Abstract
We report on a survey of K-12 teachers and teacher candidates wherein participants evaluated known models (e.g., TPACK, SAMR, RAT, TIP) and provided insight on what makes a model valuable for them in the classroom. Results indicated that: (1) technology integration should be coupled with good theory to be effective, (2) classroom experience did not generally influence teacher values and beliefs related to technology integration, (3) some models may be more useful to teachers than others, (4) the widespread use of a model does not necessarily reflect usefulness, (5) useful models for teachers should engender real-world, concrete application, and (6) visual appeal of a model is largely subjective, but some visual representations might convey notions of practicality. Conclusions should be used to help researchers and practitioners understand the practical application value of technology integration models in real-world settings.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Archambault, L., & Barnett, J. (2010). Revisiting technological pedagogical content knowledge: Exploring the TPACK framework. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1656–1662.
Archambault, L., & Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK among K-12 online distance educators in the United States. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 71–88.
Bebell, D., Russell, M., & O’Dwyer, L. (2004). Measuring teachers’ technology uses: why multiple-measures are more revealing. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(1), 45–63.
Becker, H. J. (2000). Who’s wired and who’s not: children’s access to and use of computer technology. Children and Computer Technology, 10(2), 44–75.
Brantley-Dias, L., & Ertmer, P. A. (2013). Goldilocks and TPACK: is the construct ‘just right?’. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(2), 103–128.
Burkhardt, H., & Schoenfeld, A. H. (2003). Improving educational research: toward a more useful, more influential, and better-funded enterprise. Educational Researcher, 32(9), 3–14.
Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459.
Cuban, L. (1988). Constancy and change in schools (1880s to the present). In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Contributing to educational change: Perspectives on research and practice (pp. 85–105). Berkeley: McCutchan.
Feyerabend, P. K. (1975). Against method: outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. London: New Left Books.
Graham, C. R. (2011). Theoretical considerations for understanding technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 57(3), 1953–1960.
Hughes, J. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming technology-integrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2), 277–302.
Kagan, D. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62, 129–169.
Kimmons, R. (2015). Examining TPACK’s theoretical future. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 23(1), 53–77.
Kimmons, R., & Hall, C. (2016a). Emerging technology integration models. In G. Veletsianos (Ed.), Emergence and innovation in digital learning: Foundations and applications. Edmonton: Athabasca University Press.
Kimmons, R., & Hall, C. (2016b). Toward a broader understanding of teacher technology integration beliefs and values. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 24(3), 309–335.
Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (Third ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Kuhn, T. (2013). Objectivity, value judgment, and theory choice. In A. Bird & J. Ladyman (Eds.), Arguing About Science (pp. 74–86). New York: Routledge.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2007). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK): confronting the wicked problems of teaching with technology. In R. Carlsen et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2007 (pp. 2214–2226). Chesapeake: AACE.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332.
Pea, R. D. (1985). Beyond amplification: using the computer to reorganize mental functioning. Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 167–182.
Puentedura, R. R. (2003). A matrix model for designing and assessing network-enhanced courses. Hippasus. Retrieved from http://www.hippasus.com/resources/matrixmodel/
Roblyer, M. D., & Doering, A. H. (2013). Integrating educational technology into teaching (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Smarkola, C. (2008). Efficacy of a planned behavior model: Beliefs that contribute to computer usage intentions of student teachers and experienced teachers. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 1196–1215.
Willingham, D. T. (2012). When can you trust the experts? How to tell good science from bad in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Funding
This study was funded by the J. A. and Kathryn Albertson Foundation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
Dr. Royce Kimmons declares that he has no conflict of interest. Cassidy Hall declares that she has no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Appendix
Appendix
Attitudes toward Theory and Technology
-
Compatible. Educational technologies need to be compatible with existing practices.
-
Concrete. Approaches to technology integration should be clear and should easily translate into concrete practice.
-
Coupled. Technology needs to be coupled with good theory in order to improve teaching and learning.
-
Engage. Technology’s greatest benefit in the classroom is that it can engage students.
-
Outcomes. Educational technologies should clearly improve student achievement through measurable outcomes.
-
Practical. Educational theory can be of practical value for classroom practice.
-
Rethink. Educational technologies should force us to rethink existing practices and norms.
-
Skills. Developing technological skills is a sufficient reason alone for integrating technology.
-
Uniform. Educators should adopt uniform models for understanding and implementing technology.
Theoretical Model Values
-
Clarity. The model is easily understood, well-defined, difficult to misunderstand, and easy to translate into concrete practice.
-
Compatibility. The model is compatible with existing pedagogical practice and can be easily incorporated into existing practice through concrete steps.
-
Fruitfulness. Many people know about the model and incorporate it into trainings, professional development, papers, lessons, blog posts, and so forth.
-
Outcomes. The model easily aligns with goals for improved student academic achievement and yields results that can be readily assessed.
-
Role of Technology. The model treats technology as a means for achieving a meaningful goal rather than treating technology as an end itself.
-
Scope. The model forces you to think deeply about the educational process and educational institutions, involving ethical and social issues (e.g., equal access to quality education).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kimmons, R., Hall, C. How Useful are our Models? Pre-Service and Practicing Teacher Evaluations of Technology Integration Models. TechTrends 62, 29–36 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0227-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0227-8