Critical Reviews of Selected Technology Integration Models

Introduction

Educators are ill-equipped to analyze educational technology to determine suitability for their programming.  The Covid-19 pandemic, and its resulting influence on educational programming, has accelerated the rate at which educators integrate digital tools into their programming (Nantais, M. et al., 2021, p. 34) but Latchem (2013, p. 384) warns that, “educators need to resist the urge to jump at new ideas without thinking of how its implementation can be maximized, what problems may arise, and how sustainable the tool will be for students down the road”.  Johnson, Riel, and Froese-Germain (2016, p. 43.) found that 45% of surveyed Canadian educators felt that they lacked sufficient support when it came to learning how to use networked technologies in their teaching practice.  Survey results also communicated that 22% of teachers felt ill-prepared to, “teach students how to use networked technologies to support their learning” (2016, p. 61).  While Johnson, Riel, and Frose-Germain argued in 2016 that there, “needs to be support for teachers to apply their professional autonomy and judgement to determine, from a pedagogical perspective, the best use of new technologies to support learning” (p. 78) data from 2021 indicates that teachers continue to lack confidence in the area of educational technology and look to technology leaders to assist in the integration of digital tools to meet their needs (Nantais, M. et al., 2021, 34-35).

There are currently several well-known technology integration models with TPACK, SAMR, and LoTi being among the most recognized (Arora & Chander, 2020, p. 84).  An educator’s responsibilities include addressing the skills and values their students need to use several types of technology tools to meet and extend their understanding of curricular objectives and deepen their overall comprehension.  However, Kimmons and Hall (2017, p. 9) hypothesize that the fact that numerous integration models have been developed suggests that the unique contexts of individual stakeholders are too broad for one model to address.  While the prevalence of various technology integration models may ebb and flow in popularity, the presence of technology in society is constant and raises questions that had previously been absent from reality (Brogden & Couros, 2007, p. 38-39).  Inan and Lowther (2010, p. 138) define technology integration as the inclusion of, “technology for instructional preparation, technology for instructional delivery, and technology as a learning tool.”  Conversations with both in-service and pre-service educators frequently include the topic of technology and its role in student engagement but research by Linnenbrink and Pintrich (2003, p. 120) indicates that there is often a disconnect between perceived engagement and authentic engagement while students are actively involved in technology tasks.  So where does this leave educators and educational leaders?  This paper seeks to provide a critical analysis of five popular technology integration models represented by the following acronyms or short-hand titles: 1. LoTi, 2. TPCK/TPACK, 3. TIM, 4. SAMR, and 5. Triple E.  This work will provide the reader with an overview of each of the five models with examples of how they may look within the K-12 teaching scenario.  A critique of the underlying philosophical and pedagogical influences will be shared as well as prevalent strengths and challenges identified in the existing research.  An appendix of additional resources is also included to help visualize the models and assist stakeholders in their selection of an integration model that fits their needs.

LoTi

The LoTi framework was developed in 1994 by Dr. Christopher Moersch (Ed.D – University of Southern California) and originally stood for Levels of Technology Implementation.  Revamped in 2009, the framework continues to utilize the same acronym but now stands for Levels of Technology Innovation (Moersch, 2009, p. 20).  The original framework was designed for use by educational leaders to quantify the effectiveness of technology integration by teaching staff and the level of impact their implementation had on student learning outcomes (Moersch, 1995, p. 41)(Stoltzfus, 2006, p. 1).  The modernization of LoTi in 2009 is described by Moersch,

The original LoTi framework provided an empirically validated model for school systems to gauge the effectiveness of technology implementation. However, with the emergence of new standards from the Partnership for 21st Century Skills and ISTE’s NETS•T, it was clear the framework needed to be refreshed… It includes the same stages contained in the original framework, but the newer model emphasizes powerful learning and teaching as well as the use of digital tools and resources in the classroom. (p. 20)

In both versions, the LoTi framework includes seven levels representing a hierarchal approach to measuring the breadth of technology implementation by the educator in question.  The levels begin a Level 0, or Nonuse, where there are real or perceived barriers to accessing technology and existing classroom tools include resources such as whiteboards and overhead projectors and range up to a Level 6, or Refinement, where the use of technology provides a seamless medium for student development (Moersch, 1995, p. 42).  The ideal target would be for educators to reach, a minimum, Level 4, or Integration, as all levels after this represent a “fine-tuning” of skills (Kuskaya-Mumca & Kocak-Usleul, p. 730).  The figure below illustrates the original LoTi framework as conceptualized by Moersch in 1995.

Figure 1. The LoTi Framework

The LoTi framework has since expanded with the addition of the Current Instructional Practices (CIP) and Personal Computer Use (PCU) frameworks, as well as the Digital-Age Survey that aim to provide a personalized approach to educator professional development and guide their progress through the LoTi levels (Moersch, 2009, p. 20). 

TPCK/TPACK

The TPCK framework was developed in 2005 by Dr. Matthew Koehler (Ph.D. Educational Psychology – University of Wisconsin) and Dr. Punya Mishra (Ph.D. Educational Psychology – University of Illinois).  Upon the original publication in 2005 the PTCK framework represented Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge, but this was updated in 2007 to be referred to as TPACK as a means of easing pronunciation (“tee-pack”) as well as a marketing strategy representing the framework as a “total PACKage” for educators (Thompson & Mishra, 2007, p. 38).  As many publications use both the TPCK and TPACK acronyms, this work will see the framework represented as TPCK/TPACK.  The TPCK/TPACK framework is graphically represented as a three-component venn diagram that seeks to understand the connections and relationships between pedagogical knowledge, technological knowledge, and content knowledge with an end goal of improving student achievement (Koehler & Mishra, 2005)(Archambault & Barnett, 2010, p. 1656).  In total the TPCK/TPACK framework outlines seven different areas of knowledge required for the effective integration of technology: content knowledge (CK), pedagogical knowledge (PK), technological knowledge (TK), pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), technological content knowledge (TCK), technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK), and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) (Koehler & Mishra, 2005). The figure below illustrates the TPCK/TPACK framework as advertised on Koehler’s blog.

Figure 2. The TPCK/TPACK Framework

By exploring the complex relationship between these seven components, the TPCK/TPACK framework encourages educators to better understand the opportunities and barriers technology presents with different curriculums and pedagogical styles as opposed to a uniform approach to technology integration that might result in technology being applied ineffectively or failing to see how emerging technologies can be applied to a unique teaching scenario (Koehler & Mishra, 2008, p. 22)(Cox & Graham, 2009).  The complexity of these knowledge areas emphasizes the need for educators to not only understand their subject content area but also the context in which they are presenting this information and the TPCK/TPACK framework is not prescriptive so as the design takes into account multiple pathways for knowledge development (Brantley-Dias, & Ertmer, 2013, p. 121)(Harris, et. Al. 2009, p. 403).  The desired outcome for those following the TPCK/TPACK model would be for educators to design effective learning opportunities for their students in which subject area content is understood through appropriate pedagogical strategies and supported by the successful integration of appropriate technological tools.

TIM

The TIM model was originally developed in 2005 by the Florida Department of Education and the Florida Center for Instructional Technology (FCIT) and stands for the Technology Integration Matrix.  Most recently updated in 2019, the framework continues to utilize the same acronym and was designed for use by educational leaders to evaluate the way in which teaching staff integrate technology into their lessons and assists with the selection of tailored professional development for staff (Welsh, Harmes, & Winkelman, 2011, p. 69).  While the purpose of the TIM model bears similarities to LoTi, SAMR and TPCK/TPACK, TIM presents both a context for shaping teaching planning while emphasizing the pedagogy in which technology is implemented (Welsh et. Al., 2011, p. 69).  Bonfiglio-Pavish (2018) argues that TIM provides a foundation for educators to design lessons that are student focused, reflective of appropriate pedagogical strategies, and supported meaningfully by the integration of technology (p. 1)  The five-by-five grid system of the TIM includes five learning environments ranging from active to goal-directed and five stages of technology implementation ranging from entry to transformation.  Together, this model consists of a 25-part matrix represented below as Figure 3.

Figure 3. The TIM Model

The digital version of the TIM model is interactive with videos and lesson plans designed to illustrate how each component can look like within various teaching scenarios (Welsh et. Al., 2011, p. 69).  This inclusion has expanded the original purpose of the model as a tool for educational leaders to also serve as a practical guide for educators to access as part of independent or formal professional development. 

SAMR

The SAMR model was developed in 2006 by Dr. Ruben Puentedura (Ph.D. Chemistry – Harvard University) and stands for Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition.  This model has been represented as both a hierarchy and a heterarchy depending on the organization, which will be discussed in a further section of this work, and each level represents a unique way educators may select, use and evaluate technology within their context (Hamilton, Rosenberg, & Akcaogulu, 2016, p. 434).  The SAMR model is most often represented by a ladder with Substitution as the first rung and seen as an enhancement to already existing practices while Redefinition is represented as the top rung and is representative of a transformative shift in the educator’s approach to technology implementation (Puentedura, 2014).  In contrast to the LoTi framework, which was originally designed for educational leaders, the SAMR model was designed as a practical tool for educators in the field.  Puentedura speaks to this intended practicality in a 2016 interview with Common Sense Education,

If you can frame how and why you’re using those tools in terms of SAMR you now have a common language for discussion… Rough out some ideas and try to, if you will,   get a     little bit of a taste for what it’s like to incorporate the technology in this fashion. And     then, yes, translate that into something in your own practice… SAMR makes you realize        that, “ok, that didn’t quite work out the way I wanted it to but I can learn from it and, from this first trial, I can develop changes to my teaching practice that will make it  better”.

(1:00-  3:33)

For those who view the SAMR model as a hierarchy the intended goal would be for educators to integrate technology in a manner that represents either of the top two rungs of the ladder in the transformation sphere.  Puentedura, however, stresses that educators work at a pace that takes their context into account and that, sometimes, entry-level substitution is the best action to undertake as they evolve their practice (Puentedura – Common Sense Education B, 2016, 1:02-1:13).  The figure below illustrates the SAMR model as represented by Puentedura on his blog.

Figure 4. The SAMR Model

The SAMR model has also been presented in conjunction with the TPCK/TPACK model which will be discussed in the next section (Puentedura, 2014). 

Triple E

The Triple E framework was developed in 2011 by Dr. Liz Kolb (Ph.D. Learning Technologies – University of Michigan) with the three “Es” representing Engagement, Enhancement, and Extension; also highlighted as simply Engage, Enhance, and Extend.  The components of the Triple E framework are defined as: 1. engagement: the amount of time-on-task, active progress on the identified learning goal(s), and the opportunity for social learning, 2. enhancement: what opportunities does this tool award that would otherwise be absent, 3. extension: how does this bridge the gap between classroom and home-environments and what soft skills are being practiced (Kolb, 2017, p. 30-31).  The Triple E framework centers on a set of questions related to the three “Es” that guides educators through the selection, evaluation, and implementation of technology tools into their teaching practice; bridging the gap between theory and practice (Ibrahim, Hassan, & Fun, 2019, p. 26)(Kolb, 2017, p. 5).  Kolb’s framework seeks to support educators in measuring the level in which digital tools are resulting in authentic engagement and can be used in isolation or in conjunction with existing technology integration models.  Kolb summarizes the primary goals of the framework in her 2017 book, Learning First, Technology Second,

The Triple E model was designed to work with or without the current frameworks in order to do the following:

– Integrate the current research on characteristics of effective teaching and learning strategies with technology tools

– Focus specifically on how the technology is meeting the needs of the learner

– Be user-friendly for a quick evaluation

– Be able to evaluate both lesson plans and technology tools, looking for effective learning strategies built into both

– Consider and leave room for pedagogical strategies to work with technology tools, rather than looking at technology tools in isolation

p. 26

The Triple E framework, including the guiding questions for the Enhance, Engage, and Extend aspects is represented graphically in Figure 5.

Figure 5. The Triple E Framework

Foundations & Influences

The models included in this work are often advertised as assisting to merge theory and practice and, as such, the development of these models requires a strong theoretical background to ensure that their claims are backed by the concepts, principles, and relationships that exist in their field (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2013, pg. 15).  A model supported by strong theoretical understanding ensures that educators can effectively research their data to help guide pedagogical practices. With this in mind, the selection of a technology integration model requires participants to first reflect on their personal ontological and epistemological beliefs and how that fits into the broader systems that they operate within.  Reflection surrounding big picture questions such as what is learning?, how does one learn?, and what constitute evidence of learning?, need to be considered before further analysis of an individual model can occur (Kimmons, 2017, p. 8).  The models presented in this paper draw from a constructivist influence where, “learners are active knowledge constructors rather than passive information receivers” (Jonassen, 1991 cited in Wang, 2008, p. 413).  Kimmons speaks to the suitability of a constructivist approach regarding technology integration in their 2016 book, K-12 Technology Integration,

Technology can support constructionist approaches to teaching and learning by  empowering students and teachers to create and construct external models reflecting internal mind models with resources and possibilities not available in the real world. By using a simulation, for instance, students can construct any structure or machine without           the need of expensive materials, or they might seek to understand economic principles of supply and demand by creating a simulated community that allows them to influence supply chains in ways that would not be possible in the real world.

(p. 6)

This author suggests a reconstructionist approach to education that is rooted in pragmatic philosophy emphasizes present and future trends which is essential to help learners navigate the digital world that continues to evolve before their eyes (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2013, pg. 48).  Reconstructionists argue that models need to adapt to account for the vast changes occurring within society (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2013, pg. 45).  Fueling the reconstructionist foundation, pragmatism identified that the learner’s environment was in a constant state of change and that educators and their approach to technology integration needed to account for this dynamic condition (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2013, pg. 32).  In 1997, it was identified that traditional forms of literacy were not sufficient and that students required new skills such as searching for information through non-linear routes (Simsek & Simsek, 2013, pg. 128).  Since that time, the required skill set of students has expanded to include the collection, organization, storage, and publication of information through a computer device in graphic, text, or number format (Haddadian, Majidi, Maleki, & Alipour, 2013, pg. 195).  The identified skills align with Dewey’s view on education where subject matter is interdisciplinary and requires learners to problem solve and think critically as they explore the digital world (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2013, pg. 32).

Figure 6, influenced by the work of Bonfiglio-Pavisich (2018), provides a summary of the five models presented in this work, including some of the primary influences informing the development of their approach to technology integration.

Figure 6. Summary of Technology Integration Models.

Challenges to Included Models

Education is context-specific and what works for one teacher, with their students on a given day, may be completely inadequate for their colleagues needs across the hall.  The fast-paced nature of technology adds an additional layer to this with the ability to predict digital trends and how various technological tools may be used almost impossible for end-users (Hamilton, et al. 2016, p. 433).  Kimmons and Hall (2017, p. 9) hypothesize that the fact that numerous integration models have been developed suggests that the unique contexts of individual stakeholders are too broad for one model to address and that educators must consider their localized practice over a model’s perceived popularity.  Of the technology integration models summarized in this paper, all have suggestions for improvement.  This section will share some of the most documented critiques as they align with the following areas of concern: the need for further research, lack of clarity, and practicality for educators.

Need For Further Research. The need for technology integration models to be formally analyzed in peer-reviewed literature is argued by Hamilton et al. (2016, p. 434) who shed light on the concern that, in the absence of further information, educators and educational leaders are left with an incomplete understanding of the model.  This can lead to partial integration of the model which complicates how it is understood and applied by others, leading to a dilution of the implementation plan that can, at best, be a waste of the educators’ time and, at worse, be harmful to student learning.  Of the models presented in this work, the SAMR model ranks as the highest offender in this category with no representation in the extant literature which has led the public to draft their own interpretations of Puentedura’s intent via YouTube interviews and his blog, which is primarily comprised of presentation slides (p. 434).  There are also calls for the TIM model to be further represented in the literature as it has not been formally validated, despite being adopted by educators and institutions around the world (Bonfiglio-Pavisich, 2018, p. 2).  This lack of information has led to a call for action by Bonfiglio-Pavisich who argues that, “there is a need to collect evidence-based data on how the TIM Matrix is used in schools and how it informs best practice in teaching and learning” (2018, p. 13).  Joining the call for increased research, Stoltzfus points out that while validation studies are present for the LoTi framework regarding content and construct validity, there are still gaps when it comes to an empirical establishment of their claim regarding proficiency in the area of teaching innovation (2009, p. 1).

Lack of Clarity. The information included in the presentation of the technology integration model must be clear in terms of its development, goal(s), and implementation.  Inadequate details in any one of these categories can contribute to a lack of precision in the model and ineffective results for participants (Angeli & Valanides, 2009, p. 157).  Bonfiglio-Pavisich goes as far to say that, despite reflecting a constructivist approach, a lack of clarity in many of the primary technology integration models hinders their ability to support any meaningful learning (2018, p. 13).  In terms of SAMR, Hamilton et al. sheds light on the model’s absence of context (2016, p. 435).  Without clarity surrounding how educators account for their unique teaching scenario when applying the model, their ability to implement SAMR within the context of their teaching practice or research scenario may be difficult.  Reiser and Dempsey (2012) share concerns about a lack of clarity in the SAMR model as there does not appear to be a clear indication on focus when it comes to products versus process which could lead to educators selecting a specific technological tool without consideration of other factors.  The TPCK/TPACK framework is also an offender in this category with much speculation surrounding what are appropriate examples and non-examples of each construct.  These blurred lines not only make it challenging for educators and researchers to classify borderline cases, but it places the entire framework’s degree of precision under examination (Angeli & Valanides, 2009, p. 157).

Practicality for Educators.  The Covid-19 global pandemic has only accelerated the rate at which digital tools are being utilized in classrooms as well as the types of teaching educators are participating in (i.e.: remote, in-person, hybrid); now more than ever, it is essential that the model(s) being implemented by educators are practical (Nantais, M. et al., 2021, 30-31).  One critique relates to the intended audience of the model as many are being used by in-service educators, sometimes without the guidance of an administrator or ICT team, when the analytical scope of the model is more suited for use by educational researchers or leadership teams (Graham, Borup, and Smith, 2012, p 3-4)(Brantley-Dias & Ertmer, 2013, p. 108).  This disconnect between model information and practicality for educators is explained by Mcleod (2015), “Although conceptually useful, neither TPACK nor SAMR, for instance, are very detailed when it comes to helping teachers think about what to revise to improve their technology integration efforts” (p. 230).  Similar concerns have been raised surrounding the LoTi framework as the levels do not include further supports for educators to assist them in their progression toward more meaningful student learning (Bonfiglio-Pavisich, 2018, p. 10).  This lack of support in the framework may have contributed to the fact that research completed by Berkeley-Jones (2012) found that there was no statistically significant difference between a teachers’ LoTi level and mean student scores in ELA or Math (p. iv).

As educators and leadership teams work to select a technology integration model it is vital to familiarize themselves with not only the model itself but its critiques, including calls for further research, a lack of clarity, and practicality for educators.  Kimmons and Hall (2016) remind stakeholders that the selection of a technology integration model, “… should always be guided by meaningful theories that practically address desired learning outcomes in a manner that is contextually valuable in the teacher’s unique classroom setting” (p. 9).

Conclusion

With a variety of technology integration models available how can educators and educational leadership teams decide which one, or combination, will best suit their needs?  Research by Kimmons and Hall (2017) summarized that when it comes to the implementation of technology integration models in pre- and in-service educators: 1. integration of technology must be aligned with pedagogical theory, 2. different models bring different values to educators, 3. the popularity of a model does not equate usefulness, 4. models should allow for real-world application of skills, and 5. the visual appearance of specific models, while subjective, can play a hand in perceived practicality for educators (p. 7).  A critical analysis of the various models should include how the foundational influences align with one’s approach to education, an understanding of the purpose and breadth of the model, and a realistic understanding of potential gaps.  This work strives to provide educators and educational leadership teams with a comprehensive overview of this information so that a plan can be developed where educators are informed and confident in their integration of technology.

References

Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT–TPCK: advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52(1), 154–168

Archambault, L., & Barnett, J. (2010). Revisiting technological pedagogical content knowledge: Exploring the TPACK framework. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1656–1662.

Arora, C., & Chander, S. (2020). Integrating technology into classroom learning. Indian Journal of Educational Technology, 2(1), 84-105.

Barbour, D. R. (2014). The technology integration matrix and student engagement: A correlational study. Northcentral University.

Berkeley-Jones, C. (2012). A study of the relationship between levels of technology implementation (LoTi) and student performance on Texas assessment of knowledge and skills (TAKS) scores. Texas A&M University.

Bonfiglio-Pavisich, N. (2018). Technology and Pedagogy Integration: A Model for meaningful technology integration. Australian Educational Computing, 33(1).

Brantley-Dias, L., & Ertmer, P. A. (2013). Goldilocks and TPACK: is the construct ‘just right?’. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(2), 103–128.

Brogden, L. M., & Couros, A. (2007). Toward a philosophy of technology and education. Delta Kappa  Gamma Bulletin.

Brubaker, J. (2013). SAMR: Model, metaphor, mistakes. Retrieved from http://techtipsedu.blogspot.com/2013/11/samr-model-metaphormistakes.html.

Common Sense Education. (2016, July 12). How to Apply The SAMR Model with Ruben Puentedura [Video]. YouTube, How to Apply the SAMR Model with Ruben Puentedura *represented as Common Sense Education B

Common Sense Education. (2016, July 12). The Impact of the SAMR Model with Ruben Puentedura [Video]. YouTube, The Impact of the SAMR Model with Ruben                 Puentedura

Cox, S., & Graham, C. R. (2009). Diagramming TPACK in practice: Using an elaborated model of the  TPACK framework to analyze and depict teacher knowledge. Tech Trends 53(5), 60–69.

Curry, J. H., & Curry, D. M. (2018). Review of Kolb, L. (2017). Learning first, technology second: The educator’s guide to designing authentic lessons. Portland, OR: International Society forTechnology in Education. TechTrends, 62(6), 667-668.

Graham, C. R., Borup, J., & Smith, N. B. (2012). Using TPACK as a framework to understand teacher candidates’ technology integration decisions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28, 530– 546.

Hamilton, E., Rosenberg, J., & Akcaogulu, M. (2016). The substitution augmentation modification redefinition (SAMR) model: a critical review and suggestions for its use. Association for Educational Communications & Technology. DOI 10.1007/s11528-016-0091-y

Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393–416.

Hennessey, S., Ruthven, K., & Brindley, S. (2005). Teacher perspectives on integrating ICT into subject   teaching: commitment, constraints, caution, and change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(2), 155– 192. doi:10.1080/0022027032000276961.

Ibrahim, F. I., Hassan, N., & Fun, T. L. V. (2019). Enhancing students’ experience with H5P learning activities developed according to Triple E framework (engage, enhance & extend). University Carnival on E-Learning (IUCEL) 2019, 26.

Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms: A path model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 137–154.

Johnson, M., Riel, R., & Froese-Germain, B. (2016). Connected to learn: Teachers’ experiences with networked technologies in the classroom. Ottawa, ON: MediaSmarts. Retrieved from                      http://mediasmarts.ca/sites/mediasmarts/files/publicationreport/fullycwwiii_connected_to_learn.pdf

Kimmons, R., & Hall, C. (2017). How useful are our models? Pre-service and practicing teacher evaluations of technology integration models. Association for Educational Communications &   Technology. DOI 10.1007/s11528-017-0227-8

Kimmons, R (2016). K-12 technology integration. Press Books.

Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology. (Ed.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). New York: Routledge

Kolb, L. (2017). Learning first, technology second: The educator’s guide to designing authentic lessons. Internation Society for Technology in Education.

Kolb, L. (2019). Smart Classroom-Tech Integration. Educational Leadership, 76(5), 20-26.

Kuskaya-Mumcu, F., & Kocak-Usleul, Y. (2013). Teachers’ perceptions related to levels of ICT implementation, Procedia – Social and Behavioural Sciences, 83, 729-733.

Latchem, C. (2013). Whatever became of educational technology? The implications for teacher education. World Journal of Educational Technology, 5(3), 371-388. Retrieved    from      http://www.world-education-center.org/index.php/wjet/article/view/2873/pdf_219

Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading &Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 119-137.

McLeod, S. (2015). Facilitating administrators’ instructional leadership through the use of a technology integration discussion protocol. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 10(3), 227-233.

Moersch, C. (1995). Levels of technology implementation (LoTi): A framework for measuring classroom technology use. Learning and Leading with Technology, 23, 40-42.

Moersch, C. (2010). LoTi turns up the heat! Learning & Leading with Technology.  Retrieved from:                 https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ874128.pdf

Nantais, M., Dimuro, M., Kelly, W., Kirk, J., Lam, M., Ofwono, N., & Spence, S. (2021). Digital policy, infrastructure, procedures and practices of select rural and  northern Manitoba school divisions. BU CARES. https://www.brandonu.ca/bu-cares/files/2021/08/Digital-Realities-in-Rural-Manitoba-July-2021.pdf

Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2013). Curriculum: foundations, principles, and issues. New    Jersey, US: Pearson Education.

Puentedura, R. (2006). Transformation, technology, and education [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://hippasus.com/resources/tte/.

Puentedura, R. (2014a). Building transformation: An introduction to the SAMR model [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2014/08/22/BuildingTransformation_AnIntroductionToSAMR.pdf

Puentedura, R. (2014b). Learning, technology, and the SAMR model: Goals, processes, and practice[Blog post]. Retrieved from

Puentedura, R. (2014). SAMR and TPCK: A hands-on approach to classroom practice [Blog post]. Retrieved from      http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2014/12/11/SAMRandTPCK_HandsOnApproachClassroomPractice.pdf

Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (2012). Trends and issues in instructional design and t4echnology (3^rd ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Stoltzfus, J. (2006). Determining educational technology and instructional learning skill sets: A new approach to the LoTi framework for the 21^st century. Retrieved from: ResearchGate  

Stoltzfus, J. (2009). Criterion-related validation of the core LoTi levels: An exploratory analysis. Retrieved from: ResearchGate

The LoTi Connection. (2016). LoTi Digital Age Profile. Retrieved from: https://conference.iste.org/uploads/ISTE2016/HANDOUTS/KEY_100410573/SampleGroupLoTiProfileReport20th.pdf

The Technology Integration Matrix. (2019). The technology integration matrix. Florida Center for Instructional Technology. https://fcit.usf.edu/matrix/matrix/

Kolb, L. (2020). Triple E Framework. Triple E Framework. https://www.tripleeframework.com/framework-models.html    

Thompson, A., & Mishra, P. (2007–2008). Breaking news: TPCK becomes TPACK! Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 24(2), 38–64.

Wang, Q. (2008). A generic model for guiding the integration of ICT into teaching and learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. 45(1), 411-419

Welsh, J., Harmes, J. C., & Winkelman, R. (2011). Florida’s technology integration matrix. Principal Leadership, 12(2), 69-71.