and the technology being used. Lecturing is an example of passive teaching and learning. Interactivity may be introduced through technology, such as real-time polling devices or by inviting students to post comments or chat with each other while watching a video. E-portfolios, online group projects, or real-word problem-solving activities that require use of digital resources and tools are likely to result in transformative learning, because students must use their own ingenuity to interact with technology in order to achieve the learning objectives.

Davies and West (2018) identified three areas of focus for evaluating technology in education: accessibility, usefulness, and effectiveness for facilitating specific learning outcomes. As primarily an infrastructure issue, but also one that overlaps with ethical and legal issues, increasing equitable access to educational technologies remains the burden of administrators and policy-makers. This problem persists and remains a barrier to full integration. Teachers, parents, and the learners themselves must take responsibility for determining which technologies are useful and effective for learning. Scholars and educators agree that technology should enhance good teaching methods, not replace them. The goal of education is to develop individuals. Teaching that is enhanced with technology should lead students toward achieving course learning objectives, as always, but it should also expedite deeper and broader gains in knowledge, skills, and creativity. Effective technology integration for educational purpose should seamlessly provide students with the means to fully and actively participate in their own learning.

---

References

Davies, R. S., & West, R. E. (2018). Technology integration in schools. In R. E. West (Ed.), Foundations of learning and instructional design technology (pp. 650-694). EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/lidtfoundations

Foulger, T.S., Graziano, K.J., Schmidt-Crawford, D. & Slykhuis, D.A. (2017). Teacher educator technology competencies. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 25(4), 413-448. Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/181966/

Joo, Y. J., Park, S., & Lim, E. (2018). Factors influencing preservice teachers’ intention to use technology: TPACK, teacher self-efficacy, and technology acceptance model. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(3), 48–59. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26458506

Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. & Kimmons, R. (2020). The K-12 educational technology handbook (1st ed.). EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/k12handbook

Schmidt-Crawford, D. A., Foulger, T. S., Graziano, K. J., & Slykhuis, D. A. (2019). Research methods for the people, by the people, of the people: Using a highly collaborative, multi-method approach to promote change. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 19(2). https://www.citejournal.org/volume-19/issue-2-19/general/research-methods-for-the-people-by-the-people-of-the-people-using-a-highly-collaborative-multimethod-approach-to-promote-change

TETCs. (n.d.) Teacher educator technology competencies. Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education. Retrieved August 30, 2022, from https://site.aace.org/tetc/

U.S. Department of Education. (2017, January). Reimagining the role of technology in education: 2017 National education technology plan update. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. https://tech.ed.gov/files/2017/01/NETP17.pdf

Watson, S. L., Yu, J. H., Alamri, H., & Watson, W. R. (2020). Preservice teachers’ technology integration attitude change in a course implementing digital badges. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 28(1), 89-116. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/211054/