Monday, 5 December 2011

Teacher-tech use for learning - Part 2

In the previous post on the Technology Integration Matrix (TIM) from the Florida Center for Instructional Technology, I asked if it could be incorporated as a model for evaluating technology use by teachers. Clearly this was the intention of the matrix and, since it had exemplar material for each of the intersections, it could also be a guide as to how to move up to higher levels of technology integration.
It has proved difficult to use the categories as they are. 
Firstly, the vertical axis which describes the characteristics of the learning environment, seemed to complicate the definitions and made it more difficult to audit. Additionally, we found it difficult to separate student, teacher and environment in the horizontal axis (these are further layers in the model). And finally, the descriptors were not that helpful - particularly at the "Transformation" end.
We had asked teachers to self-report their technology use and had not wished to be prescriptive - so we decided that we should do the classifying afterwards. I am glad that we did not go for complicated categories initially because it is quite difficult to place things reliably and consistently.
The "Entry" level and perhaps some way into the "Adoption" level can be fitted to Puentedura's (SAMR Model) "Substitution" idea, whilst "Adoption" and "Adaptation" could be "Augmentation", "Infusion" mapping to "Modification" and "Transformation" to "Redefinition". Here it is in bullet points:
  •  Entry > Substitution
  • Adoption > Substitution and Augmentation
  • Adaptation > Augmentation
  • Infusion > Modification
  • Transformation > Redefinition
 Even though one can argue that the two are for different purposes, there does seem to be this match.
The descriptors for the TIM model were difficult to use. For example, in the Transformation column, "Extensive and unconventional use of tools" was the prevailing descriptor. Extensive is fine - unconventional? What does this mean?
The purpose behind the audit is to attempt to see where we are now and determine where we shall have to work to get curriculum leaders to review pedagogy. TIM has proved difficult and we have reverted to a simpler model (the SAMR one), but we have to do some work on exemplars so as to make the categorisation more reliable. #change11

No comments: