Technology and Educational Frameworks

 Most Accessible Framework

In our classes, we learned about a variety of frameworks and how they can help us make informed decisions when planning instruction for the classroom. Prior to the module, I liked how the ASSURE model was all-encompassing yet workable (Smaldino et al., 2019). 

Kim and Downey (2016) challenge the legacy of the ASSURE model, yet they also note that lessons were engaging and effective with the ASSURE model and that the model has “stood the test of time” (Kim & Downey, 2016, p. 164). Kim and Downey (2016) acknowledge that the ASSURE model is practical and easy to implement in the classroom. To me, that is everything. I think of the complex Dick and Carey model that I have learned about for instructional design and remember the feeling of being overwhelmed: how am I ever supposed to use this practically in the classroom? For me, a model must be succinct and effective. Enter the SAMR Model!

I have always appreciated the SAMR model for that reason and see it as the most accessible framework. Puentedura’s (n.d.) model is straightforward and makes reflecting on one’s teaching easy with four, clear-cut stages of technology integration. Puentedura explains that it is common and okay to be in the substitution and augmentation stages; those are often sufficient for many teaching needs (Common Sense Education, n.d.). I appreciate that understanding of the model, that technology does not always have to be at a “redefinition” or “modification” level and can suit the classroom at an “augmentation” or even “substitution” level. Technology is not always the answer, and the SAMR model acknowledges that while helping educators to see the benefits of technology at their own pace.

Useful to Incorporate Framework

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) framework describes how a teacher’s technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge impact one another in order to produce robust instruction (AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology, 2008). Hechter et al. (2012) explain that TPCK “combines appropriately selected technology with content-based learning experiences and pedagogical approaches.” (Hechter et al., 2012, p. 140). To me, TPCK seeks to be an all-encompassing model, focusing on not only technology but also content knowledge and pedagogy. 

Hechter et al. (2012) give a great practical example: first, the teacher projects an image of the celestial sky for students to look at and begin accessing their content knowledge (the “C”). Then, the teacher directs the class to a solar system simulation website and activates the technology (“T”) portion of the lesson (Hechter et al., 2012).. Finally, students discuss what they learned with one another, which is a pedagogical (“P”) strategy to enhance student learning (Hechter et al., 2012). I liked their example because I can see myself implementing a similar lesson plan without being overwhelmed by each aspect of the TPCK.

Challenges

In education, one of the biggest challenges is time. When do we have time to implement these models, much less learn about them? Even if we finally have the time, do we have the energy? Would we rather just make a quick lesson plan that we know will be effective rather than research a whole new way of instruction? These issues have always stopped my technology implementation in the classroom. As an elementary science teacher, I taught 5-7 classes a day and was responsible for all of the science curriculum from grades 1-5. In any given year, I had about 200 students. My knowledge of SAMR helped me the most. It allows for simple technology use, such as replacing a handwritten essay with one typed on Google Docs, and it helps us to achieve a higher level of technology use, such as solar system simulations. The challenges I faced was that the more complex frameworks were not practical for me given my workload. They took too much time and energy, so instead I would look for new technology tools every now and then and mold those tools into my existing classroom framework.

What did you do to make educational ends meet? How did you incorporate frameworks in ways that worked for your instruction?

References

AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.). (2008). Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge for teaching and teacher education. Published by Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group for the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Common Sense Education. (n.d.). How to apply the SAMR model with Ruben Puentedura. YouTube. Retrieved June 25, 2025, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQTx2UQQvbU

Hechter, R. P., Phyfe, L. D., & Vermette, L. A. (2012). Integrating technology in education: Moving the TPCK framework towards practical applications. Education Research and Perspectives (Online), 39, 136.

Kim, D., & Downey, S. (2016). Examining the use of the ASSURE model by k–12 teachers. Computers in the Schools, 33(3), 153-168. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2016.1203208

Puentedura, R. R. (n.d.). SAMR: A brief introduction. Retrieved June 25, 2025, from https://hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2015/10/SAMR_ABriefIntro.pdf

Smaldino, S. E., Lowther, D. L., & Mims, C. (2019). Instructional technology and media for learning (12th ed.). Pearson Education.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Defining Instructional Technology

Instructional Technology is a broad field! Jump in with me to start exploring. Januszewski and Molenda (2008) define instructional technology as “the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources” (p. 1). I have studied this definition many times and feel that it appropriately describes our field of instructional technology (IT). It also highlights the importance of creating, using, and managing technology, which is a hallmark of our field. It is what makes our field separate from others.  We not only use learning theories, social theories, and the like, we also create, design, develop, and manage technology to enhance our literature and understanding of each of the fields that we touch. When thinking about the layman's definition of IT, I was reminded of the definition that I use for IT in my dissertation. I define IT for “instructional technology,” the tools that we ...
Read more

UDL: Universal Design for Learning

  My Experience with UDL CAST (n.d.) stated the three principles of UDL: engagement, representation, and action/expression. As an elementary school teacher, I always try to incorporate UDL into my classroom in order for students with different learning preferences and styles so that each student can succeed independently. For engagement and representation, I give the learning materials in as many different modalities as possible in order to engage each student and give them equitable access to the learning materials. For me, this means putting the material in text, audio, visually, and kinesthetically. For action/expression, I try to let students submit their work in the modality that best suits their learning preferences: text, visual graphic, artistic representation, video, and so on, just as Rao et al. (2016) suggested.  Rao et al. (2016) emphasized first unpacking the stated learning objective and then addressing what can be made flexible in it. For example, if the learnin...
Read more