Effective Frameworks for Technology Integration

Inquiry Question:

What technology integration frameworks can coaches use to effectively support educators in improving learning activities?   

In the fourth and final module of our EDTC 6105 course, the focus is on skills, resources, and processes that are beneficial for coaches as they co-plan with educators to improve lessons. There are certainly mainly important skills, resources, and processes that go into effective co-planning, but for my research, I wanted to focus on technology integration frameworks. Technology integration frameworks are an area of coaching that is a growth area for me, and I know they will be a vital resource for me as I coach educators in the future. My goal through this research was to gain a better understanding of technology integration models and how to effectively use them to transform learning for students. While there are several technology integration frameworks, I selected some of the most well-known models to research. With the use of any technology integration framework comes the necessity to put student learning and pedagogy at the forefront of the work. As Les Foltos (2013) explains, “With teaching and learning as starting points, coaches can emphasize how a specific piece of technology might help students to reach the goals and perform the tasks that the teacher has defined (p.138). By thinking intentionally about desired student learning outcomes and 21st century learning skills, coaches can support educators in effectively identifying technology that will improve their learning activities. The exploration for my inquiry question for this module was focused on indicators from ISTE Coaching Standard: 2 Connected Learner, Standard 3: Collaborator, and Standard 4: Learning Designer.  

ISTE-C Standard 1: Change Agent 
a. Create a shared vision and culture for using technology to learn and accelerate transformation through the coaching process. 

ISTE-C Standard 2: Connected Learner 
b. Actively participate in professional learning networks to enhance coaching practice and keep current with emerging technology and innovations in pedagogy and the learning sciences.  
c. Establish shared goals with educators, reflect on successes, and continually improve coaching and teaching practice. 

ISTE-C Standard 3: Collaborator 
a. Establish trusting and respectful coaching relationships that encourage educators to explore new instructional strategies. 
d. Personalize support for educators by planning and modeling the effective use of technology to improve student learning. 

ISTE-C-Standard 4: Learning Designer 
a. Collaborate with educators to develop authentic, active learning experiences that foster student agency, deepen content mastery, and allow students to demonstrate their competency. 

SAMR Model

Figure 1. SAMR Aligned with Bloom’s Taxonomy. Retrieved November 13, 2020, from https://equip.learning.com/tech-integration-models 

One technology integration framework that coaches and educators may be familiar with is the SAMR model. Developed by Dr. Ruben Puentedura, The SAMR model, is a framework divided into four levels of technology integration: substitution, augmentation, modification, and redefintion. In addition to these four defined integration levels, the SAMR model is also split into two tiers, with the first two levels falling into an enhancement tier and the second two levels moving to a transformation tier (SAMR Model, 2017). Figure 1 below is a helpful visual that demonstrates how the SAMR model aligns with Bloom’s Taxonomy. Anna McVeigh-Murphy (2019) adds that, “As tech integration deepens, so do the ways we engage students with content, which aligns well with analyzing, evaluating, and creating” (n.p.). Seeing both models connected offers insightful information for coaches and educators on a pathway to meaningful technology integration. While the goal for both models is to ultimately get to deeper levels of understanding and integration, it is also important to recognize the areas where educators may already be integrating technology into their classrooms. Especially given the challenge of remote learning this fall; educators may find that they are operating more frequently in the substitution and augmentation areas of this framework. Coaches can support teachers in exploring more with the second tier (transformation) levels, modification, and redefinition, by encouraging them to think intentionally about student-centered learning. This includes analyzing how technology can complement these goals and be integrated to develop new, innovative, and personalized learning experiences for students.   

Technology Integration Matrix (TIM) 

Another technology integration framework that coaches can utilize to support educators in enhancing their learning activities is the Technology Integration Matrix (TIM). The Technology Integration Matrix was created by the Florida Center for Instructional Technology (FCIT) as an evaluative guide for technology integration (Florida Center for Instructional Technology, 2020). Figure 2. below is a PDF version of the Technology Integration Matrix, and FCIT also provides an interactive version of the TIM, which would be beneficial in coaching conversations, especially digitally. As the FCIT (2019) explains, “…the five characteristics of meaningful learning environments and five levels of technology integration create a matrix of 25 cells” (n.p.). TIM is a robust matrix that is a powerful framework for coaches. By focusing intentionally with a pedagogically driven approach to technology integration, TIM puts student-centered learning at the center of evaluating lessons and implementing technology.  


Figure 2. The Technology Integration Matrix. Retrieved November 13, 2020, from https://fcit.usf.edu/matrix/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/2019_TIM_Summary_Descriptors_Portrait_Color-US.pdf 

In addition to the use of the TIM, FCIT recommends that coaches, teachers, and education leaders partner the matrix with the TIM Instructional Planning Model, shown in Figure 3 below. During coaching conversations, this instructional planning model is a useful tool for coaches to prompt teachers in questions to consider when designing or evaluating lessons (Winkelman, 2020). The results from these questions serve as a roadmap for navigating the Technology Integration Matrix and developing goals. What I especially like about this model is that it intentionally reminds educators to consider all of these components when integrating technology and that there are multiple points of entry to access the Technology Integration Matrix.  

Figure 3. TIM Instructional Planning Model. Retrieved November 14, 2020, from https://fcit.usf.edu/matrix/tim-instructional-planning-model/ 


Figure 4. Reproduced by permission of the publisher, © 2012 by tpack.org. Retrieved November 14, 2020, from http://tpack.org 

TPACK is a technology integration framework created by Punya Mishra and Matthew Koehler that outlines three types of knowledge: content, pedagogy, and technology. In addition to the three primary types of knowledge, the TPACK framework highlights the intersections of each, resulting in a deeper level of understanding. One difference between the SAMR model and TPAC, is that given the Venn diagram approach, at times educators may be uncertain of where to enter into the TPAC model. While it may take a little time to get acquainted with the TPACK framework, this technology integration model provides coaches with another powerful tool to reference when planning instruction. “When designing a lesson, a teacher can think about what technology suits the content being addressed and then consider what methodologies and strategies should be used,” Pedraza (2017) explains. As coaches work with educators to integrate technology, the goal is for the selected technology chosen to implement and the designed learning activities to land in the center of the framework: Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK).  

Triple E Framework

Figure 5.  Triple E Framework. Retrieved November 13, 2020, from https://www.tripleeframework.com/framework-models.html 

For coaches looking for additional technology integration frameworks, The Triple E Framework developed by Professor Liz Kolb in 2011 is a useful tool as well. This framework is an impactful tool to ignite coaching conversations on intentionally selecting and evaluating technology tools. As Susan Gaer and Kristi Reyes (2019) explain, “The goal of the framework is to ensure that technology use supports student engagement, and then, while engaged, their learning is enhanced and extended by technology” (n.p.). Through the use of this model, The Triple Framework also works to assist educators in evaluating the success of student learning outcomes in partnership with the use of technology tools. The goal of this evaluation is intentional technology integration. The prompting questions connected to each section of the framework in Figure 5 above, are useful for sparking inquiry-based conversations in coaching conversations. Additionally, the developers of the Triple E Framework suggest partnering it with this Triple E Evaluation Rubric to assess the effectiveness of a technology tool (Triple E Framework, 2019). Results from the inquiry questions and rubric provide a meaningful assessment of the outcomes of student learning, engagement, and effective technology integration. 

As I continue my growth to be an effective coach, I am learning to recognize the resources and tools that are beneficial in improving learning activities through co-planning. Technology integration frameworks are powerful tools to effectively support educators through this process. As a learning coach, what are your experiences supporting teachers with the use of technology integration frameworks? What technology integration frameworks have you found to be most beneficial? How have you partnered the use of these technology integration frameworks? Please share your thoughts and experiences, as well as any feedback or questions you have, in the comment section below. 


Foltos, L. (2013). Peer Coaching : Unlocking the Power of Collaboration. Corwin 

Gaer, S., & Reyes, K. (2020, August 17). The Triple E Framework for More Effective Technology Integration in Adult Education. Retrieved November 11, 2020, from https://edtech.worlded.org/the-triple-e-framework-for-more-effective-technology-integration-in-adult-education/ 

McVeigh-Murphy, A. (2019, November 14). What We Learned from Analyzing Tech Integration Models. Retrieved November 15, 2020, from https://equip.learning.com/tech-integration-models 

Pedraza. (2017, March 03). Frameworks for Educational Technology Integration and Innovation. Retrieved November 13, 2020, from https://medium.com/@pezucation/frameworks-for-educational-technology-integration-and-innovation-b69823bce37b 

Quelch, B. (2018, May 09). Technology Integration Frameworks. Retrieved November 12, 2020, from https://edtechconnection.com/resources/technology-integration-frameworks/ 

Rodgers, D. (2018, January 19). The TPACK Framework Explained (With Classroom Examples). Retrieved November 12, 2020, from https://www.schoology.com/blog/tpack-framework-explained 

School District of Palm Beach County. (n.d.). Technology Frameworks. Retrieved November 11, 2020, from https://sites.google.com/palmbeachschools.org/edtechtraining/CurriculumIntegration/technology-frameworks 

Schoology. (n.d.). SAMR Model: A Practical Guide for EdTech Integration. Retrieved November 14, 2020, from https://www.schoology.com/blog/samr-model-practical-guide-edtech-integration 

Terada, Y. (2020, May 04). A Powerful Model for Understanding Good Tech Integration. Retrieved November 15, 2020, from https://www.edutopia.org/article/powerful-model-understanding-good-tech-integration 

Winkelman, R. (2020, October 30). TIM Instructional Planning Model. Retrieved November 14, 2020, from https://fcit.usf.edu/matrix/tim-instructional-planning-model/ 

Comments are closed.