browser icon
You are using an insecure version of your web browser. Please update your browser!
Using an outdated browser makes your computer unsafe. For a safer, faster, more enjoyable user experience, please update your browser today or try a newer browser.

Week One: INDT501-01, Technology Integration Matrix Model

Posted by on August 31, 2013

After studying the Technology Integration Matrix Model and watching videos of students using it in the classroom, I found myself understanding the idea behind being able to use any technology effectively. According to the Florida Center for Instructional Technology, The Integration Matrix Model (TIM) is an illustration dedicated to showing how teachers and students can use technology in a classroom to make lesson plans meaningful and create a positive learning environment. TIM consists of different levels to differentiate between the technology integrations being used. The five levels of technology integration into lesson plans consist of entry, adoption, adaptation, infusion, and transformation. The five levels of technology integration into the learning environment include active, collaborative, constructive, authentic, and goal directed.

One example that I found compelling while exploring the model was the transformation authentic cell. This cell is based on creating teambuilding skills and focusing on a task from start to finish. Students are expected to select a subject that they want to study and are required to research, maintain time management, create the project, present, reflect, make any necessary changes, and submit. This allows for the student to completely own their project and experience what would happen in a real-world situation. Students are able to use scientific reasoning to problem solve. This is an important technology integration that will guide the student in being responsible for their project and work as a team to conclude what they would do differently in the future. Having this type of hands-on experience will also guide the student in quicker recall of the subject information.

An example that I was skeptical of after reviewing The Technology Integration Model was the entry active cell. This cell mainly focuses on direct instruction that does not allow for the students to use the technology. I would find it hard for the students to stay focused on the task at hand. The cell uses a lot of individual seat work that many students may get tired of and ultimately not do the assignment. Sometimes this cell uses a video or other type of instructional source to teach the lesson plan and the student is then required to complete a review of the lesson. I find this hard for the students to relate and understand what is expected of them and does not create room for differentiated instruction.

During my long-term substitute position last semester, I had worked with multiple types of technologies. A specific technology use that I have seen first hand would be the SMART Board technology that allows for students and teachers to interact with the subject material on a daily basis. I enjoyed this use of technology because it allowed for a lot of different lesson plans using the same technology. It would allow for review games to be displayed and interacted with. It also allowed for new information to be presented and displayed in ways that would appeal to students. I think that this use of technology would fall under the adaptation collaborative cell because it allows for the teacher to facilitate students in exploring the technology tool as well as letting the students use the tool to collaborate in teams rather than individually.

Below I included a photograph of both students and the teacher interactively using the SMART Board for lesson plans. The board can be used to draw, highlight, play music/video, game play, and much more to heighten lesson plans. This photograph being used is from http://edcompassblog.smarttech.com/archives/4649 .

SMART-Board-and-early-education

Florida Center for Instructional Technology. (n.d.). The technology integration matrix. Retrieved from http://fcit.usf.edu/matrix/index.php

5 Responses to Week One: INDT501-01, Technology Integration Matrix Model

  1. eboehm

    I love using my Smart board in my classroom. I hope to integrate more review games and interactive activities into my lessons this year. I know that there are tons of things the Smart software allows its users to do and I hope to learn how to better use it.

    I second danielle on the entry-active cell. I hate it when I am being shown how to use technology without being able to explore and practice using it. As a student, I find it of little value to be taught a new technology in a rigid setting that uses direct instruction.

  2. Phil

    Sorry, Britanny, not Cailin!

  3. Phil

    Caitlin,

    I read your reflection and thought it was good. You put a lot of thought into your analysis and came to the same conclusion I did (though on a different example) that one should not use technology for the sake of using technology. Tech should add to the experience in some significant way. If it does not, paper is a lot cheaper.

    You reminded me I did not include where the technology I observed fell in the matrix. I will go back and add that to my posting.

    If you have time this afternoon you may want to review the following bullets from Dr. Coffman’s rubric. You have most of it covered but I did not see any artifacts nor did I see any APA references (at least not in the APA format I am familiar with, see attached handout from Dr. Epps) to other material like her book or any of the articles we were supposed to read. Good work. I look forward to the next semester.

    [Note. I posted this Sunday afternoon but for some reason it was lot in the ether.]

  4. danielle

    I agree that the entry-active cell is not as successful in grabbing and keeping a student’s attention. While there is technology being used, it is in the most basic form. Students are simply seeing the technology being used, reading the screen much of the time while the teacher posts the information. In my opinion that is not much different than seeing the information on a blackboard or white board. To integrate is to combine or bring something together. If students are not getting the opportunity to use and understand the technology they are not being brought into the integration process.

    A Smartboard is one of the few pieces of technological equipment that I’ve used and seen used in a classroom. Of course the fact that it’s extremely interactive and easy for the students to understand and use is one of the main reasons teachers have been so successful with this tool. But I agree when you say it is also a helpful tool because it can be used for so many different purposes. Whether a teacher is writing/showing lesson plans, giving assessments, showing movie clips, or playing academic games with the students, the Smartboard seems to be pretty beneficial in any classroom setting.

  5. clang

    I recall learning about project based learning, which is what the transformation active learning video about science demonstrated, and like before, I found that project based learning was a great method of teaching students about collaboration, real life association and technology. I especially enjoy project based learning because the project can be related to many different subjects, and can be as in depth as the teacher wants to make it. It is also a great opportunity for hands on work–good video!

    -Caitlin Lang

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *