Although technology is ever more ubiquitous in schools, there is no single best way to integrate technology into teaching. Rather, it is advantageous for educators to become familiar with a cross-section of theoretical approaches and frameworks that can be applied contextually in the unique circumstances of their practice. This document highlights four approaches that are worth the consideration of teachers.
What it is: Technology Pedagogy and Content Knowledge
TPACK emphasizes the need for three distinct knowledge domains for effective teaching: content (subject) knowledge, teaching (pedagogy) knowledge, and technology knowledge. Moreover, the interplay and overlap of these domains is essential and recognized as it’s own distinct form of knowledge (for example, content-technology knowledge means understanding the technology that is essential for learning in a specific discipline). TPACK is framework teachers can use to evaluate what they need to know to teach their curriculum well and to explore how different knowledge domains overlap and contribute to effectiveness in each area.
What it is: Substitute, Augment, Modify, Redefine
Originators: Reuben Puentedura
SAMR is a way of thinking about the impact that differing levels of technology integration can have on learning activities. Instructors may use SAMR to evaluate technology integration in their practice and explore deeper integrations to better realize the potential of technology and enrich learning and facilitate transformative outcomes.
Originators: Sidney Papert
Constructionism is a methodology that extends Piaget’s constructivist learning theory by suggesting that learners are best able to construct knowledge structures via purposeful, active engagement in the creation of a public entity. If learning is “constructive” in nature, it happens best by “construction.” Teachers can use Constructionism as a means to explore different types of discovery and project-based learning, as learners quite literally build understanding through making and project-based work.
Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy
Originators: Andrew Churches
An update to Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy that adds “Digital Verbs” to highlight the cognitive processes that are apparent in student learning that is mediated by digital technology. Instructors can use the Digital Taxonomy to investigate the different kinds of thinking they are asking of students and to align activities with lower and higher-order cognitive processes as appropriate.
Churches, A. (2008, April 1). Bloom’s Taxonomy Blooms Digitally. Retrieved December 05, 2017, from http://www.techlearning.com/news/0002/bloom39s-taxonomy-blooms-digitally/65603
Ackermann, E. (2001). Piaget’s Constructivism, Papert’s Constructionism: What’s the difference?. In CONSTRUCTIVISM: USES AND PERSPECTIVES IN EDUCATION, VOLUMES 1 & 2). CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS, GENEVA: RESEARCH CENTER IN EDUCATION/CAHIER 8/SEPTEMBER 01. PP. Retrieved December 05, 2017 from http://learning.media.mit.edu/content/publications/EA.Piaget%20_%20Papert.pdf
Gorman, M. (2015, June 10). Beyond the Shine: Supporting Technology with the SAMR Model plus Ten Great Resource Sites. Retrieved December 05, 2017, from https://21centuryedtech.wordpress.com/2015/06/10/part-1beyond-the-shine-supporting-technology-with-the-samr-model-plus-ten-great-resource-sites/
Keohler, M. (2012, September 24). TPACK Explained. Retrieved December 05, 2017, from http://matt-koehler.com/tpack2/tpack-explained/
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (n.d.). What Is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge? Retrieved December 05, 2017, from http://www.citejournal.org/volume-9/issue-1-09/general/what-is-technological-pedagogicalcontent-knowledge/
Papert, S. & Harel, I. (1991) Situated Constructionism. New York, Ablex Publishing Corp. Retrieved December 05, 2017 from http://www.papert.org/articles/SituatingConstructionism