TMI on the TIM
- Kasey Brown
- Apr 4, 2023
- 4 min read
How twenty five little boxes can help you become an out-of-the box teacher
When looking at technology integration in the everyday learning environment, it is increasingly clear that the greatest hurdle in successful integration lies within the knowledge of the teacher delivering the instruction. Lack of professional development in the realm of technology integration within the classroom has widened the digital divide over the years and, in many cases, left educators frustrated and unsure of how to keep up with the Jones’ when it comes to impactfully using technology to transform teaching and learning. While researchers have presented many models to help guide educators in technology integration such as the TPACK and SAMR models over the years, many times teachers are left to their own devices in figuring out exactly how to effectively use technology within the models. However, the Florida Center for Instructional Technology (FCIT) has developed a newer model that merges the general ideas of SAMR and TPACK into a matrix of tools that align technology integration with characteristics of specific learning environments to create a roadmap for desired technology integration. It is quite literally the holy grail of tech integration for 21st century classrooms.
What is the TIM?
The Technology Integration Matrix (TIM) is a framework that was designed to aid teachers in “describing and targeting the use of technology to enhance learning” (Grugel, n.d.). Developed by the FCIT in 2005, the TIM uses five characteristics of learning environments combined with linear levels of technology integration in a matrix format that helps teachers determine the appropriate use of technology for specific pedagogical and content purposes. Because technology integration is such a broad and complex idea within education, the TIM helps to bridge the gap of confusion by providing “a common vocabulary for pedagogically sound technology integration” (Florida Center for Instructional Technology, 2021). The design behind the matrix is to help teachers determine the most beneficial technology tool to use for a particular lesson, rather than just using technology for the sake of technology.
TIM vs SAMR
In first examining the matrix, the levels of technology integration are very similar to those presented in the SAMR model. SAMR meaning Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition. The five levels of integration included in the TIM framework are Entry, Adoption, Adaptation, Infusion, and Transformation-each level building on top of the other to increase integration and move from a teacher-centered environment to that of a learner-centered environment, much like SAMR. However, it’s the incorporation of learning environment characteristics that creates a contrast between the two models. Along the side of the matrix, we see five different characteristics of common learning environments including active learning, collaborative learning, constructive learning, authentic learning, and goal-directed learning. By merging the five levels of integration with those five types of learning, a matrix of twenty five cells is formed that allows educators to begin gauging what type of tech integration is most beneficial for the content being taught in a particular lesson, rather than where they fall on a linear scale of tech integration (Arizona K12 Center, 2010).
Using TIM to Integrate Technology
When looking at any other framework presented, it becomes increasingly difficult for teachers to conjure up the best ways to use technology in ways that are beneficial and purposeful, rather than just checking the technology box on the lesson plan. However, the interactive matrix provided through the TIM framework actually equips educators with lesson activities that can be used within their content and pedagogy and practically applied to their lessons.
To use the matrix a teacher just needs to align their learning environment with their desired level of tech integration to arrive at a cell that suggests tools and ways to establish both desired outcomes. While the list of ideas is not exhaustive and will always change and grow with new technology, the activities embedded within the matrix provide educators who are at a complete loss for best tech integration practices with a starting point on how to simplify the intertwining of tech integration with content and pedagogy.
Conclusion
Make no mistake, I think other models such as SAMR and TPACK have positive and contributing attributes to technology integration into the classroom, I just believe that the idea behind the TIM to help teachers evaluate their use of technology, rather than be graded on their use is extremely beneficial and forthcoming. The framework helps to take some of the guesswork out of what tech integration actually looks like and how it can become an essential part of our learning rather than an annoying add-on. By understanding the context of this framework and using it in regular classroom planning, technology can become a necessary tool in creating engaging learning experiences for a world of future-ready students.
Additional Resources:
References
Arizona K12 Center. (2010). Azk12.org. https://www.azk12.org/arizona-technology-integration-matrix
Florida Center for Instructional Technology. (2021). Background and Development of the TIM [Review of Background and Development of the TIM]. Florida Center for Instructional Technology. https://fcit.usf.edu/matrix/matrix/background/
Grugel, C. (n.d.). LibGuides: Technology Integrated Lesson Plan Development: Technology Integration Matrix (TIM). Carthage.libguides.com. Retrieved April 4, 2023, from https://carthage.libguides.com/TIMToolkit#:~:text=The%20Technology%20Integration%20Matrix%20%28TIM%29%20provides%20a%20framework
Comments