The Challenges of Technology Integration to Teaching:
The integration of technology in teaching is not simply about using presentation
software nor letting students use a desktop computer in the classroom. The use of
technology in instruction requires effective teachers who understand the opportunities
and limitations of these technologies when integrated in their teaching plans. Koehler,
Mishra, and Cain (2008) mentioned that teachers often have inadequate (or
inappropriate) experience with using digital technologies for teaching and learning.
Some teachers are inadequately prepared to use technology because the technologies
they had during their pre-service training are different with those they encounter at
present. Most of the technologies they had before are traditional pedagogical
technologies that are characterized by specificity, stability, and transparency of function
(Simon, 1969). The digital technologies available today are protean or can be used in
many different ways, unstable, and opaque (Turkle, 1995). These dynamic
characteristics of technology continue to challenge teachers in many ways and
becomes the basis of teacher trainings. The ever-changing forms of technology is a
reminder for all teachers to keep themselves abreast with the necessary skills towards
effective technology integration. emphasized that creativity in technology integration is
essential to teachers. Teachers should find new ways of looking at educational
technology, be willing to play with technologies and ideas, and be open to constructing
new experiences for students (Koehler, et. al., 2011, p. 149). To provide empirically
supported guidance to teachers in integrating technology to teaching, the TPACK
framework (Koehler, Mishra, and Cain, 2008) and the SAMR Model (Puentedura, 2006)
were designed.
TPACK Framework and SAMR Model: An Overview
The TPACK framework argues that teachers are creative in reimagining and rethinking
how the demands of the modern world can change content or what they teach. In the
same perspective, it believes that teachers have that creativity in designing how they
teach or their pedagogy. Finally, the framework believes that teachers are creative in
adapting technologies in their classroom. This being said, the framework integrated
three forms of knowledge, namely, content, pedagogy, and technology (Koehler,
Mishra, and Cain, 2008). These three components form the core of this framework.
These components imply that there must be an interaction of what teachers know and
how they can apply that knowledge in their own contexts as teachers. In the framework,
context is heavily emphasized. There are different uses of one form of technology in
various contexts. The technology can be repurposed based on the demands of the
learner and teacher’s context. This explains the reality that there is no single use of
technology. The use of various technological tools depends of the context that each
teacher or learner has.
The SAMR (Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition) Model is a four-
level approach for selecting, using, and evaluating technology in K-12 settings
(Puentedura, 2006). Because this model has insufficient theoretical explanations and
elaboration, it is being misinterpreted by researchers as varied representations of this
model are available online. This problem led to three specific challenges when the
model is closely analyzed. The first challenge is the absence of context. Hamilton,
Akcaoglu, and Resenberg (2016) technology integration frameworks that are designed
and put forth without attention to context, such as the SAMR model, often over-
generalize their prescriptions and ignore the complex settings in which this technology
integration occurs. This nature of the SAMR model does not support the reality that the
use of one technology may vary depending on the unique context of the teacher.
Secondly, the model suggests levels that teachers must undergo hierarchically in using
technology. The prescriptive nature of SAMR model does not recognize the need of
each teaching situation. Lastly, the model seems to highlight product over process. The
goal of the model is to produce an output after the teacher has undergone the
prescribed levels. The process that the teacher and the learner has undergone is also
being deemphasized. It should be noted that technology integration should support and
enhance student learning and does not only focus on using a specific type of
technology. Furthermore, this model is hierarchically represented. Its linear and
predictable nature suggests that those at the levels at the bottom of the taxonomy are
less desirable than those at the pinnacle. As a result, Hamilton, Akcaoglu, and
Resenberg (2016) suggested that SAMR model should be augmented to become
context- sensitive so that it can be relevant to the dynamic nature of teaching and
learning.
Contextual Analysis:
The TPACK framework In the framework, context is heavily emphasized. There are
different uses of one form of technology in various contexts. The technology can be
repurposed based on the demands of the learner and teacher’s context. This explains
the reality that there is no single use of technology. The use of various technological
tools depends of the context that each teacher or learner has.