This was a talk given at the Heart of Writing Workshop for K12 teachers at The University of Texas at Austin.

1. Technology integration
Considering TPACK and RAT
Michelle Read
Gloria Gonzales-Dholakia

2. Why Integrate technology?
Why reconsider the way we teach?
Meeting the needs of 21st Century Learners.

3. 21st Century Learners (watch video)
• Discussion:
•
• Are we helping/preparing teachers to meet the needs of
these 21st learners?

4. New Standards & Changing Policies
• NETS-T (2008):
http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ForTeac
hers/2008Standards/NETS_for_Teachers_2008.htm
•
• TEA Technology Vision:
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=5082 have the file
downloaded and open to page 30- plan guidelines for
teachers, teacher educators, and leaders
•
• NETP: http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010
• have executive summary downloaded with main
recommendations

5. How to integrate technology?
Two frameworks for consideration when using
technology.
I. TPACK (Technology, Pedagogy, and
Content Knowledge)
2. RAT (Replacement, Amplification,
Transformation)

6. TPACK
●What does TPCK or TPACK mean? Video.
●Based on the PCK model by Shulman, 1986.
●Adapted to include technology by Mishra & Koehler in 2006.
●What is technology?
●Non-perfect model
●Take away

7. The RAT Framework (Hughes, 2005)
Consider what the technology does to
aspects of student learning, teacher
instruction, or the curriculum?
How is the technology used?
-Replacement
-Amplification
-Transformation

8. Activity: Analyzing with RAT---Gloria,
check email.
•
Student Learning Instruction Curriculum
Replacement
With the
addition of
technology,
aspects of
SL, I, and
C remained
exactly the
same

9. •

10. Pre-service teachers
●Modeling
●Technology integration course
●Comprehensive technology integration

11. Resistance is Futile... (O'Hanlon, 2009)
• All this preparation and still little impact. Factors:
•
●Change in teaching paradigm--"Some teachers still feel teaching is a craft. The old method is the way
they've done it for 20 years. Why change now?"
●lack of time "One way not to scare teachers off is to allow them to learn a technology gradually." This also
avoids overload.
●lack of support--"He says a lack of support can result in an initial negative experience with technology,
which permanently turns teachers off." Once they are turned off, it is difficult to regain their interest.
●forced imposition--"You can position technology as, 'This is what it does,' etc., and that's fine, but when
you say, 'You must use it,' that's where the resistance comes. And when you impose a deadline, it
becomes another compliance thing rather than a way to enhance learning."
●competing educational priorities--teachers have a lot going on. ""It takes time to learn new tools and
software, and with everything else teachers are asked to do, technology integration is often last on the
list..."
●fear--"Teachers' biggest fear is that students are ahead of them technologically. I think they feel a little
embarrassed; they're not experts in this field. And it may be the first time they've not been an expert at
something."
●unawareness--"Sometimes, she adds, all it takes to convince a teacher to take the leap is seeing how
using technology impacts the students. "Students should be the driving force of instruction. They
keep teachers motivated to incorporate new strategies because they are learning 100 times more
than they would be if they were just sitting in a row listening to a lecture."

12. In-service teachers--PD Approaches
• Glover & Miller (2007), 3 approaches to PD and culture
change outcomes..
•
• identified 3 approaches to PD:
●individualistic: introduction to new technology by
enthusiastic users, with basic overview only and scattered
adoption. Teachers left on their own to learn more;
● incrementalist: progressive PD and implementation into
many rooms of those with varying abilities, with ongoing
mentor support;
●innovatory: installation in all classrooms and ongoing PD
focusing not only on the technology, but the pedagogy as
well and making available technical and pedagogical
assistance.

13. PD Approaches, cont.

14. IT Research Activity
• In groups, read the scenario given to you. Be prepared to
discuss the following questions?
• 1. Why do you think that is?
•
• 2. How do you feel the PD, or teacher preparation
program, supported _________?
• 3. What solutions can we present?

15. Activity Extension:
1. Work with a partner or in small groups to discuss at least one way (per
member) in which technology has been integrated into delivered lessons.
2. Use the google doc
at: http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AsSysX2o3B3LdG03YS1UdFlXY
UN5M1BsSlRubU9OaFE&hl=en
Note: We will be simultaneously working on editing this document together, so
be prepared for slight delays in typing. The document should automatically
save as we edit.
3. Each color represents a group's contributions to the document. Add up to
three examples of technology integration for conversation.
4. Discuss which level of technology integration (RAT) this example represents.
5. Be prepared to discuss ways in which this example might be made to be
transformative. Think TPCK, focusing on which element contributed most to
making the example transformative.

16. Resources:
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge.
The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational researcher, 15(2), 4.
Hughes, J. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming technology-integrated pedagogy. Journal of
Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2), 277(226).
Hughes, J., Thomas, R., & Scharber, C. (2006). Assessing Technology Integration: The RAT:
Replacement, Amplification, and Transformation - Framework. Paper presented at the Society for Information
Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2006, Orlando, Florida, USA.
Glover, D., & Miller, D. (2007). Leading changed classroom culture the impact of interactive whiteboards. Management in Education,
21(3), 21-24.