1. 4
Principles of Instructional Technology
Learning Objectives
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
• Compare and contrast the following three pairs of commonly
confused terms: education
and schooling, teaching and learning, and curriculum and
instruction.
• Identify a theory of learning that is compatible with your
beliefs about learning and a
learning theory that is not compatible with your beliefs about
how students learn best.
• Describe the core components of the TPACK model and show
the relevance of each to
ways in which technology might be used in the classroom.
• Create a graphic illustrating the four phases of the technology
integration process and
describe the tasks that are most important for classroom
teachers to be responsible for.
• Identify two strategies that will assist you in integrating
technology into the curriculum.
AP Photo/The Idaho Statesman/Darin Oswald

2. edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 133 5/29/13 2:15 PM
CHAPTER 4Pre-Test
Meet Dr. Ruben Puentedura
A Brief Introduction to the Use of Technology in Education
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMazGEAiZ9c
Introduction
Can teachers be effective if they choose not to use technology
in their classrooms? Unfortunately, there is little agreement
among educators on this basic question. In this chapter, we will
explore issues associated with teaching and learning in
order to understand when, how, and why technology has the
potential to enhance teach-
ing, learning, and performance. Specifically, our goal is to
understand whether or not the
decision to use technology in the classroom is up to the
individual teacher or if there are
some larger social obligations that require teachers to support
technology use by diverse
students in ways that foster meaningful and deep learning.
In other courses you may have been introduced to various
theories of learning. Here we
will briefly explore selected learning theories in order to
understand their implications for
our personal beliefs concerning how learning occurs, as
research has demonstrated that a
teacher’s theoretical framework has considerable implications
for the way they adopt and
use technology in the classroom (or not!).

3. The final sections in this chapter will bridge theory, research,
and practice by introducing
you to a model of the technology integration process. While
many technology specialists
find all aspects of technology integration exciting, we must not
lose sight of the goal for
using technology in the classroom: to enhance student learning.
Therefore, you’ll be given
a roadmap to the process of integrating technology into the
curriculum and learn practical
strategies, resources, and tools that will facilitate this process.
Pre-Test
1. Which term describes the instructional process and guides
classroom methods?
a. learning
b. development
c. curriculum
d. assessment
2. Programming a computer when creating a new program is an
example of the
computer as a
a. tutee.
b. tutor.
c. tool.
d. toy.
edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 134 5/29/13 2:15 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMazGEAiZ9c

4. CHAPTER 4Section 4.1 The Foundations of Teaching and
Learning
3. Which of the following is NOT a primary domain of TPACK?
a. technological knowledge (TK)
b. pedagogical knowledge (PK)
c. content knowledge (CK)
d. assessment knowledge (AK)
4. The most complex and ambitious models of technology
integration are the
a. webbed and connected models.
b. fragmented and integrated models.
c. shared and nested models.
d. immersed and networked models.
5. Blueprints that allow teachers to think about technology
integration in ways that
are similar to their styles are known as
a. stakeholders.
b. research-based interventions.
c. study plans.
d. activity types.
Answers
1. c. curriculum. The answer can be found in Section 4.1.
2. a. tutee. The answer can be found in Section 4.2.
3. d. assessment knowledge (AK). The answer can be found in
Section 4.3.
4. d. immersed and networked models. The answer can be
found in Section 4.4.
5. d. activity types. The answer can be found in Section 4.5.
4.1 The Foundations of Teaching and Learning

5. The purpose of schooling is to transmit the knowledge that a
society deems useful from one generation to the next
(Whitehead, 1929). As we discussed in Chapter 1, (Section 1.1),
American society has relied on schools to produce citizens who
are
capable of participating in a democracy, mastering a vocation
that will enable them to
support themselves, and contributing to the well-being of
society.
Educators are sometimes conflicted about their responsibilities
to serve as cultural guard-
ians (Brady, 1989; Jacobs, 2010). On the one hand, they are
responsible for transmitting
the cultural knowledge that has stood the test of time as being
important for past, and
presumably future, generations. On the other hand, they are
challenged to evaluate fads
and trends for evidence of significant change that should be
embraced. An example of
this type of dilemma is illustrated in the following scenario:
Should educators in the early
21st century continue to hold onto traditional printed books, or
discard printed texts and
adopt new e-book readers? Or, is the more appropriate path
something in between these
two extremes? How do we discern the essence of cultural
knowledge (i.e., reading) but
learn to embrace change that affects the container reading
materials are delivered in (i.e.,
students may engage in reading with print books, e-books, or
apps)?
In order to try and resolve this kind of dilemma, let’s sort
though some important terms.
Then, we will revisit the scenario in order to consider the role

6. of technology.
edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 135 5/29/13 2:15 PM
CHAPTER 4Section 4.1 The Foundations of Teaching and
Learning
Defining the Essence of Teaching and Learning
The term learning and development is often applied to the
learning milestones associated
with human development. For example, young normally
developing children learn lan-
guage and how to manipulate their bodies without formal
explicit instruction. When
learning is considered across the lifespan, we see numerous
examples of learning and
development that contribute to the growth/education of an
individual: how adolescents
develop a sense of self through their relationships, how
newlyweds learn to function as
a couple, and how middle-aged adults learn to care for aging
parents. Learning in these
contexts often involves circuitous routes, sometimes called the
“school of hard knocks,” a
phrase meant to convey a contrast between learning that is
acquired through books and
the trial-and-error of real life.
Another way to understand learning is to consider the amount of
structure that is pro-
vided within a learning context. Learning to ride a two-wheeled
bike is an example of
informal learning. In this learning context, a child’s parent,
sibling, or friend offers support,

7. advice, and encouragement to help her master the task of riding
a bike without training
wheels. Learning in schools, in contrast, is known as formal
learning. Here the learner must
conform to formal structures with rigid rules about grade-level
placement, length of the
school day, required subjects, and so on. Formal learning tends
to be viewed as efficient
because it has clearly defined goals, sequential learning
activities, appropriate instruc-
tional materials, periodic progress monitoring, and more.
Informal learning, on the other
hand, is more learner-centered, but involves more trial and error
because the learning
path is not clearly marked.
Education is the sum of all informal and formal learning
opportunities that shape an indi-
vidual. As a result, a person’s education must be understood as
a highly personalized
experience rather than a uniform outcome of schooling.
Education is now viewed not
as something that is completed after 12 or 16 years of schooling
but as a lifelong process
of learning and development. Whereas the term pedagogy is
used to refer to the science of
teaching and learning of children, the term andragogy is used to
describe the science
of teaching adults. After adults complete their formal schooling,
their ongoing education
typically takes the form of self-directed learning (Brookfield,
1985; Candy, 1991; Knowles,
1980). That is, adult learners decide what they want to learn
(e.g., how to be a bee keeper),
how they want to learn (e.g., attend a class, view video tutorials
on the Internet), and

8. when they have completed the learning task (e.g., after simply
gaining awareness infor-
mation, after building a bee hive in the backyard).
Learning: The Interaction Between Curriculum–Instruction–
Assessment
A final set of definitions involve what are known as C–I–A. To
understand the factors
associated with learning in schools, educators must be immersed
in the interaction of
three components: curriculum, instruction, and assessment (C–
I–A). At times, we focus
on each component separately; however, it is important to
understand the interaction of
these components with the learning process as we seek to
improve student achievement
through schooling.
Curriculum is a body of knowledge that someone has deemed it
is important to know.
Thus, it outlines what is worth knowing and serves as a
blueprint for the instructional
edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 136 5/29/13 2:15 PM
CHAPTER 4Section 4.1 The Foundations of Teaching and
Learning
process. While this seems like an objective process, it is
fundamentally a valuing task. That
is, our values impact the decisions concerning what to put in the
curriculum and what to
leave out. This valuing process affects every parent, teacher,
and curriculum designer as

9. they define what students need to know. The curriculum
development process makes
decisions about (a) what a student needs to know, (b) what
information should be left out
because it is assumed students already know the information,
(c) time constraints that
limit the amount of time that can be devoted to a lesson or unit,
and (d) the curriculum
scope and sequence that identifies some information as too
complex for the present pur-
pose of instruction but that will be revisited in the future.
Perhaps you are familiar with the work of Edward Hirsch
(author of the books Cultural
Literacy and Dictionary of Cultural Literacy and the book
series, What Every Child Should
Know in ___ Grade . . . ). As a professor of English, with a
small group of colleagues, Hirsch
has set about trying to define the core knowledge that American
students need to know in
order to share a cultural literary history (to learn more, visit
http://www.coreknowledge
.org). While his intent is noble, his work is controversial and
has been criticized as a sub-
jective response to the question of what is worth knowing.
In contrast, consider the process used to develop and adopt the
Common Core State Stan-
dards (CCSS; see http://www.corestandards.org/), which
involved conversations among
many stakeholders to reach agreement on what is important to
know concerning English
and math in K–12. The CCSS represents a curriculum blueprint
of what students should
be learning in each subject across the K–12 grades. Both
initiatives have resulted in cur-

10. ricula that are used by schools. If given a choice, would you
prefer to use Culture Literacy
or the Common Core State Standards curriculum in your
classroom? Why?
Instruction is the general term that encompasses the interactive
teaching and learning pro-
cess that is used to help students learn the content of the
curriculum. Teaching is the sci-
ence of designing instructional environments, materials, and
activities to enhance learn-
ing. What works for one student does not work for all students.
As a result, teachers seek
to develop an array of instructional methods for engaging
students in the process of learn-
ing. Teaching is what the teacher does, and the other half of the
equation (learning) is the
responsibility of the student.
Whereas historical conceptions of learning considered the
student to be an empty vessel
gradually filled with knowledge dispersed by the teacher, we
now know that learning is
an active process that involves constructing knowledge by
making meaning out of infor-
mation. Many types of interventions are used in the classroom
to help students learn:
reading, watching a video, conducting an experiment,
collaborating with peers, and so
on. Integrating technology into the curriculum involves
determining how digital learn-
ing tools and materials align with the curriculum in ways that
help teachers teach and/or
help students learn.
Assessment refers to the evaluation of student learning.

11. Although we currently tend to
think of assessment as high-stakes testing, the primary purpose
of assessment is to pro-
vide feedback to the teacher and student about the amount and
quality of learning.
We typically speak of three types of assessments. Diagnostic
assessment seeks to deter-
mine what the student knows and what gaps are present in the
student’s knowledge and
edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 137 5/29/13 2:15 PM
http://www.coreknowledge.org
http://www.coreknowledge.org
http://www.corestandards.org/
CHAPTER 4Section 4.1 The Foundations of Teaching and
Learning
skills. This type of assessment is used to determine where to
place a student in a curricu-
lum sequence as well as what type of remediation is needed to
close any learning gaps.
Formative assessment, a second type of assessment, is
conducted periodically during an
instructional unit to ascertain student progress in order to
identify students who may
need remediation or additional support. It is sometimes referred
to as progress monitoring.
Finally, summative assessment is conducted at the end of a unit,
term, or school year, and is
designed to provide a final overall measure of student learning.
Technology can be used
in any number of ways to enhance assessment.

12. Now that we have explored the key vocabulary associated with
teaching and learning,
let’s revisit the dilemma posed by e-book technologies
introduced earlier: Should educa-
tors in the early 21st century continue to embrace traditional
printed books, or discard
printed texts and adopt new e-book readers? Or is the more
appropriate path something
in between these two extremes?
First, the decision about what to
teach is a question about curriculum
and, therefore, it is value-based. A
teacher who insists on using e-books
may do so because of the growing
popularity of this format and the per-
spective that reading in the future
will increasingly take place using
screens. Some books are only avail-
able in print, and some e-books are
only available in digital format. So,
by asking questions about what we
want to teach, the format question
may be answered for us.
On the other hand, if we intend to
teach using a book that is available in
both formats, the question changes
from being a curriculum issue to an
instructional decision. If a book is
available in both print and digital
format, what are the advantages/dis-
advantages of each (i.e., cost, availability of e-book readers,
teacher preferences, student

13. preferences)? This is also an area where the instructional needs
of diverse learners should
be considered. That is, will a struggling reader find an e-book
more motivating to read?
Are supports (i.e., font size adjustability, text-to-speech
capabilities) built into the digital
e-book that make it more accessible and engaging for struggling
readers?
Finally, by using student assessment data, we gain insight into
the question about the
effectiveness of each format for the students in our class.
Ultimately we are trying to deter-
mine what works for whom and under what conditions.
With books now available in both print and digital formats,
educators need to decide which formats they want their
students to use. What attributes of each technology make
them accessible and engaging for diverse learners?
jader alto/Marka/SuperStock
edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 138 5/29/13 2:15 PM
CHAPTER 4Section 4.2 Influence of Learning Theories on the
Way Teachers Approach Technology
Pause to Reflect
How would you compare and contrast the terms curriculum and
instruction? Teaching and learning?
Using examples from your own life, can you describe a
meaningful informal learning experience?
A meaningful formal learning experience?

14. The effective use of technology in education involves a keen
understanding of the many
strategies for using technology to support C–I–A. Therefore, as
we continue to explore the
possibilities afforded by technology, you will be challenged to
evaluate whether or not
new tools (e.g., e-books) will replace historical tools (e.g.,
printed texts), or whether we
should adopt new technologies simply as one more tool to make
the curriculum accessible
and engaging for diverse learners. As we will see, the
deployment of technology within
each of the components of C–I–A may yield different types of
outcomes. At the present
time, many experts believe that the key leverage point for
deploying technology should
focus on the Instruction (I) in the interactive equation.
4.2 Influence of Learning Theories on the Way Teachers
Approach Technology
Research has demonstrated that teachers’ beliefs impact how
they think about and use technology in the classroom (Brush,
Glazewski, & Hew, 2008; Ertmer, 2005; Ert-mer & Ottenbreit-
Leftwich, 2010; Judson, 2006; Levin & Wadmany, 2006). The
pur-
pose of this section is to explore how theoretical frameworks
impact the way we under-
stand how and why technology should be used in the classroom.
The goal is to help you
recognize the theories that are compatible with what you think
about learning and how
these perspectives will color your thinking with regard to
embracing technology, limiting
its use, or avoiding its use.

15. Early Days of Technology Integration
Taylor (1980) developed a model for technology integration that
had a profound impact
on how educators initially thought about the role of the
computer in the classroom. Taylor
suggested that that the computer could be used in four roles:
tutor, tool, tutee, and toy.
When used as a tutor, the computer presents some subject
material, the student responds,
the computer evaluates the response, and then, based on the
results, the computer branches
to remediate or moves on to present new information. When
schools focus on using the
computer to teach content, sometimes called computer-assisted
instruction (CAI), we see the
perspective of computer as tutor. Almost all educational
software, and many apps, use
the core principles of C–I–A to define a portion of curriculum,
present the content in an
interesting interactive technology format (instruction), and
involve some level of perfor-
mance assessment. However, CAI has never been the premier
model of technology use in
schools. This may suggest the difficulty the field of education
has had in identifying and
edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 139 5/29/13 2:15 PM
CHAPTER 4Section 4.2 Influence of Learning Theories on the
Way Teachers Approach Technology
implementing CAI software and web resources to support all
topics of the curriculum for

16. 180 school days per year without an adequate technology
infrastructure (i.e., one com-
puter per student, a technology integration plan). However, as
we will discuss in Chapter
10, the concept of the computer as a personal tutor is enjoying a
resurgence because of
new technology developments known as personalization—that
is, providing computer-
based instruction that branches to optimize individual learning.
When used as a tool, the computer saves the learner time,
enhances productivity, and
allows the user to focus intellectual energy on higher-order
tasks. Computers as produc-
tivity tools have been the predominant focus of technology
applications both in and out-
side of schools. When middle school students learn how to
operate each of the compo-
nents in Microsoft Office, for example, this is an example of
technology tool use in the
curriculum. For many years, tool use has been the dominant
model of technology use in
education because it requires only a small investment in a core
collection of programs that
can be used across the curriculum (i.e., Word-, Excel-,
PowerPoint-).
The computer serves as a tutee when the learner is engaged in
programming (“teaching”
the computer how to do a task). In the early days of computer
use in education, it was
thought that teachers would develop their own software. This
vision was clearly mis-
guided. However, educators who are interested in the computer
as an object to be taught
(tutee) now work in the field known as computer science.

17. Computer science is sometimes
taught to middle and high school students to introduce them to
the fundamentals of pro-
gramming languages that can be implemented on various
devices (computers, tablets,
handheld devices) as well as via the Web. Readers interested in
classroom applications
of programming are encouraged to explore the free open source
programming language
known as Scratch (http://scratch.mit.edu/). Proponents of
teaching all students some
basic computer programming argue that it allows students to
learn logical thinking and
problem solving, and makes them better consumers of
technology because they have a
basic understanding about how software, apps, and websites
work.
Finally, when Taylor spoke of the computer as a toy, he
recognized the possibilities it held
for play. While this characteristic has not been embraced by
schools, viewing computers
as toys has become a reality in the context of digital gaming
systems and online games.
In fact, the field of gaming has advanced so far that educators
and researchers are now
looking to the field of video games for new pedagogical insights
about learning (Dickey,
2005; Gros, 2007; Marino & Beecher, 2010; Tobias & Fletcher,
2007). In particular, they are
seeking answers to the question: Why is it that a student will
play a game for hours but be
frustrated and unwilling to complete a learning activity in
school? That is, researchers and
developers are trying to identify the relevant factors that impact
challenge, engagement,

18. failure, and motivation in order to understand how a new
generation of instructional
materials might take on some of the relevant characteristics of
games.
Taylor’s work provides a framework for understanding the
application of technology in
education that many educators and administrators still subscribe
to today. Indeed, exam-
ples of each of the four components continue to be found in
schools today—in particular,
tool use. And this makes sense when we view the primary role
of technology to provide
CAI or to serve as a tutee for students to develop programming
skills. However, Taylor’s
framework is less helpful if we think about the role of
technology in creative pursuits (i.e.,
digital photography and Adobe Photoshop-), communication
(i.e., video conferencing,
Facebook), or entirely new uses of technology that exert
significant influence on society
edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 140 5/29/13 2:15 PM
http://scratch.mit.edu/
CHAPTER 4Section 4.2 Influence of Learning Theories on the
Way Teachers Approach Technology
Index of Learning Theories and Models
http://www.learning-theories.com/
A Simple Guide To 4 Complex Learning Theories

19. http://edudemic.com/2012/12/a-simple-guide-to-4-complex-
learning-theories/
Theories of Learning in Educational Psychology
http://www.lifecircles-
inc.com/Learningtheories/learningmap.html
Theories of Educational Technology
https://sites.google.com/a/boisestate.edu/edtechtheories/
such as YouTube, Netflix, and Wikipe-
dia, and only are beginning to impact
the future of education. As we move
toward a point in society where
technology is ubiquitous, educators
may be confronted with decisions
in which we are required to articu-
late our beliefs about the conditions
under which learning occurs. For
that reason, we now turn our atten-
tion to several learning theories to
better understand how our percep-
tions of learning influence our deci-
sion to use, or not use, technology to
enhance student learning.
Learning Theory
When researchers develop a theory,
they are able to show relationships
between selected components of a phenomenon. Many theories
of learning cannot be
directly tested and proven the way theories in the physical
sciences can be. As a result,
there are many theories of learning.

20. Before we examine the process of integrating technology into
the curriculum, it is neces-
sary to briefly examine common theories of learning. This will
assist you in determining
which theories reflect your personal beliefs about how learning
occurs.
Learning theories are often classified concerning their basic
premise about how people
make sense of the world and gain understanding by absorbing,
processing, and retaining
information during the learning process. Within the field of
educational technology, theo-
rists have applied a number of frameworks to the task of
designing computer-based instruc-
tion to enhance learning (Roblyer & Doering, 2013). Explore
the following web resources to
learn more about specific theories of learning in order to
identify which theories are most
compatible with your own thinking about the optimal conditions
that foster learning:
When considering the various ways computers are used
today, how does Taylor’s framework apply to computer
systems like tablets and smartphones?
Fancy Collection/SuperStock
edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 141 5/29/13 2:15 PM
http://www.learning-theories.com/
http://edudemic.com/2012/12/a-simple-guide-to-4-complex-
learning-theories/
http://www.lifecircles-
inc.com/Learningtheories/learningmap.html

21. https://sites.google.com/a/boisestate.edu/edtechtheories/
CHAPTER 4Section 4.2 Influence of Learning Theories on the
Way Teachers Approach Technology
For our immediate purposes, it is important to distinguish
between theories of learning
that are grounded in behaviorism and those that are grounded in
constructivism. Educators
who embrace behavioral approaches to learning believe that
knowledge can be defined
and transmitted to students in order to produce the intended
learning outcomes. Theoreti-
cal leaders of behaviorism are B. F. Skinner (1968) and Robert
Gagne (1985). Behaviorists
approach learning as task of conditioning—that is, preparing the
student to respond to
rewards and incentives for producing the desired behavior. Drill
and practice is a com-
mon technology application that often utilizes behavioral
learning principles.
Educators who embrace constructivism approaches to learning
believe that learners must
use information to construct personal meaning before it is
transformed into knowledge.
That is, knowledge is not something to be transmitted. Rather,
knowledge is something
that must be woven into mental models based on previous
knowledge and understand-
ing. Theoretical leaders in constructivism include Albert
Bandura (1977), Lev Vygotsky
(1962), Jean Piaget (1963), and Jerome Bruner (1971). Teachers
who hold constructivism
frameworks approach teaching as a process of exposing students

22. to meaningful experi-
ences. They expect students to become actively engaged in the
process of exploration,
testing out ideas about what works, what doesn’t, and why.
Technology applications in
a constructivist classroom tend to be open-ended in order to
allow students plenty of
options for knowledge building.
Although some educators may adopt the work of a single
learning theorist as a model for
teaching and learning, in most cases they select elements from
many learning theories as
they develop their personal philosophy of education. As a
result, we seldom find teachers
who are pure behaviorists or pure constructivists.
Understanding your theory of learn-
ing will help you as you select technology tools for your
classroom. For example, if you
believe that students must master a body of factual content, you
may search for flashcard
apps that students can practice using the smartphones or online
quiz programs like Quia
(http://www.quia.com) to test their knowledge. If you believe
students construct knowl-
edge, you may search for online museums like the Library of
Congress (http://loc.gov)
that offer rich collections of digital artifacts that students can
explore as they research a
specific topic. You may also provide access to creative tools
like Kerpoof (http://www
.kerpoof.com/) or Animation-ish
(http://fablevisionlearning.com/animationish/) that
provide students with rich palettes of tools for digital
storytelling in which they docu-
ment and express what they have learned. Our purpose is not to

23. argue that one theory
is better than another. Instead, we seek to understand how
learning theory affects the
design, adoption, and use of technology in the classroom in
order to enhance the academic
achievement of diverse learners.
Social Justice Perspectives Concerning Technology and
Learning
As we discussed in Chapter 1, education is viewed as a
fundamental right in the United
States based on the belief that education offers both tangible
economic benefits and
intangible opportunities for a better life. Educators with an
interest in social justice and
equity have raised two types of questions regarding the role of
technology in education
and the value or belief system associated with decisions to use,
or not use, technology in
the classroom.
edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 142 5/29/13 2:15 PM
http://www.quia.com
http://loc.gov
http://www.kerpoof.com/
http://www.kerpoof.com/
http://fablevisionlearning.com/animationish/
CHAPTER 4Section 4.3 Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge (TPACK)
Pause to Reflect
How would you describe your philosophy of education? How
does your perspective on the nature

24. of teaching and learning affect your view about whether
technology is essential, or optional, in
your classroom?
First, given the opportunities derived from being able to
effectively use technology, it
is important to determine whether students attending schools in
economically deprived
areas have the same level of access to technology as students
attending schools in more
affluent areas. This line of research examines issues of equity.
While the findings fluctu-
ate based on when a given snapshot was taken, there is
considerable evidence to suggest
that inner-city schools have less technology than suburban
schools and that schools with
higher minority student populations have less technology than
schools with a majority of
white students (Brown, 2005; Damarin, 2000; Kalyanpur &
Kirmani, 2005). This situation
is often referred to as the Digital Divide.
A second type of concern involves whether or not choosing to
teach with technology is
simply an individual teacher decision or whether there are
larger social justice obliga-
tions that morally require the use of technology to overcome
historical barriers (Banister
& Reinhart, 2011; Swain & Edyburn, 2007; Swain & Pearson,
2002). In other words, can
teachers be allowed to claim that they are “good teachers” and
therefore do not need to
use technology in their classroom? Or, are technology skills so
important for the future of
our children that we should mandate technology use in every
classroom?

25. Your philosophy of education will help you answer these
questions and reveal the types
of theories of learning that you hold. As you interview for
teaching positions, you may
discover that administrators and teacher interview teams will
probe your thinking about
social justice issues and your advocacy for the use of
technology to enhance teaching and
learning, so it is a good thing to be prepared to be able to
articulate your thoughts.
4.3 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)
In recent years, the field of educational technology has begun to
recognize the complex interactions that affect teachers’
decisions and approaches to using technology effec-tively in the
classroom. One of the most widely recognized models for
describing the
relationships between technology, pedagogy, and instructional
content is known as Tech-
nological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) (see Figure
4.1).
edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 143 5/29/13 2:15 PM
CHAPTER 4Section 4.3 Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge (TPACK)
Figure 4.1: TPACK model
The TPACK model shown here illustrates how the seven
components overlap and interact.

26. Source: Reproduced by permission of the publisher, . 2012 by
tpack.org
TPACK has been critically important for advancing research
about the use of technology
in education because it provides administrators, educators, and
researchers with a com-
mon language for discussing the various relationships between
content, pedagogy, and
technology (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). As the graphic in Figure
4.1 illustrates, there are
three primary domains: technological knowledge (TK),
pedagogical knowledge (PK), and
content knowledge (CK).
Briefly, TK focuses on the mechanical know-how information
associated with using tech-
nology (much like the kind presented in Chapter 2). PK is the
knowledge about teaching
and learning that you have gained in your education courses that
help you learn how to
be an effective teacher. CK is the specialized content
knowledge that teachers gain within
their teacher certification focus area (e.g., special education,
math, English). Collectively,
these three domains describe the general content of teacher
preparation programs across
the United States, as they represent the core domains of the
current knowledge that con-
tributes to the work of an effective teacher.
Perhaps the most important features of the TPACK model are
the overlapping areas that
provide rich contexts for understanding the effective use of
technology. Technological
Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) is the specialized content

27. associated with the use of tech-
nology to enhance teaching and learning. TPK is the focus of
this textbook as we align
Technological
Pedagogical Content
Knowledge
(TPACK)
Technological
Pedagogical
Knowledge
(TPK)
Technological
Content
Knowledge
(TCK)
Pedagogical
Content
Knowledge
(PCK)
Pedagogical
Knowledge
(PK)
Content
Knowledge

28. (CK)
Technological
Knowledge
(TK)
Contexts
edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 144 5/29/13 2:15 PM
CHAPTER 4Section 4.3 Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge (TPACK)
Creative Writing Prompts
http://www.creativewritingprompts.com/
Plinky
http://www.plinky.com/
Toasted Cheese Calendar
http://www.toasted-cheese.com/webcal/webcal.cgi
technology tools with principles of effective instruction.
Teachers operating within this
domain are able to align curriculum objectives with appropriate
technology tools. For
example, if a student has difficulty getting started with a
creative writing assignment,
TPK enables the teacher to identify several types of websites
that offer interesting prompts

29. to get the writing process started:
The goal of using technology with diverse learners is centered
on a deep understanding
of TPK rather than simplistic applications of technology as
outlined by Taylor (1980). The
challenge is to understand where learners get stuck and to
exploit the characteristics of
high-quality interactive technologies to allow them to access,
engage, and succeed at aca-
demic tasks that were formerly difficult or impossible to
complete.
Technological Content Knowledge
(TCK), in turn, involves the special-
ized knowledge associated with how
technology is used within a specific
subject area. Just as social stud-
ies teachers are familiar with vir-
tual museums and digital archives,
English teachers are familiar with
e-books and online writing tools. We
will continue to develop your TCK in
Chapters 6–8.
The third type of knowledge, Peda-
gogical Content Knowledge (PCK), is
the knowledge you gain in your dis-
cipline-specific methods courses. For
example, special education majors
study PCK in their methods courses
as they learn how to teach reading
and math. Science teachers learn
about problem-based learning and
methods of inquiry in their methods

30. courses. The design of this text in Chapters 6–8 deliberately
tries to review the PCK you
have acquired in your education classes by emphasizing the
pedagogical methods you
have learned about in order to enhance the development of your
TCK.
Technology like this dissecting application aligns curriculum
objectives with technology tools by providing a way
for even the most squeamish student to participate
comfortably in dissections.
AP Photo/The Press of Atlantic City/Vernon Ogrodnek
edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 145 5/29/13 2:15 PM
http://www.creativewritingprompts.com/
http://www.plinky.com/
http://www.toasted-cheese.com/webcal/webcal.cgi
CHAPTER 4Section 4.4 A Roadmap of the Technology
Integration Process
Finally, at the intersection of all three elements is
Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge (TPACK). Mishra and Koehler (2006) argue that
true technology integration
involves understanding and negotiating the relationships
between these three compo-
nents of knowledge. A teacher capable of negotiating these
relationships represents a form
of expertise that is different from, and greater than, the
knowledge of a disciplinary expert
(e.g., a mathematician or a historian), a technology expert (e.g.,
a computer scientist), and

31. a pedagogical expert (e.g., an experienced educator). Effective
technology integration for
pedagogy around specific subject matter requires developing
sensitivity to the dynamic
(transactional) relationship among all three components. As you
complete your education
degree, it is important to be mindful of the TPACK model and
of which components char-
acterize your approach to teaching and learning using
technology.
The body of research on TPACK is growing (AACTE
Committee on Innovation and Tech-
nology, 2008; Harris, Mishra, & Koehler, 2009; Jaipal & Figg,
2010). In addition, research-
ers have begun to develop assessment instruments to evaluate
teachers’ understanding
and use of TPACK principles (Schmidt et al., 2009). In contrast
to the primitive stage of
assistive technology outcome measurement discussed in Chapter
3, TPACK research has
significantly advanced the field of instructional technology by
providing a way to discuss,
and measure, components of the technology adoption and
integration process.
Pause to Reflect
As you reflect on your own teaching experience, which
component of the TPACK model do you find
most interesting?
4.4 A Roadmap of the Technology Integration Process
Most schools, while often unknowingly, use a two-step model
that they believe leads to technology integration. Step one: Buy.
Step two: Use. Not surprisingly, this model is not effective, as

32. suggested by the widespread lament of administra-
tors that they have extensive collections of hardware, software,
and technology tools that
are underutilized. In short, the buy–use model does not result in
effective adoption and
implementation of technology that produces gains in student
achievement.
This section introduces a model of a successful technology
integration process. The model
will provide you with a roadmap of the phases and tasks
involved in integrating tech-
nology into the curriculum. Unfortunately, in many schools the
process of technology
integration is a do-it-yourself endeavor. If you find yourself in
a school without systemic
support, the model will serve as a personal roadmap to your
adventure in exploiting the
power of technology for diverse students. However, be sure to
share the model among all
stakeholders to foster a common vision about the technology
integration process, secure
the collaborative support of everyone to facilitate the process,
and ensure that the out-
come is to use technology effectively to close the achievement
gap.
edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 146 5/29/13 2:15 PM
CHAPTER 4Section 4.4 A Roadmap of the Technology
Integration Process
The Importance of Technology Integration
Sheingold (1991) aptly summarizes a recurrent theme in the

33. literature, that “technology is
not likely to have a qualitative impact on education unless it is
deeply integrated into the
purposes and activities of the classroom” (p. 20). Thus, we are
introduced to the notion
that technology use in the classroom must be purposeful.
Gardner and Edyburn (2000) elaborate on the meaning of term
technology integration:
We believe the term, technology integration, is often carelessly
used to
describe any situation where students use computers. We must
recognize
a more precise meaning of the phrase technology integration.
First, tech-
nology is much more than computers. Second, integration
involves the
purposeful selection and implementation of technology tools for
the single
purpose of enhancing instruction (Edyburn, 1997).
Unfortunately, we often
confuse the goals and activities of “teaching about technology”
with inte-
gration efforts that result in “teaching with technology.” (p.
196)
Roblyer, Edwards, and Havriluk (1997) offer the following
perspective on the key tasks
associated with technology integration:
In perhaps the most important—and the most difficult—
challenge, teachers
must identify specific school activities where technology can
help improve
existing conditions or to create important educational

34. opportunities that
did not exist without it. As part of this process, teachers decide
what they
need to make these changes occur. This process of determining
where and
how technology fits is known among users of educational
technology as
integration. (p. 2)
It is important to note that while these experts were writing
before the TPACK model was
developed, they were clearly advocating for outcomes that we
now understand are called
TCK, TPK, and TPACK (see Figure 4.1). In short, the literature
is very clear: Technology
is not an add-on to the classroom. Rather, it must be adopted
and used in ways that make
technology fundamental to the instructional process.
Technology Integration: Would I Know It if I Saw It?
In an effort to clarify what technology integration is and isn’t,
Dias (1999) made the fol-
lowing observations that
technology is integrated when it is used in a seamless manner to
support
and extend curriculum objectives and to engage students in
meaningful
learning. It is not something one does separately; it is part of
the daily
activities taking place in the classroom. . . . The primary goal is
not to use
the technology. . . . Technology enriches the activity and
enables students
to demonstrate what they know in new and creative ways. (p.
11)

35. edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 147 5/29/13 2:15 PM
CHAPTER 4Section 4.4 A Roadmap of the Technology
Integration Process
Milone (1998) distilled the wisdom of many technology-using
teachers into a list of 10
characteristics of effective technology integration. An
abbreviated summary of his list pro-
vides observable benchmarks commonly associated with
classrooms where technology
has been integrated into the curriculum:
1. An outside observer would view the use of technology as a
seamless compo-
nent of the lesson.
2. Students work toward a lesson-relevant goal.
3. The technology activity is a logical extension of the lesson.
4. A real problem is being solved by the use of technology.
5. You can describe how a particular student is benefiting from
the technology.
6. You’d have trouble accomplishing your learning goals if the
technology were
removed.
7. You can explain what the technology is supposed to do in a
few sentences.
8. All students are able to participate.
9. Students are genuinely interested and enthusiastic about
learning.
10. More cool stuff is happening than you expected. (p. 7)

36. As you consider this list, can you think of situations where you
have seen technology inte-
grated into the curriculum? Similarly, can you use this list to
identify examples of technol-
ogy use in schools that do not represent the effective use of
technology?
A Primer of Technology Integration Key Concepts
The following is a list of key concepts, often used in
discussions concerning technology
integration, and their definitions. Think about whether or not
you have heard these con-
cepts in your school as new technologies (i.e., interactive
whiteboards, iPads) have been
acquired and implemented.
Technology Integration
The goal of integrating technology into the curriculum is to link
software, media, websites,
and technology tools with specific instructional objectives in
ways that enhance teaching,
learning, and performance. Technology is not an add-on to the
curriculum. Rather, it is
fundamental to the business of teaching and learning.
Alignment
Alignment is the process of identifying specific curriculum
goals or objectives and link-
ing each goal to appropriate software, media, websites, and
technology tools that might
be used in the teaching and learning process. The purpose of
aligning curriculum with
technology goals is to enable students to achieve the stated
goals or objectives. Many in-
service workshops now focus on aligning instructional activities

37. with the Common Core
State Standards (CCSS), and yet relatively few resources align
technology with CCSS.
edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 148 5/29/13 2:15 PM
CHAPTER 4Section 4.4 A Roadmap of the Technology
Integration Process
Curriculum Correspondence
When technology is integrated into the curriculum, there is
ample evidence of curriculum
correspondence. That is, there is a connection between what
students do at the computer
and the work they do at their desk. Application of the principle
of curriculum correspon-
dence results in classroom applications of technology that are
essential, important, mean-
ingful, and substantially linked to CCSS and, for students with
disabilities, to their IEP.
Outcome
As a result of the routine use of technology in the pursuit of
educational goals, students
typically are engaged in learning activities at a deeper level
than found in traditional
paper-and-pencil tasks. They also produce projects that are
more complex and sophisti-
cated than would otherwise be possible. Often teachers report
that due to the use of tech-
nology, students gain knowledge and skills representative of
students at much higher
grade levels.

38. Routine Use
When technology is integrated into
the curriculum, students regularly
use technology as they complete spe-
cific tasks. Technology should not be
reserved simply for special instruc-
tional units or be used as a special
event.
Teacher Thinking and Planning
When technology has been integrated
into the curriculum, teachers are able
to articulate meaningful purposes for
using technology. Careful analysis of
their comments reveals why the tech-
nology tools are essential for achiev-
ing the intended learning outcomes.
That is, typically, the teachers are not
willing to revert back to the previous
(nontechnology-enhanced) instructional methods because they
are convinced of the supe-
rior outcomes that result from the technology tools being used.
Technology Infusion
This term is commonly used as a synonym for technology
integration. However, some
people prefer this term to imply a higher level of integration;
that is, technology is so
fused with the activities of the classroom that you cannot
distinguish it separately.
When integrating technology into education, making sure
it’s used regularly is key. How would you determine which
activities effectively use class time and which do not?
Stockbyte/Thinkstock

39. edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 149 5/29/13 2:15 PM
CHAPTER 4Section 4.4 A Roadmap of the Technology
Integration Process
Transparency
When technology has been fully integrated, the focus is on what
students know and can
do rather than on the technology. We take no notice of the
technology (i.e., it has achieved
transparency) because the focus is on the engagement of the
students in deep meaningful
learning activities. In contrast, when educators and technology
specialists place their pri-
mary focus on new technologies (e.g., “we have the latest
iPad”), processor speeds (e.g.,
“our computers have Intel Core i7-3930K , 3.20GHz chips”), or
storage space (e.g., “our
computers are equipped with 4-terabyte hard drives”), they have
failed to achieve true
technology integration because their emphasis is on “the stuff.”
Challenges Associated With Technology Integration
While technology can be a valuable resource for improving
instruction, the process of
integrating it into the curriculum is not easily or quickly
accomplished. The difficulties
are well documented: lack of teacher time; limited access to
hardware, software, and sup-
port; insufficient leadership and lack of a common vision or
rationale for technology use;
limited training and support; and the impact of current
assessment practices on defin-

40. ing what teachers must teach and what students must learn,
when what they learn with
technology may not be readily measured on standardized tests
(U.S. Congress, Office of
Technology Assessment, 1995). Perhaps you have already
encountered some of these bar-
riers as you have tried to use technology within your classroom.
Willis (1993) adds a number of other dimensions of the
problems many educators con-
front: Curricular integration is a complex, difficult-to-learn
process; many educators feel
isolated and alone; time to experiment, explore, and study
innovations is essential but rare
in schools; top-down projects tend to fail over time; feelings of
resentment and resistance
destroy projects; ownership is critical to success; bottom-up
projects tend to fail over time;
administrative support is critical; nonexistent, inadequate, or
inconsistent support is a
major reason for failure; and theories of change are useful
planning guides for managing
the change process.
Despite a clearly stated commitment to technology integration
and recognition of the com-
mon barriers, the literature generally overlooks an essential
component of the integration
process. Namely, what does technology integration look like, or
how is it achieved? With-
out models, principles, and strategies, the challenge of
integrating technology into the
curriculum can be overwhelming and can lead to unpredictable
results.
Ten Models for Integrating Curriculum and Technology

41. Integrating technology into the curriculum is often difficult
because many educators do
not have any experience in curriculum design and development.
In addition, technol-
ogy specialists are seldom trained in the design and
development of curriculum. Fogarty
(1991) provides an excellent introduction to curriculum
integration as she describes 10
methods for organizing curricula. The models are organized
within three general integra-
tion strategies: (1) within single disciplines, (2) across several
disciplines, and (3) within
and across learners. In the sections that follow, we examine the
implications of each cur-
riculum integration model of how technology may be used in the
classroom.
edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 150 5/29/13 2:15 PM
CHAPTER 4Section 4.4 A Roadmap of the Technology
Integration Process
Integrating Curricula and Technology Within a Single
Discipline
The first strategy involves integration within a single discipline
(see Figure 4.2). Models
in this area tend to be appropriate for individual teachers
working within their subject
area (e.g., middle and high school) but also serve as a
developmentally appropriate point
to begin technology integration efforts. Three integration
models are useful to consider
when making connections within a single discipline: the
fragmented model, the con-

42. nected model, and the nested model.
Figure 4.2: Models for single discipline integration
This figure illustrates three single discipline technology
integration models: the fragmented model, the
connected model, and the nested model.
The Fragmented Model
Description: This model may be considered the traditional
model of instruction. Each sub-
ject or discipline is taught as a separate experience with little or
no attention to overlap-
ping ideas, themes, or relationships among people, places, or
events. Every topic is a frag-
ment the student is expected to assimilate.
In Practice: In the classroom, a student might use a graphic
organizer program like Inspi-
ration to plan a paper, a full-text periodical database in the
library, and a word processor
in English class, and never encounter an assignment in his
classes where he is expected
to use all of these tools together. Teachers may not even be
aware that these tools are
being used in other classes. The fundamental problem with this
educational practice is
that students fail to develop the connections necessary to
develop advanced thinking and
problem solving skills because everything is taught in isolation.
The Connected Model
Description: In this model, effort is made within a specific
subject area to connect concepts

43. or link one topic to another in order to explicitly relate ideas.
Common types of connec-
tions include topic-to-topic, concept-to-concept, or one year’s
work to that of the next.
In Practice: While studying a unit on space where students
traditionally learn about the
planets and solar system, a teacher may link current events.
Students could visit the NASA
The Fragmented Model The Connected Model The Nested
Model
edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 151 5/29/13 2:15 PM
CHAPTER 4Section 4.4 A Roadmap of the Technology
Integration Process
website to learn about current missions to Mars and view photos
of the surface (photos
that will not appear in textbooks for years!). These activities
may be followed by a mini-
unit about Mars that highlights the technical difficulties that
must be resolved to make it
feasible for a manned mission to land on our neighboring
planet.
The Nested Model
Description: In this model, the teacher begins in a single subject
area and then targets mul-
tiple skills that will be linked. For example, when teaching a
unit on transportation within
the community, the teacher may target multiple skills, including

44. reading a bus schedule (a
reading skill), conversing socially with others at the bus stop (a
social skill), and identify-
ing exact change (a problem-solving skill).
In Practice: A teacher might design a collaborative learning unit
where students need to
work in groups of three, sharing a single laptop computer. She
may define roles for the
students to alternate in each day: team leader, driver (enters
information at the keyboard),
and recorder. This plan allows the teacher to pursue multiple
goals regarding content
knowledge, cooperative learning, and problem solving.
Integrating Curricula and Technology Across Several
Disciplines
The second integration strategy involves integration across
several disciplines (see Figure
4.3). The models in this area tend to be widely used at the
elementary level and in middle
schools that are organized in families or pods where time and
structures are sometimes
more flexible. Five integration models are helpful for assisting
students in creating con-
nections across several disciplines: the sequenced model, the
shared model, the webbed
model, the threaded model, and the integrated model.
Figure 4.3: Models for multidiscipline integration
This figure illustrates five multidiscipline technology
integration models: the sequenced model, the
shared model, the webbed model, the threaded model, and the
integrated model.

45. The Sequenced Model The Shared Model The Webbed Model
The Threaded Model The Integrated Model
edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 152 5/29/13 2:15 PM
CHAPTER 4Section 4.4 A Roadmap of the Technology
Integration Process
The Sequenced Model
Description: In this model, emphasis is placed on rearranging
and sequencing topics to
coincide with one another. In this case, similar ideas are taught
during the same time
period by multiple teachers. While teachers maintain their
separate classes, students ben-
efit from the cooperative lesson planning, which enables them
to explore key concepts in
multiple environments.
In Practice: As a result of their cooperative planning, the week
that the computer teacher
introduces students to how to create formulas in spreadsheets,
the math teacher helps
students visit websites that offer various formulas and
calculation engines (e.g., mort-
gage, variable interests rates on loan payments). Thus, students
are introduced to several
methods in which technology can be used to speed complex
calculations and essentially
receive a “double dose” of instruction on key skills and their
real-world application.

46. The Shared Model
Description: In this model, planning and teaching focus on the
overlap of key concepts or
ideas between two disciplines. For example, measurement is a
concept that has applica-
tions in both the math and the science classroom.
In Practice: As the language arts teacher presents a unit on
proofreading, in the computer
lab students learn how to use the spelling and grammar checkers
built into Microsoft
Word-. In both environments, students gain insight into their
abilities to successfully com-
plete proofreading tasks. The shared model and the sequenced
model both require efforts
by two or more teachers to coordinate instructional topics.
However, the sequenced
model allows teachers to pursue their own outcomes for
instruction within a disciplinary
framework. In contrast, the shared model seeks to deepen
students’ knowledge through a
shared understanding of skills and their application in multiple
disciplines.
The Webbed Model
Description: A common model of integration, the webbed model
focuses on identifying a
theme that is used to organize concepts, topics, and ideas from
multiple disciplines. This
may include complex topics like rainforests or culture that can
be studied from the van-
tage point of many disciplines. Similarly, ideas like power or
abundance/scarcity may be
manifest in many contexts.

47. In Practice: A common thematic unit in many elementary
schools involves studying dino-
saurs as the theme, and the web connections involve reading
about dinosaurs, doing
research on a specific dinosaur, comparing and contrasting their
weights, locating areas
on a globe where dinosaurs are thought to have lived, and so on.
Imaginative software
even allows students to create their own dinosaurs from a
gallery of parts! The webbed
model allows many related topics and tools to be connected
across the curriculum. Many
elementary and middle schools have a signature unit for which
they are well known (e.g.,
sixth grade Medieval Feast) that integrates the subject matter
across all classrooms as part
of a weeklong event.
edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 153 5/29/13 2:15 PM
CHAPTER 4Section 4.4 A Roadmap of the Technology
Integration Process
The Threaded Model
Description: In this model, integration is advanced through
skills embedded in the cur-
riculum throughout various disciplines, such as writing,
presenting, study skills, use of
technology, and so on. This model takes a “big picture” view of
the world and engages
students in the “big ideas.”

48. In Practice: In a school that has a mission involving social
justice, the faculty may plan to
thread a big idea like “personal responsibility” throughout the
curriculum. This means
students will encounter opportunities in English Language Arts
to read biographies of
individuals who stood up for what they believed despite
considerable personal attacks.
In the science classroom they will be introduced to the ethics
associated with research.
In social studies they will explore the responsibilities of
citizenship in a democratic soci-
ety. Naturally, appropriate technology tools and resources will
be used as each topic is
explored. The goal of this model is to demonstrate that big ideas
are not limited to one
domain but have significant application.
The Integrated Model
Description: As the name suggests, this model takes an
interdisciplinary approach that
involves team teaching and collaboratively examining the
curriculum for overlaps and
common concerns. As such, it involves a sophisticated analysis
of the interrelationships
among disciplines.
In Practice: World War II could be studied as an historical
event. However, in this model,
teachers in multiple disciplines (i.e., English, American history,
technology) assist stu-
dents in understanding the complex developments. Students may
(a) use email to contact
and communicate with WWII veterans to get firsthand accounts;
(b) use the Internet to

49. access the Library of Congress and obtain images that document
the period; and (c) search
online reference sites to locate factual information about
people, places, and significant
events in the 1940s. Presentation tools like desktop publishing,
presentation software, and
webpage development software enable students to document
their work and tell the story
of their learning adventure.
Integrating Curricula and Technology Within and Across
Learners
The third integration strategy represents the most ambitious
goal of integration: integrat-
ing within and across learners (see Figure 4.4). The final two
integration models are the
most complex and, therefore, perhaps, the least common: the
immersed model and the
networked model.
edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 154 5/29/13 2:15 PM
CHAPTER 4Section 4.4 A Roadmap of the Technology
Integration Process
Figure 4.4: Models for integration within and across learners
This figure illustrates models for use when integrating
technology within and across learners: the immersed
and networked models.
The Immersed Model
Description: To understand this model of integration, we need

50. to consider the learner and
her lens of experience. Thus, the disciplines become part of the
learner’s lens of expertise.
The learner filters all content through her lens of experience
and interest. Often this model
is seen at advanced levels of education (i.e., senior thesis,
master’s and doctoral studies)
as the student is engaged in an intensely personal struggle of
“sense making” to deter-
mine what’s important, what’s not, and how all the topics and
facts fit together.
In Practice: Students struggling to make sense of a great deal of
information in multiple
disciplines are likely to use a wide variety of tools such as word
processors, presenta-
tion software, online searches, digital reference and archives,
and drawing/paint/graphic
tools as they conduct a personal investigation that makes
connections across disciplinary
boundaries and integrates knowledge from multiple domains.
The Networked Model
Description: This model of curriculum integration primarily
describes the work of an
expert. All learning is filtered through the expert’s eyes, and
connections are made effi-
ciently within and across disciplines. As a result, it reflects an
aspirational goal for learn-
ing—that is, a leader who is sufficiently skilled in multiple
domains of knowledge to
make connections within and across disciplines.
In Practice: An architect specializing in urban planning may
learn of a call for proposals

51. for the redesign of an area of the central city, assemble a team
of colleagues via email to
collaborate in a design, utilize computer-assisted design tools to
prepare sample designs,
exchange the designs electronically, access city planning
records, utilize geographical
information systems, and create an “electronic walk-thru” using
virtual reality software.
Knowledge from many disciplines informs this work, and a
robust technology toolkit fos-
ters a high level of collaboration and performance. Novice
learners seldom have enough
content knowledge to complete these types of learning projects
successfully.
The Immersed Model The Networked Model
edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 155 5/29/13 2:15 PM
CHAPTER 4Section 4.4 A Roadmap of the Technology
Integration Process
Why is curriculum integration important? The essence of
learning is connection building:
linking new information with what we already know. While
Fogarty (1991) has described
10 models of integration, the first, the fragmented model, is
really a nonexample. If we do
not help students make connections within the curriculum, we
are essentially implement-
ing the fragmented model, leaving students to their own devices
to try to make meaning
of the content they receive as they move from classroom to
classroom. If educators fail to

52. eliminate the fragmented model of curriculum, it means that we
are content with the out-
come of schooling known as the achievement gap. Thus, efforts
to integrate curriculum
and technology must utilize one of the nine other models.
Pause to Reflect
As you explored the 10 curriculum integration models, are there
one or more models that you have
already used in your classroom? What did you learn about the
new models that may be worth
exploring in your classroom in the weeks ahead?
A Model of the Technology Integration Process
Despite the importance of technology integration, early in the
author’s career when he
was a statewide special education technology specialist, he
discovered the need for a
model of the technology integration process. He needed a
framework that he could share
with teachers and administrators to illustrate where they were in
the journey and the
ways that he could contribute to their efforts. The model in
Figure 4.5 is the result of his
work to translate theory into practice (Edyburn, 2002).
The technology integration model was designed to (a) describe
the various tasks involved
in integrating technology into the curriculum, (b) provide a
roadmap for individuals inter-
ested in technology integration, (c) serve as a model for
fostering a collaborative vision
among the major stakeholders, and (d) assist in identifying
resources, strategies, and tools
for facilitating the process. The technology integration process
describes the major tasks

53. involved in the four phases of selecting, acquiring,
implementing, and integrating instruc-
tional technologies into the curriculum.
Figure 4.5: Edyburn’s technology integration process model
This figure illustrates Edyburn’s technology integration process
model, as it progresses from Phase 1:
Selection to Phase 4: Integration.
Source: .Knowledge by Design, Inc. Reprinted with permission.
1
Selection
• Planning
• Locating
• Reviewing
• Deciding
2
Acquisition
• Previewing
• Evaluating
• Purchasing
3
Implement-
ation
• Organizing
• Teacher
training

54. • Student
training
4
Integration
• Linking
• Managing
• Assessing
• Extending
edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 156 5/29/13 2:15 PM
CHAPTER 4Section 4.4 A Roadmap of the Technology
Integration Process
The process is generic in the sense that it is the same regardless
of ability level, subject
matter, or type of technology. It is divided into four phases,
each comprised of three to
four tasks that must be completed before advancing to the next
phase. The process is
recursive. That is, while Phase 1 results in a comprehensive list
of products that address
a specific instructional objective, Phases 2, 3, and 4 must be
repeated with each product.
Thus, a significant commitment of time and effort is necessary.
As a reasonable goal, it is
suggested that educators initially work through this process
until they have found 3–10
products that will support the varied needs of their students for
a specific instructional
unit. The following sections describe each phase and task in the

55. model.
Phase 1: Selection
This phase focuses on planning for the use of technology,
media, and materials to enhance
teaching and learning. These tasks can be completed
cooperatively with colleagues in the
context of program planning or individually. Upon completion
of Phase 1, we will have a
comprehensive, prioritized listing of products that support the
teaching and learning of a
specific instructional objective.
Planning involves identifying instructional objectives and goals
for using technology. The
concept of targets of difficulty provides a way to think about
where to start: What objec-
tives are consistently difficult for students to learn? There is no
need to know whether
there are products available to teach these topics; at this point,
we simply create a list of
learning outcomes and prioritize it based on the instructional
needs of our students.
Locating involves searching for appropriate technologies,
media, and materials to support
the specified objective. Thus, we conduct an exhaustive
multifaceted search to identify
any products that purportedly could be used to enhance
instruction for the objective. This
process enables us to construct a comprehensive list so that we
do not have to repeat the
search later after we begin evaluating a few products.
Reviewing involves ranking the lists of possibilities created in
the locating task. This is

56. accomplished by examining reviews, recommendations, and
evaluation tools to deter-
mine what others have found useful. One outcome of the
reviewing task is that we may
begin to prioritize the list we created in our locating search.
Deciding involves determining what to do with the list of
products that has been assem-
bled. For example, will you look at each of the products on your
list? Only the top five
recommended products? Perhaps only the top one? The limits of
time and the amount of
effort we wish to devote to the process will help us decide how
many products to exam-
ine. As a result of our work in Phase 1, we now have the
essential information to move
ahead on tasks that will result in a decision to purchase (or
acquire) a specific product that
will enhance the learning outcomes we began with.
edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 157 5/29/13 2:15 PM
CHAPTER 4Section 4.4 A Roadmap of the Technology
Integration Process
Phase 2: Acquisition
The tasks in this phase involve per-
sonally reviewing products to assess
whether or not a given product will
meet the needs and expectations of
both teachers and students. Subse-
quently, successful evaluation results
in a decision to purchase a product.
At the end of this phase, we will own

57. a product that can be used to enhance
teaching and learning.
Previewing involves the administra-
tive arrangements that are necessary
to conduct a hands-on review a prod-
uct. Often this means simply down-
loading a demo copy from the Web
or watching one or more introduc-
tory videos about the product.
Evaluating involves assessing whether or not a given product
will meet the needs and expec-
tations of the teacher and students. While evaluation forms may
be helpful, a comparison
of three or more similar products usually results in a decision
about which product is most
suitable for a given classroom. The cycle of previewing and
evaluating may continue down
the entire list generated in the locating task. Only after the
evaluation results in a decision to
purchase a product does the integration process move to the
next task.
Purchasing involves the administrative details required to
acquire sufficient copies of a given
product. Congratulations! Your work thus far has advanced to
the stage where your school
now owns a new product that will support students as they
engage in 21st-century learning.
Phase 3: Implementation
This phase refocuses our attention away from the marketplace
and our preoccupation
with shopping by requiring us to examine the factors involved
in “making it work.” At

58. the end of this phase, we will have assimilated a new product
into our school’s technology
network and trained teachers and students to use it.
Organizing involves inventorying and installing a newly
purchased product. Decisions
about whether to install a product on an individual machine or
on a network are made.
For standalone devices like iPads, this may involve purchasing
charging carts and a secu-
rity system for storing the devices at the end of the day. For
technologies like interactive
whiteboards, this task will involve scheduling time for the
board to be physically mounted
in the classroom along with possible modification to the
classroom electrical system.
Teacher training requires that teachers receive the necessary
training to fully utilize a prod-
uct. Typically, however, training is simply “teach yourself”
because only a single copy of
the product was purchased. Teachers need to acquire the skills
and knowledge to operate
One way to preview technology tools you are considering
is to attend technology conferences and participate in live
demonstrations. What are some other preview methods
you might employ?
Oliver Berg/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images
edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 158 5/29/13 2:15 PM
CHAPTER 4Section 4.4 A Roadmap of the Technology

59. Integration Process
the product, conduct basic troubleshooting, as well as generate
methods and ideas for
using the product in the classroom. When a product is purchased
with a site license, group
trainings are usually held with a vendor or outside trainer to
ensure that all users have the
necessary skills to utilize the product.
Student training involves introducing the students to a product,
including how to access
it, why they would use it, basic navigation, and the content
skills needed to operate the
product independently. This task ensures that students are
prepared to interact with the
product when it is introduced in the curriculum.
Phase 4: Integration
Only after both teachers and students have moved into Phase 4
can we begin to talk about
integration of technology into the curriculum. The tasks
involved in this phase focus
directly on using products in the classroom to enhance teaching
and learning. Consider-
able time and effort has been expended to reach this phase.
However, this is the phase
where we see the fruits of our labor.
Linking involves examining the curriculum and determining
when a product should be
used, how it can best be used to facilitate learning, and what
activities would be useful
both prior and subsequent to a product’s use by students.
Curriculum frameworks and
calendars are important tools for this task to align technology

60. tools with curriculum goals
and instructional activities.
Managing involves providing time for students to use a product
and ensuring that all stu-
dents are achieving the objectives. While access to a lab is
useful, creative strategies must
be used for managing technology in classrooms that do not have
1–1 device ratios (one
computer for one student). In addition, plans must be made to
consider the needs of stu-
dents who will need more than average time to complete the
lesson, activities, or project.
Assessing involves evaluating the results of instruction and
determining whether any
changes are needed now or in the future. Often in special
education, a product may be
revisited during the school year to provide additional
opportunities for maintenance of
previously learned skills. Some students may become trapped in
the Managing–Assess-
ing phase of CAI because they are unable to make adequate
progress to exit the program.
This is a situation that teachers will want to carefully monitor.
Finally, the task of extending recognizes that unless we can
create additional instructional
applications for a new tool, it will end up being returned to the
shelf for storage until some
time in the future. For example, a program that teaches students
how to add fractions with
uncommon denominators may be considered consumable once
all the students have mas-
tered the objective. That means, the software goes back on the
shelf until we need it again

61. next year. On the other hand, if we are able to identify methods
of extending the value
of the product, such as a word processor, we are able to
continue the technology integra-
tion process at the linking task in Phase 4 rather than starting
the entire process over. This
insight suggests why the task of locating CAI software to
support the entire curriculum
is so time consuming. In contrast, the preference to focus on
tools means that Phases 1–3
can be completed once, and then the investment is reward by the
integration of the tools
across the curriculum, allowing teachers to focus their energy in
Phase 4.
edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 159 5/29/13 2:15 PM
CHAPTER 4Section 4.5 Technology Integration Strategies
Putting the Model Into Practice
Readers are encouraged to explore ways in which the model
may assist in evaluating
their current technology integration efforts. An excellent
starting point is to identify tasks
that receive too much attention or tasks that have been
overlooked. In addition, build-
ing-level and district technology committees are encouraged to
consider how they might
develop strategies to facilitate movement through Phases 1–3
and celebrate the evolving
local knowledge base concerning the tasks in Phase 4. With
your understanding that the
technology integration process is more involved than simply
buy–use, in the next section

62. we will examine strategies for translating the technology
integration process into practice.
Pause to Reflect
How would you compare and contrast the buy–use model of
technology integration with Edyburn’s
model? Would you enjoy serving on a technology committee
that is engaged in all of the tasks? Or
would you prefer to have others help you focus simply on the
technology integration tasks found
in Phase 4?
4.5 Technology Integration Strategies
In the final section of this chapter, we examine four strategies
that you can use to facili-tate the technology integration
process. As you read about each of the strategies, con-sider
which might be most helpful in your school.
Stakeholders: A Helper’s View of the Integration Process
The concept of stakeholders comes from the field of policy
analysis where new initiatives
are considered from the viewpoints of individuals and groups
with a significant interest
in the topic. As we think about the groups who have an interest
in effective use of technol-
ogy for instruction, many groups come to mind, including
students, teachers, administra-
tors, technology specialists, and resource centers, to name a
few. Considering the interests
of various groups of stakeholders helps decision makers
understand the impact of their
decisions. In our situation, we want to be sure we are inclusive
of everyone who can help
(or, unfortunately in some cases, hinder) the technology
integration process.

63. Figure 4.6 illustrates the technology integration process from
the viewpoints of various
stakeholders. While everyone may have an interest in
completing each task, tasks in
brown indicate that a given group has a significant interest in
the successful design and
implementation of these tasks. This profile helps us understand
the collaborative nature
of our work. When the model is used as a common vision among
the stakeholders, we can
confidently defer some tasks to our colleagues. However, if we
are unable to collaborate,
the technology integration process defaults to a “do-it-yourself
project,” which means that
the individual teacher is responsible for completing all of the
tasks in order to help her
edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 160 5/29/13 2:15 PM
CHAPTER 4Section 4.5 Technology Integration Strategies
students gain access to the benefits of technology-enhanced
instruction. This may explain
why some teachers choose not to use technology—they simply
do not have enough time
or knowledge to complete all of the tasks.
Figure 4.6: Stakeholder views of the technology integration
process
This figure highlights the viewpoints of different participants in
Edyburn’s technology integration
process model.

64. Source: .Knowledge by Design, Inc. Reprinted with permission.
1
Selection
• Planning
• Locating
• Reviewing
• Deciding
2
Acquisition
• Previewing
• Evaluating
• Purchasing
3
Implement-
ation
4
Integration
• Linking
• Managing
• Assessing
• Extending
1
Selection
• Planning
• Locating
• Reviewing

65. • Deciding
2
Acquisition
• Previewing
• Evaluating
• Purchasing
3
Implement-
ation
4
Integration
• Linking
• Managing
• Assessing
• Extending
1
Selection
• Planning
• Locating
• Reviewing
• Deciding
2
Acquisition
3
Implement-

66. ation
4
Integration
1
Selection
2
Acquisition
• Previewing
• Evaluating
• Purchasing
3
Implement-
ation
4
Integration
• Linking
• Managing
• Assessing
• Extending
1
Selection
• Planning
• Locating
• Reviewing
• Deciding

67. 2
Acquisition
• Previewing
• Evaluating
• Purchasing
3
Implement-
ation
4
Integration
• Linking
• Managing
• Assessing
• Extending
Student
perspective
Teacher
perspective
Administrator
perspective
Technology
specialist
perspective
Resource
center
perspective

68. • Linking
• Managing
• Assessing
• Extending
• Planning
• Locating
• Reviewing
• Deciding
• Previewing
• Evaluating
• Purchasing
• Organizing
• Teacher training
• Student training
• Organizing
• Teacher training
• Student training
• Organizing
• Teacher training
• Student training
• Organizing
• Teacher training
• Student training
• Organizing
• Teacher training
• Student training
edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 161 5/29/13 2:15 PM

69. CHAPTER 4Section 4.5 Technology Integration Strategies
Action Planning
Do you find these activity types useful for thinking about the
kinds of technologies that can be inte-
grated into a lesson? Considering the technology integration
process outlined in this chapter, would
you consider these tools as facilitating (a) planning, (b) teacher
training, or (c) linking? Do you believe
these activity type resources are valuable to share with other
teachers? Why or why not?
Action Planning
Who can you contact within your building or district for
assistance with other technology integration
tasks? Do you feel comfortable sharing the technology
integration roadmap with your colleagues and
administrators? As you consider the stakeholders’ perspective
of the technology integration process,
which tasks are you willing to assume responsibility for? Why
is it important that we facilitate the work
of teachers so that they can focus their efforts on the tasks in
Phase 4?
Activity Types
Judi Harris and Mark Hofer have been concerned about the
long-standing evidence of the
sustained difficulty educators have had regarding technology
integration. In an effort to
find a solution, they have been studying and developing an
approach to technology inte-
gration known as activity types. Their goal has been to identify
universal learning activities

70. found in classrooms and align them with specific types of
technology tools in the hope
that these types of blueprints will allow teachers to think about
technology integration in
a manner that is more compatible with their general approaches
to instructional planning.
Activity types are a teacher-friendly approach to technology
integration. Visit the follow-
ing wiki and download the materials for one or more subject
areas of interest:
Learning Activity Types Wiki
http://activitytypes.wmwikis.net/
As you browse the resource guide, notice that the first column
identifies the common
types of learning activities that teachers expect students to
complete. For example, read
a text passage, locate reference material, or develop a
presentation. Then, notice the con-
nections in the right-hand column concerning the generic types
of technologies that could
be used in the classroom to support and engage students as they
complete each type of
learning activity. This approach to technology integration is
noteworthy because it allows
teachers to begin searching for technology in response to
specific instructional activities
instead of traditional technology training that begins by
showing teachers “cool tools”
and then expecting them to figure out ways the tools may fit
into instruction.
edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 162 5/29/13 2:15 PM

71. http://activitytypes.wmwikis.net/
CHAPTER 4Section 4.5 Technology Integration Strategies
Research-Based Interventions
One of the tenets of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of
2001 is the requirement
that educators use scientifically based research to inform their
instructional decisions
and practices. Many researchers have applauded this
development (Shavelson & Towne,
2002). They argue that much is known about effective
instructional practices and that such
knowledge should be used routinely in classrooms in order to
maximize student learning
(Hattie, 2009).
However, practitioners have responded to this federal edict with
caution and confusion,
raising questions such as: How do we know whether or not a
given instructional practice
is research-based? Are we expected to read and critique
research studies? What are we
supposed to do if there is not adequate evidence supporting the
instructional methodol-
ogy or commercial materials that we intend to purchase?
The emphasis on using interventions whose
effectiveness has been demonstrated through rig-
orous scientific experimentation is also known as
evidence-based practice. Increasingly, school district
administrators are required to justify instructional
purchases by pointing to research that demon-
strates the efficacy of a given product or inter-

72. vention. Unfortunately, with many innovative
products, the research base is not adequate
because the innovative tool is profoundly differ-
ent than anything we had in the past (e.g., consider
the iPod, iPad, and interactive whiteboards). In
situations like these, it may be necessary to look
for research that describes a more fundamental
learning principle. That is, rather than trying to
“prove” that iPads will enhance students’ read-
ing achievement, it may be necessary to locate
research that describes the importance of student
engagement in reading that subsequently leads
to reading gains (i.e., the more you read, the more
you know). Thus, aligning a technology tool with
a well-established principle of learning often
serves as sufficient evidence to support the adop-
tion of an innovative technology.
NCLB mandates the use of evidence-based
practice in the classroom. How would
you support a link between classroom
technology and higher achievement?
AP Photo/The West Bend Daily News/John Ehlke
edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 163 5/29/13 2:15 PM
CHAPTER 4Section 4.5 Technology Integration Strategies
Action Planning
If your school district is focused on ensuring that evidence-
based practices are being used,
consult the following three resources to identify research
regarding interventions that can

73. be implemented with technology.
1. The What Works Clearinghouse (http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/)
is perhaps the best known among
these organizations. Their work is authoritative. In an effort to
help practitioners utilize research
on evidence-based practices, they created a companion web site
known as Doing What Works
(http://dww.ed.gov).
2. The Campbell Collaboration
(http://www.campbellcollaboration.org) is recognized as an
interna-
tional independent source of quality reviews on evidence-based
practice.
3. The Best Evidence Encyclopedia
(http://www.bestevidence.org) is a user-friendly resource
created
by researcher Robert Slavin.
Resources That Provide Suggestions for Creatively Using
Technology Tools
Educators working to integrate technology into the curriculum
soon discover that there
is never enough time to explore all the new tools, nor enough
funding to purchase all the
new technologies. As a result, it is important to attend
professional conferences and moni-
tor blogs so that you can stay up-to-date regarding classroom
application of technology.
We will revisit this topic again in Chapter 10 as we address the
challenge of how to stay
up-to-date in a field that changes as fast as educational
technology. For now, let’s focus on
identifying sources that will provide us with ongoing

74. professional development on how
to use technology effectively in the classroom.
Action Planning
This strategy is not about reading blogs like Engadget
(http://www.engadget.com/) or Uber-
gizmo (http://www.ubergizmo.com/) to find the latest, coolest
tools. Rather, the goal is to
identify online communities that share suggestions on the
creative use of a small collection
of flexible and powerful tools.
Here are a few communities that inspire some educators with
the imaginative use of tools to enhance
teaching and learning. As you explore these resources, what
information are you discovering that you
might share with other teachers to facilitate their technology
integration efforts?
iLearnTechnology
http://ilearntechnology.com/
EdTech
Solution
s: Teaching Every Student
http://teachingeverystudent.blogspot.com/
ProfHacker

75. http://chronicle.com/blogs/profhacker/
edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 164 5/29/13 2:15 PM
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/
http://dww.ed.gov
http://www.campbellcollaboration.org
http://www.bestevidence.org
http://www.engadget.com/
http://www.ubergizmo.com/
http://ilearntechnology.com/
http://teachingeverystudent.blogspot.com/
http://chronicle.com/blogs/profhacker/
CHAPTER 4Post-Test
Summary
In order for technology to be effective in schools, research has
demonstrated that it must be integrated into the curriculum.
Research has also shown that teachers’ theories of learning
affect their willingness to use, or not use, technology. To date,
few schools

76. have adopted a formal technology integration process and, as a
result, often default to
a flawed two-step model: buy–use. To overcome this problem,
10 models of curriculum
integration were presented along with a roadmap to the
technology integration process.
Unless a school adopts such a roadmap and builds collaborative
capacity with all of the
stakeholder groups, teachers are often left to navigate the
technology integration process
as a do-it-yourself project. To fully maximize the potential of
technology, schools need to
maintain their focus on the effective use of technology to
enhance teaching, learning, and
performance rather than suffering from the allure of shopping
for the latest cool tools.
Post-Test
1. Which term describes the instructional process and guides
classroom methods?
a. learning
b. development
c. curriculum
d. assessment

77. 2. Programming a computer when creating a new program is an
example of the
computer as a
a. tutee.
b. tutor.
c. tool.
d. toy.
3. Which of the following is NOT a primary domain of TPACK?
a. technological knowledge (TK)
b. pedagogical knowledge (PK)
c. content knowledge (CK)
d. assessment knowledge (AK)
4. The most complex and ambitious models of technology
integration are the
a. webbed and connected models.
b. fragmented and integrated models.
c. shared and nested models.
d. immersed and networked models.
Pause to Reflect
Which strategies did you find most helpful in transferring the

78. theory of technology integration into
practical applications that will allow you to explore the power
of technology for diverse learners?
edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 165 5/29/13 2:15 PM
CHAPTER 4Post-Test
5. Blueprints that allow teachers to think about technology
integration in ways that
are similar to their styles are known as
a. stakeholders.
b. research-based interventions.
c. study plans.
d. activity types.
6. According to Whitehead (1929) schooling’s purpose is to
a. encourage conformity among students.
b. transmit the knowledge that a society deems useful between
generations.
c. prepare students for colleges and careers.
d. teach the basic and advanced skills needed for life in the real

79. world.
7. Swain and Edyburn (2007) questioned whether
a. technology’s use for individuals with disabilities should be
different than for
those without.
b. the importance of technology in education should be decided
by individual
teachers.
c. accessibility to technology should be the same for all
students and schools.
d. explicitly teaching students the latest in technology is as
beneficial as teaching
general technology skills.
8. While taking classes in development, assessment, content
area instruction, and
methods, Eduardo is mostly focused on
a. technological knowledge (TK).
b. pedagogical knowledge (PK).
c. content knowledge (CK).

80. d. assessment knowledge (AK).
9. The sequenced, shared, and webbed models are all
a. not common in education.
b. recommended for working with high-risk students.
c. types of integrated curricula and technology within
disciplines models.
d. types of integrated curricula and technology across
disciplines models.
10. The strategy for facilitating the technology implementation
that focuses on net-
working and attending conferences is
a. stakeholders.
b. exploring resources.
c. activity types.
d. trustees.
Answers
1. c. curriculum. The answer can be found in Section 4.1.
2. a. tutee. The answer can be found in Section 4.2.
3. d. assessment knowledge (AK). The answer can be found in
Section 4.3.
4. d. immersed and networked models. The answer can be

81. found in Section 4.4.
5. d. activity types. The answer can be found in Section 4.5.
6. b. transmit the knowledge that a society deems useful
between generations. The answer can be found in
Section 4.1.
edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 166 5/29/13 2:15 PM
CHAPTER 4Critical Thinking Questions and Exercises
7. b. the importance of technology in education should be
decided by individual teachers. The answer can
be found in Section 4.2.
8. b. pedagogical knowledge (PK). The answer can be found in
Section 4.3.
9. d. types of integrated curricula and technology across
disciplines models. The answer can be found in
Section 4.4.
10. b. explore resources. The answer can be found in Section
4.5.

82. Key Ideas
• The following three pairs of words are not synonyms:
education and schooling;
teaching and learning; and curriculum and instruction. Be sure
you are able to iden-
tify the points of distinction as well as the points of confusion.
• Understanding a teacher’s theory of learning has important
implications for
understanding whether they will use technology in the
classroom, and how.
• TPACK is a technology integration model illustrating the key
relationships
between technology, content, and pedagogy. The most
interesting relationships
are in the areas of overlap (TPK, TCK, PCK, and TPACK).
• The barriers to technology integration are numerous: lack of
teacher time; limited
access to hardware, software, and support; insufficient
leadership and lack of a
common vision or rationale for technology use; limited training

83. and support; and
the impact of current assessment practices on defining what
teachers must teach
and what students must learn, when what they learn with
technology may not be
readily measured on standardized tests.
• Using the technology integration process roadmap to foster a
shared vision
among the key stakeholders is necessary to scale the benefits of
technology to all
classrooms. Otherwise, the benefits of technology may be
confined to the class-
rooms or a few star technology-using teachers.
Critical Thinking Questions and Exercises
1. Think of the big ideas and important themes that you have
been learning about
in this chapter. Write a headline regarding the principles of
instructional technol-
ogy that summarizes and captures a key aspect that you feel is
significant and
important. Why do you feel strongly about this specific aspect?

84. 2. Drawing on your experience, prior knowledge, or reading in
this chapter, do the
following:
a. Make a claim about the principles of instructional
technology, issue, or idea
being explored.
b. Identify support for your claim. What things do you see,
feel, or know that
lend evidence to your claim?
c. Raise a question related to your claim. What may make you
doubt the claim?
What seems left hanging? What isn’t fully explained? What
further ideas or
issues does your claim raise?
edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 167 5/29/13 2:15 PM
CHAPTER 4Critical Thinking Questions and Exercises
iLearnTEchnology

85. http://ilearntechnology.com/
EdTech