Technology+Integration

Technology is an integral part of our students’ lives and they want to use technology in the classroom. Today’s students are not content learning from traditional teaching methods (Prensky, 2001). Because technology is such a vital tool in other facets of their lives, it must play a role in their education as well. Traditional, teacher-centered instruction must be replaced with technology-based, student-centered instruction (Kadijevich, 2006).

The SAMR model represents the stages of technology integration within a lesson. At the bottom of the model is the Substitution (S) and Augmentation (A) level, where technology is used to teach the same concept, but with technology. During this S stage, a book report is typed instead of written; technology is not needed to complete the task. The Modification (M) and Redefinition (R) levels encompass redefining the concept. Without technology, the lesson cannot be completed. For example, middle school students may collaborate with high school students using Skype or an interactive site. In order for innovation to occur, the ideal level for students and teachers to be is M and R level. The chapter that this model fits best in is Chapter 3, Pedagogy and Change: Essence as Easy. On page 25 of the book, Fullen says the answer to deeper integration comes from Prensky’s term “partnering with our students”. This is student centered learning to include problem solving and case-based learning. In this case as well as the M and R level of the SAMR, the teacher takes on a new role- the change agent. Partnering students is made easy by the use of technologies and online platoforms because of its integral part of the learning process (p. 25). Collaboration among students to learn a concept is better than brainstorming alone. Fullen also includes ideas from Sir Ken Robinson and tapping into students’ creativity. Fullen suggests using technology to allow students to find and pursue their passion (p. 27).These ideas are similar to the way Tim Holt describes the M and R levels in the SAMR model.

As educators, it is our job to prepare students for life beyond the classroom. As technology becomes increa singly more important to our society, it is becoming increasingly important to utilize technology in the classroom. Today’s students spend a great deal of time using technology to watch videos, play games, locate and share information, and communicate with others. Technology motivates students and holds their attention for extended periods of time (Prensky, 2001). Today’s teachers, however, often complain that students are not able to maintain attention in class. Student motivation and engagement is vital to successful learning; therefore, it makes sense that teachers integrate technology into their instruction in a way that motivates and engages student learners (Papert, 1993). When I taught using an overhead projector and transparencies, I struggled to maintain student attention and motivation throughout my lessons. Using an interactive whiteboard allows me to access and integrate a variety of technology tools that engage the students in learning experiences.For me, this self-study reinforces the importance of providing support to teachers as they integrate technology. Even as a technology-proficient teacher, it is necessary to receive support from colleagues. It is beneficial for teachers to bounce ideas off one another when planning for instruction, as each teacher brings their own ideas and experiences.

Many teachers shun the idea of incorporating technology into their instruction, often referencing the time and effort exerted to learn technology. A more powerful moment was in repurposing this interactive classroom into a professional development opportunity. The new goal was to change staff members’ ways of thinking about utilizing technology, in a way that feels comfortable and is applicable to instruction. Educators use technologies in many ways for many different reasons. Users redefine the uses of technologies because all people have different purposes and needs for technologies. Therefore, we can create a new purpose for a technology (Mishra et al., 2008).Driscoll (1994) states that "providing complex learning environments that incorporate authentic activity" is essential in developing a meaningful learning experience for children of the Nintendo generation.

media type="custom" key="25823968"
 * In this section of my ePortfolio, I have connected two artifacts to the standards below! **


 * ePortfolio **[[image:strentacoste/Return Icon.PNG width="39" height="33" link="ePortfolio Explanation"]]

References

Baltimore County Public Schools. (2008). Blueprint for progress: Realizing the vision. Retrieved July 13, 2009, from []

Kadijevich, Dj. (2006). Achieving educational technology standards: the relationship between student teacher’s interest and institutional support offered. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(6), 437-443. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (November 20, 2008). Technology integration in teaching: The TPACK framework. Retrieved August 23, 2010 from []

Papert, S. (1993). The children's machine. New York: Basic Books.

Prensky, M. (2001a, September/October). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.

Prensky, M. (2001b, November/December). Digital natives, digital immigrants, part 2: Do they really think differently? On the Horizon, 9(6), 1-6.