ELX 324 TECHNOLOGY FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING 2

Module 1
Foundations for Technology and Learning

Introduction

This module covers three introductory lessons for the Technology for
Teaching and Learning 2. It discusses the rationale on efficiently integrating the
technology in educational settings, trends in learning, applicable learning theories,
navigating in various online sources, etc. The following are the lessons in this
module.

Lessons in this Module:

✓ Lesson 1: Technology Integration
✓ Lesson 2: Connectivism
✓ Lesson 3: Information Literacy

Module Outcomes

• Develop a foundational understanding of learning theories driving current

technology development and adoption for K-12
• Develop a foundational understanding of prominent technology integration
models
• Recognize assumptions and tensions in historical definitions of learning
• Consider the concept of Connectivism as an alternate theory describing
learning that occurs via networks
• Understand differences between top-level domains and their meaning.
• Recognize quality indicators and navigate bias in online resources

1|Page
 Technology for Teaching and Learning 2

Lesson 1

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION

Introduction

Technology Integration in

education refers to themeaningful

use of technology to achieve

learning goals. This lesson seeks

to answer the

question: what is effective

technology integration?

Though on the surface this may seem like a simple question, it is actually quite

difficult to answer, because any answer will be based upon our beliefs and values,

how we view learning, and how we view technology's role in the learning process.

To approach this question, we will proceed inthis lesson by (1) revisiting

some common learning theories and howthey might influence our perspective

of technology's role in learning,

(2) exploring the beliefs and values that individuals and institutionsmight apply

when evaluating technology use in the classroom, and (3) providing an overview

of some common technology integration models that are used to help teachers

better understand the process and goals of technology integration.

1|Page
Learning Outcomes

At the end of this lesson, you are expected to:

1. Develop a foundational understanding of learning theories drivingcurrent
technology development and adoption for K-12;
2. Develop a foundational understanding of prominent technologyintegration
models;
3. Consider your own values guiding effective technology integration inthe
classroom.

ACTIVITY
Synthesis Report

1. Conduct a 10-page synthesis report on the “Realities of the

Applications and Impact of Educational Technologies in the
Philippine Higher Educational System”.
2. Make sure to provide the references (at least ten {10} latest sources per
variables/topic to be discussed – books, e-books, magazines, journals
and combination of thereof) using APA format
3. Present your output in a long bond paper with these followingformats;
a. File format - .docs file
b. Font style – Arial
c. Font size - 12
d. Margins – 1 inch in all sides
e. Spacing – 1.5
4. Plagiarism check result originality must be 85% and above or else an
automatic 5.0 grade.
5. Send your output on shared google drive folder. The link iswill be
sent in your email accounts.

2|Page
ANALYSIS
1. How can we improve the current realities of technology integration in
education in our country? Provide specific examples and cite your authors.

2. What is your stand of the statement that most technologies in education are
not focused on the development of the level of technical skills competency to
be achieved by the students? Elaborate your stand by synthesizing others’
point of views.

3|Page
ABSTRACTION

Learning Theories

Ever since there have been

educators trying to teach students,

there have beentheories that guide

how those educators view the

learning

process. These learning theories encompass our beliefs about the nature of

knowledge and how a person learns.

Debates surrounding learning theories have existed for millennia, and even

in the modern world, there is great diversity in how scientists, psychologists, and

educators view learning. Some of the major learning theories that shape modern

conversations surrounding technology integration include behaviorism,

cognitivism, constructivism, constructionism, and connectivism. Each of

these theories has been studied and written about at length, and it is impossible to

devote sufficient time and attention to each theory in the limited space provided in

this chapter. Rather, all educators should study competing learning theories and

develop their own understanding of how people learn. In thischapter, we will merely

provide an extremely high level overview of each ofthese theories, briefly explaining

what each entails and what each might mean for teaching and learning with

technology.

4|Page
 Technology for Teaching and Learning 2

Behaviorism

Behaviorism was popularized in the mid-20th century as psychologists

studied behavior patterns and response

systems in humans and other animals.

Behaviorism treats learning as a response to

stimulus. That is, humans andother animals are

trained to respond in certain ways to certain

stimuli, such as salivating when a dinner bell

rings or

repeating a memorized fact to receive some external reward. Teaching and

learning, then, is a process of conditioning students to properly react to stimuli,

and technology can help facilitate this training by providing incentives to

learning, such as games or other rewards, or by providing systems to efficiently

develop stimulus response conditioning, such as drill-and-kill practices.

Cognitivism

Cognitivism arose as an alternative to behaviorism in part becausebehaviorism

treated the

processes of the brain as an

imperceptible black box, wherein

understanding how the brain

worked was not considered

important forhelping people

learn.

5|Page
 Technology for Teaching and Learning 2

Cognitivism, therefore, dealt with brain functions and how information is processed,

stored, retrieved, and applied. By treating humans as thinking machines, rather

than as animals to be trained, research in cognitivism for teaching and learning

focused on helping people develop efficient teaching and studying strategies that

would allow their brains to make meaningful use of presented information. Through

this lens, technology can help in providing information and study resources that

assist the brainin efficiently storing and retrieving information, such as through the

use of mnemonic devices or multiple modalities (e.g., video, audio).

Constructivism

However, both behaviorism and cognitivism tended to treat learning the same

for all humans, despite their age, culture, or personal experiences. Recognizing

that these factors might influence how learning occurs, constructivism arose

as a means for understanding

how individual and social factors

might influence the process of

learning for different groups of

people and individuals.

Constructivism holds that

learning is

constructed by learners on top of previous experience, attitudes, and beliefs.This

means that for learning to occur, new learning experiences must take into

consideration these human factors and assist the individual in assimilating new

knowledge to their existing knowledge constructs. Thus, if

6|Page
 Technology for Teaching and Learning 2

you are teaching students about fractions, you must teach them using language

that they will understand and connect their learning to experiences in their own lives

that will have meaning for them. Technologycan help the constructivist learning

process by making abstract concepts and facts more grounded in personal

experiences and the values of learnersand also by allowing the learning

experience to be differentiated for individual learners (e.g., through personalized

developmentally-appropriate software).

Constructionism

Believing that knowledge is constructed in the mind, some then took constructivism

to the stage of a pedagogical process and called it constructionism. From the

constructionist viewpoint, the most effective way to teach in a constructivist

manner is to have studentsconstruct artifacts in the outside world that support and

reflect their internal construction of knowledge. For instance, if a student needs to

learn about basic engineering concepts, in order to build the internal mind models

necessary to understand engineering, students must construct external models,

which might take the form of a bridge or catapult. Technology can support

constructionist approaches to teaching and learning by empowering students and

teachers to create and construct external models reflecting internal mind models

with resources and possibilities not available in the real world. By using a

simulation, for instance, students can construct any structure or machine without

the need of expensive materials, or they might seek

7|Page
 Technology for Teaching and Learning 2

to understand economic principles of supply and demand by creating a

simulated community that allows them to influence supply chains in ways that

would not be possible in the real world.

Connectivism

Even with these competing theories, some still believed that learning experiences

and processes as they actually exist in the real world were not fully

represented, and this has become especially obvious

now that we live in a society that is heavily networked and connected via

electronic and social media. All traditional views about learning had placed

knowledge and learning squarely in the mind or body ofthe student, but

modern technologies in particular lead us to consider whether all memory,

information processing, and other aspects of learning traditionally ascribed to the

mind might not also be distributed with external devices. Connectivism holds

that the process and goals of learning in a highly networked and connected world

is different than learning in the predigital world, because learners are now

persistently connected to information sources and other

8|Page
 Technology for Teaching and Learning 2

resources through their electronic devices, such as smartphones or laptops. From

the connectivist perspective, learning need not be isolated to the mind, but

becoming a learned and capable citizen in a digital society requires learners to

become connected with one another in such a way that they can make use of

the network as an extension of their own mind and body. Thus from a connectivist

perspective, the goal of education is to more fully and efficiently connect learners

with one another and with information resources in a manner that is persistent and

in which learners can make ongoing use of the network to solve problems. From

this perspective, technologycan be used to improve learning experiences by more

fully connecting students with one another and information resources in a

persistent manner.

Contrasting Learning Assumptions

Each of these learning theories views the learner, the learner's relationship with

society, and the learner's relationship to technology quite differently. For that

reason, when we begin to consider what constitutes effective technology

integration, we must acknowledgethat different people and groups who have

differing assumptions about how students learn will view technology integration

very differently. A connectivist would believe that guiding students to use modern

technologies to develop networked relationships with peers and experts in the

field is an essential element of learning. However,this may require very little

information processing and recall to be

9|Page
 Technology for Teaching and Learning 2

occurring in the mind of the learner, which would seem dubious to a cognitivist.

Similarly, a constructionist would look to an architecturally sound structure

created in a physics engine as evidence of understanding of mathematical

engineering concepts,while a behaviorist might consider such an artifact useless

in determining the student's ability to recite foundational mathematicalequations

that every engineer should know. In short, the effectivenessof technology

integration requires evidence that the integration is effective,but what is believed

to be effective for learning will depend upon our view of learning.

Thus, the first step toward defining effective technology integration for yourself

is to consider how you define learning and what constitutes evidence of learning.

Similarly as teachers work within educational institutions, the criteria by which they

and their students are evaluated will rely upon one or more of the learning theories

mentioned above. If there is misalignment between how the teacherviews learning

and how the institution views learning, then misunderstandings will arise, because

what the teacher views to be effective technology integration may not be

recognized or valued by the institution and vice versa.

As such, teachers need to decide for themselves what learning is tothem

and also understand what learning means in the institutions in which they operate.

So, before you can ask yourself what is effective

10 | P a g e
 Technology for Teaching and Learning 2

technology integration, you must first ask yourself the following two

questions:

• What are my beliefs about learning and how learning occurs?

• What are my institution's beliefs about learning and how

learning occurs?

Beliefs and Values

Once you understand how both you and your institution view the learning process,

then you can move to the next step and consideryour beliefs and values with

regard to technology. Some people might value the acquisition of technical skills

for the sake of technical skillsto be a good thing, while others might believe

that technology shouldonly be used if it is helping students to learn content better

or to learn more. Though all students should learn some level of technical skill

competency in order to make them suitable for the modern workplace (e.g.,

productivity software, keyboarding, basic programming), most technologies in

education are not focused on this type of learning.

11 | P a g e
 Technology for Teaching and Learning 2

Rather, when we talk about technology integration, we are generallytalking about

using technology to improve the learning of content knowledge, such as science,

math, history, or language arts. When viewed in this way, teachers and

institutions need to consider how well new technologies will help them to

teach age-old content in better or more efficient ways and what are the

opportunity costs associated with a shift to new technologies.

There is a common myth in education related to technology adoption that older

or more experienced teachers are less likely to adopt new technologies and to

innovate upon their practice than younger teachers. Though this may sometimes

be the case, many people do not stop to consider why this might be happening.

Evidence suggests that age ultimately has nothing to do with a person's

willingness to innovate, but rather, experience may help people to more quickly

identify the transient nature of some changes or that some so-called innovations

are actually harmful or ineffective for students.

12 | P a g e
 Technology for Teaching and Learning 2

In the case of technology in education, experienced teachers may have a

wealth of understanding of how their students learn and howthey can teach

in effective ways, whereas new teachers may be eagerto try new things and to

adopt technologies that they think will help thembe effective in the classroom.

The problem is that sometimes the most eager teachers are also the least

capable of making informed decisions, because they may lack the experiential

knowledge necessary to make informed choices about these technologies, how

much time to invest in learning them, and what to expect in terms of student

outcomes. In every case, a teacher's beliefs and values willdrive how they view

technology integration, whether old or young, and their willingness to use

technologies in their classrooms.

Similarly, schools and districts have their own beliefs and values about

technology, how it should be used, and how it will impact students. For this reason

it is important for us to understand each of these groups' beliefs and values, how

they may be different, and how

13 | P a g e
 Technology for Teaching and Learning 2

this influences the process of technology integration. Though personal beliefs and

values are complicated and will vary between different people, we will consider

four areas of belief and value that guide teachers and institutions in their

technology integration practices. These include: Proof, Facility, Compliance,

and Institutionalization.

Proof

First, proof deals with the efficiency or efficacy of a technology to help improve

student learning. Proof requires some form of discernible or measurable outcome

and will be most important to teachers in the

classroom or to principals and other administrators who invest timeand money

into technology and must prove that it is improving student achievement. From

a teacher's or principal's perspective, if a technology does not directly improve

students' ability to learn in a discernible or measurable way, then the value of

that technology willbe dubious. Teachers are stressed for time and they do

not want toinvest the effort necessary to learn and implement new technologies if

they are not going to see actual results in how their students are learning.

Likewise, principals face financial and other stressors which

14 | P a g e
 Technology for Teaching and Learning 2

require them to provide evidence of student learning and that they are being wise

stewards of institutional resources.

Proof might be slightly different for teachers and principals, however,due to

their level of vision and operation. A teacher will want evidence that a technology

works in her classroom through the creation of student artifacts or saved time,

while a principal might want evidencethat a technology works in all classes,

preferring more generalizableresearch evidence over anecdotal evidence from

one or two teachers.This means that teachers and principals might not always

see eye-to-eye when it comes to identifying meaningful evidence for technology

integration, because a classroom teacher will not care about what the research

says if she is not seeing success in her classroom, and aprincipal might not care

what an individual teacher says as long asthe evidence from other teachers is

strong.

Facility

Second, facility (as in facile or easy) deals with the ease at which anew

technology can be learned, implemented, or managed at the teacher- or student-

level. Teachers want to use tools that are easy to

15 | P a g e
 Technology for Teaching and Learning 2

learn, and the greater the learning curve associated with a new technology the

less likely a teacher will be willing to invest the time and energy necessary to

learn it. Similarly, if the technology requires teachers to invest a large amount of

time troubleshooting or providing tutorials to students, then they are much less

likely to use it. Teachers value technologies that they can pick up, easily use, and

put away. Technology support personnel value these technologies as well,

because it means that they can provide less support to teachers inlearning and

troubleshooting them, but principals and other administrators may not believe that

facility is very important in comparison to other values, because in their eyes the

value of the technology for learning would outweigh the difficulties in terms of

time or effort. Thus, a principal might require all teachers to learn anew

technology, because she believes that it will drastically improve student learning,

even though that technology is very difficult to useand requires high levels of

support.

Compliance

Third, compliance deals with the legal and ethical requirements of technology use

in contrast to their pragmatic use. Those who valuecompliance will ensure that new

technologies meet security requirements or legal requirements regarding

student security. Teachers and administrators rarely think about compliance when

integrating new technologies, or if they do, they only do so as an afterthought.

Rather, strategic technology support personnel deal

16 | P a g e
 Technology for Teaching and Learning 2

most heavily with this issue and seek to ensure that technologies that are used

in the classroom and across institutions will not pose legalrisk to the institution.

Thus, the teacher may have students use an online blogging platform without

letting school or district personnel know, because those same personnel might

tell her to stop, becausethe platform does not meet mandated security,

accessibility, or privacy requirements. Similarly, filtering of web searches is

typicallymanaged at the school or district level to ensure compliance with state

and federal regulations, while classroom teachers might complain about how

strict filtering systems are or may have little sayin determining what is allowed

and what is banned. In short, compliance is an essential consideration for schools

to ensure safe, legal, and ethical technology use, but it is typically only considered

by those in specialized positions, such as technology administrators or those in a

disabilities office.

17 | P a g e
 Technology for Teaching and Learning 2

Institutionalization

And fourth, institutionalization deals with infrastructural compatibility, cost,

lifespan, and management scale of new technologies. When a teacher

purchases a new device or set of devices for her classroom she may not think

ahead about the long-term costs associated with those devices (e.g., the price

of apps orsoftware updates, breakage, replacement), whether or not the

devicesare compatible with the school's technology infrastructure (e.g., can they

access the network?), or the work involved in keeping those devices up-to-date

and working. Rather, technology support personnel often understand these

issues very well, and this will guide them toprefer certain technologies over

others. For instance, technology personnel might want to provide Chromebooks to

students (which are easy to manage at scale) instead of iPads (which are not),

even though teachers might want iPads. This can create a tension between

technology personnel and teachers, where teachers want to use technologies that

may be too difficult to support or technology personnel might want to use

technologies that have limited classroom value.

Differing Beliefs and Values

Based on these four values, it is easy to see why technologyintegration in

school settings can be so complicated. On the one hand,a principal might value

proof by wanting to use technologies that are

18 | P a g e
 Technology for Teaching and Learning 2

shown through research to improve student learning, while theteacher may

want to use a technology that is easy to learn, and a technology support

professional might want to use a technology thatis compliant and that can

easily be implemented at an institutionallevel. The problem is that a single

technology rarely does all thingswell, and for that reason, certain groups will

gravitate toward certain technologies while others will take a very different view.

Thus, though a classroom teacher might want to purchase iPads, atechnology

administrator might want to purchase Chromebooks, and a principal might want to

purchase PC or Mac laptops. Each person in this scenario has certain values

driving why they are picking one technology over another, and if the teacher does

not understand the reason why a principal or tech support professional might have

a differing view about what technologies to adopt, this can cause problems for

integrating technology, because the teacher may not be able to get the

technologies that she wants, she may not have thesupport necessary to manage

and support them, or she might be required to use a technology that she does not

want to use.

In all cases, the best approach to technology integration involves considering the

beliefs and values of everyone involved in the institution and making selections

and necessary compromises to best meet their needs. As a teacher, you must

understand at least at abasic level the beliefs and values that principals and

technology

19 | P a g e
 Technology for Teaching and Learning 2

support personnel are working under so that you can understand their perspectives

and help to inform technology decision-making with your own. So, you must

consider the following:

• What are the most important factors that will guide my own technology

integration decision-making?

• How do I communicate and collaborate with others who may have

different values?

Technology Integration Models

Once you have a basic grasp of your own approach to learning and the beliefs and

values that will guide your technology integration, you are ready to begin exploring

how to make this happen effectively. Technology integration models are

theoretical models that are designed to help teachers, researchers, and others

in the educationfield to think about technology integration in meaningful ways.

Thereare many, many technology integration models that are used by different

groups. Some models are very popular while some are only used by very

small groups of people, and some are very similar to one another, while others are

very unique. Rather than provide anexhausting description of each technology

integration model, we willnow proceed by providing a brief overview of a few

that we believe tobe most widely used or valuable to help you begin thinking about

technology integration in your classroom. The models we will explorewill

include the following: TPACK, RAT, SAMR, and PICRAT.

20 | P a g e
 Technology for Teaching and Learning 2

TPACK

TPACK is the most commonly used technology integration model amongst

educational researchers. The goal of TPACK is to provide educators with a

framework that is useful for understanding technology's role in the educational

process. At its heart, TPACK holds that educators deal with three types of core

knowledge on a daily basis: technological knowledge, pedagogical knowledge,

and content knowledge. Content knowledge is knowledge of one's content area

such as science, math, or social studies. Pedagogical knowledge is knowledge of

how to teach. And technological knowledge is knowledge of how to use

technology tools.

The TPACK Model

21 | P a g e
 Technology for Teaching and Learning 2

These core knowledge domains, however, interact with and build oneach other

in important and complicated ways. For instance, if youare going to teach

kindergarten mathematics, you must both understand mathematics (i.e. content

knowledge) and how to teach (i.e. pedagogical knowledge), but you must also

understand therelationship between pedagogy and the content area. That is you

must understand how to teach mathematics, which is very different from teaching

other subject areas, because the pedagogical strategies you use to teach

mathematics will be specific to that content domain. When we merge content

knowledge and pedagogical knowledge together, a hybrid domain emerges

called pedagogical content knowledge. Pedagogical content knowledge includes

knowledge aboutcontent and pedagogy, but it also includes the specific knowledge

necessary to teach the specified content in a meaningful way.

TPACK goes on to explain that when we try to integrate technologyinto a

classroom setting, we are not merely using technological knowledge, but rather,

we are merging technological knowledge withpedagogical content knowledge to

produce something new. TPACK or technological pedagogical content knowledge

is the domain of knowledge wherein technology, pedagogy, and content meet

to create a meaningful learning experience. From this, educators need to

recognize that merely using technology in a classroom is not sufficient to

produce truly meaningful technology integration. Rather, teachersmust understand

how technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge

22 | P a g e
 Technology for Teaching and Learning 2

interact with one another to produce a learning experience that is meaningful for

students in specific situations.

RAT and SAMR

RAT and SAMR are very similar technology integration models,though RAT

has been used more often by researchers and SAMR has been used more often

by teachers. Both of these models assume thatthe introduction of technology

into a learning experience will have some effect on what is happening, and they

try to help us understand what this effect is and how we should be using

technology in meaningful ways.

RAT is an acronym for replace, amplify, and transform, and the model holds that

when technology is used in a teaching setting, technology is either used to replace

a traditional approach to teaching (without any discernible difference on student

outcomes), to amplify the learning that was occurring, or to transform learning

in ways that were not possible without the technology (Hughes, Thomas, &

Scharber, 2006). Similarly, SAMR is an acronym for substitution, augmentation,

modification, and redefinition (Puentedura, 2003). To compare it to RAT,

substitution and replacement both deal with technology use that merely substitutes

or replaces previous use with no functional improvement on efficiency.

Redefinition and transformation both dealwith technology use that empowers

teachers and students to learn in new, previously impossible ways.

23 | P a g e
 Technology for Teaching and Learning 2

A comparison of the levels of SAMR and RAT

Comparing RAT and SAMR

The difference between these two models rests in the center letters,wherein RAT's

amplification is separated into two stages as SAMR's augmentation and

modification. All of these stages deal with technology use that functionally

improves what is happening in the classroom, but in the SAMR model,

augmentation represents a small improvement, and modification represents a

large improvement.

Both of these models are helpful for leading educators to consider the question:

what effect is using the technology having on my practice? Ifthe technology is

merely replacing or substituting previous practice,then it is a less meaningful use

of technology. Whereas technology use that transforms or redefines classroom

practice is considered to be more valuable.

24 | P a g e
 Technology for Teaching and Learning 2

PICRAT

Building off of the ideas presented in the models above, we will now provide one

final model that may serve as a helpful starting point for teachers to begin

thinking about technology integration. PICRAT assumes that there are two

foundational questions that a teacher must ask about any technology use in their

classrooms. These include:

1. What is the students' relationship to the technology? (PIC: Passive,

Interactive, Creative)

2. How is the teacher's use of technology influencing traditional practice?

(RAT: Replace, Amplify, Transform; cf. Hughes, Thomas, & Scharber,

2006)

25 | P a g e
 Technology for Teaching and Learning 2

The provided illustration maps these two questions on a two dimensional grid, and

by answering these two questions, teachers can get a sense for where

any particular practice falls.

For instance, if a history teacher shifts from writing class notes on a chalkboard to

providing these notes in a PowerPoint presentation, this would likely be

categorized in the bottom-left (PR) section of the grid, because the teacher is using

the technology to merely replace a traditional practice, and the students are

passively taking notes on what they see. In contrast, if an English teacher guides

students in developing a creative writing blog, which they use to elicit feedback

from peers, parents, and the online community on their short stories, this would

likely be categorized in the top-right (CT) section, becausethe teacher is using

the technology to transform her practice to do

26 | P a g e
 Technology for Teaching and Learning 2

something that would have been impossible without the technology,and the

students are using the technology as a tool for creation.

Experience has shown that as teachers begin using technologies in their

classrooms, they will typically begin doing so in a manner thatfalls closer to

the bottom-left of the grid. However, many of the most exciting and valuable uses

of technology for teaching rest firmly in the top-most and right-most sections of this

grid. For this reason, teachers need to be encouraged to evolve their practice to

continually move from the bottom-left (PR) to the top-right (CT) of the grid.

APPLICATION

What Have You Learned?

Instruction: Provide what is asked in each item. Do not forget to givecredit to the authors
that you have cited.

1. How is technology can be integrated in each of the presented learning theory?

Please provide actual scenario/s that is/are cited by authors about the applications
of technology in each learning theory and give also your personal reflection in each
example you presented.
2. As a future teacher, which of the following learning theories suit/s you best in
technology education program? Elaborate your answer and provide real examples.
3. How important is the alignment of teachers’ views on the learners towards his/her
technology integration techniques during lesson planning? Cite some examples.
4. Suppose that you are researching on a new technology or you want to develop a
new technology to be integrated in your curriculum, what would be your survey
instrument? You can answer this by formulating/drafting your research survey
instrument using the presented four (4) areas of beliefs and values. Questions must
be atleast five (5) per value.
5. Why are there ineffective educators despite using relevant andupdated educational

27 | P a g e
 Technology for Teaching and Learning 2

technologies? Cite authors on the causes of teaching inefficiencies.

6. Determine a particular technology used by your previous instructors and evaluate
whether it was used as a replacement or substitution of the previous practice or it
transformed/redefined classroom practices. Specify your educational technology
example.
7. Determine an event/scenario when your instructor shifted his/her technology
integration from one integration to another. Determine and elaborate its placement
on the PICRAT table.

Closure

Having been explained these foundational understandings, you are now

ready to apply your knowledge to real-life scenarios. The next lesson will deepen

your insights on the learning theory about digital age. Congratulations!

28 | P a g e
 Technology for Teaching and Learning 2

References:

Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Kimmons, R., Graham, C., & West, R. (2020). The PICRAT model for technology
integration in teacher preparation. Contemporary Issues in Technology and
Teacher Education, 20(1).

Hughes, J., Thomas, R., & Scharber, C. (2006). Assessingtechnology

integration: The RAT–replacement, amplification, and transformation-
framework. In Society for Information Technology& Teacher Education
International Conference (pp. 1616-1620).

Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. & Kimmons, R. (2020). The K-12 Educational Technology

Handbook. EdTechBooks.Org

29 | P a g e