In this episode, we are chatting with James Welsh, Director of the Florida Center for Instructional Technology. Researchers at the FCIT developed the Technology Integration Matrix in 2005 and have been continually updating not only the matrix, but also the resources and supporting materials. It is a wealth of resources relevant for coaches working with teachers on technology for learning. Our conversation ranges from the history and development of the matrix to the ways that it’s being effectively implemented in schools around the world.

Subscribe to #coachbetter via your favorite Podcast Player!

Bonus! Watch the Spotlight Version on YouTube!

Show Notes

James Welsch, Director of Florida Center for Instructional Technology, University of South Florida

Former classroom teacher, currently director of FCIT at Uof South Florida. As a researcher, always oriented towards literacy. PhD in literacy.

How did the University of South Florida get started with the TIM?

Initiative with school districts across FL and FL Dept of Ed, looking for ways to describe technology integration in the classroom. Not about the device, so how do we create a common language for talking about technology integration?

The matrix combines characteristics of meaningful learning environments (based on work of Johnason) with levels of technology integration (originally labeled from ACOT studies). Took theoretical frameworks that existed, did hundreds of hours of interviews, to create a framework for thinking about tech that directs your attention toward pedagogy (rather than the tools). Originally developed 2005 – 2006, with 50 videos and text. In 2010-2011, James led the team that redeveloped the matrix to include new videos, expand descriptions and add cognitive walkthroughs (teachers watching videos and describing what is happening). Now more than 100 videos to include teacher, student perspectives. This year, all the text has been updated.

Technology Integration Matrix

How have the fundamental concepts changed over time?

Now in 3rd edition, fundamentals are the same, each time have unpacked further, clarified approaches, refined definitions. About higher-order thinking, choices that students have, scaffolding those choices. Tried to make them easier to observe and communicate. 

How does this fit within the larger landscape of other research about edtech (SAMR/TPACK/ISTE)? 

Each framework is useful depending on the question you’re trying to answer. The TMI emphasizes that you look at the choices students are making within the lesson to identify the level of tech you’re looking at. Looks at strategic choices. None of the levels are “bad” – it might be “bad” to only do “entry level tech”, but it’s necessary, so making those strategic choices is what we’re trying to identify.

For teachers who are just starting out, it’s hard to identify how to get to that end state (ideal version of tech). TIM makes it easier for teachers to find a starting point, and to work level by level, towards the higher end. Underlying philosophy is that you’re aware of the levels you’re using in the classroom, why you’re using them, and making choices strategically.

TIM is looking at each lesson. SAMR is looking at each task. The higher you are in SAMR, the more likely you are to be taking advantage of affordances that technology gives you access to. Teachers need to make strategic decisions in the way that students can use technology. It’s the expertise of the teacher as an educator to make those choices.

There’s no theoretical reason why working on a higher level of SAMR will lead to greater learning gains. Whereas if you describe everything in terms of pedagogy you are identifying elements that lead to greater learning gains, like higher order thinking, student agency, pedagogy, control. Important not to overemphasize what you’re measuring. 

TPACK identifies the strengths that a teacher already has: pedagogical and content knowlege, which makes them feel more comfortable in bringing in technology.

Misconception: TIM is a “rubric” – but it’s not that, it’s not that on the left is “does not meet” and right is “exceeds”. It’s important to allow teachers to explore their own strengths. 

TIM characteristics can suggest other ways to take advantage of tech – gives teachers 5 different lenses for looking at tech integration.

• To what extent is this an “active” lesson?
• In what way is technology enabling “goal directedness” in this lesson? How are student setting goals, monitoring progress, reflecting on their goals?
• In what ways are you using technology to help students relate this work to their lives beyond the classroom? “authentic”

The characteristics are great opportunities for question prompts coaches can use in their conversations with teachers. The TIM is about grounding good conversations around technology integration. The goal is to empower professional teachers with information. It’s not about compliance, it’s about empowerment. Always grounded in the needs of the students and the demands of the curriculum.

We know you’re currently working on new documents to support coaches… Please tell us a little about what you’re creating and how it will support coaches

TIM Tools. The TIM is available on the website, all are welcome to adopt / adapt. Lots of resources for study groups. TIM Tools is a software suite that allows you to collect data about how technology is being used in the classroom, including an observation tool.  TIM Reflection allows a classroom teacher to reflect on a lesson. New tool is TIM Coaching Tool (TIMC): grew out of work they’ve been doing with districts. Schools are having great conversations, but documenting and tracking those conversations was hard. TIMC is based on coaching cycles.

5 phases

1. Choose baseline data (classroom observation, reflection, survey): document what you want to work on
2. Identify focus of coaching cycle / overall goals from cycle
3. Create a plan: what are the actions the coach and teacher are going to take? How are we going to implement the cycle
4. Monitor progress with check-ins throughout
5. Conclusions about outcomes of actions & outcomes of goals: We said we were going to do this? How did that work out? My goal was X? Did I meet that goal? What do I want to take to the next coaching cycle?

Doesn’t take the place of a coaching conversation, gives a framework for documenting that process. As broad as possible to support whatever coaching/mentoring framework a school might use.

Can even use this to coach coaches on their technology coaching because you can use data from their previous coaching cycle as the baseline data to start from.

In your research and work with school districts, what have you seen / observed that makes coaching successful? What are the elements that needs to be in place?

Observation records: can just be between teacher and observer OR can go all the way up to highest levels. Schools that have been most successful don’t report observation data all the way to the highest levels. Summary reports are not produced at the school level. Important that the 1:1 conversations or small group conversations are more valuable than school-wide or district data.

Tech usage and perceptions survey (tool): Self-report instrument, asking teachers to self-report their comfort level with tech. In order for coaches to get good data from that survey, teachers have to trust that you’re not going to use that against them. If data gets shared afterward, it erodes trust.

“If you don’t know where you are, how do you know where you want to go?” – the importance of baseline data

Common element: trust: when it’s successful and effective, teachers don’t feel like they’re under the gun. Important to treat teachers as professionals, trust them, rise to the best their students need.

How do schools reconcile the need for trust and the need for accountability?

Decouple tech integration/pd from teacher evaluation. Don’t ever use evaluation with tech integration. Formal teacher evaluation process that is mutually agreed upon. Tech observations are solely for coaching / PD. In some cases they don’t have anyone in a supervisory role do those observations.

Making sure that teachers have a voice in determining how they are held accountable.

What research might you point teachers or administrator towards if they are interested in learning more?

Research page on TIM website

Tons of great resources, including district created resources like a card game you can print out and use immediately.

---

Level Up Your Coaching with The Coach!

If you are ready to dive deep into your coaching practice, to help you #coachbetter and build a thriving coaching culture in your school, please join us for our next cohort of The Coach!

Wherever you are in building a coaching culture in your school, The Coach will give you the strategies, skills and tools you need to make coaching a success and will empower you to confidently apply instructional coaching strategies in any situation – from building a coaching program, to having coaching conversations, to being a leader in your school community. We facilitate only one cohort each academic year so we can offer individualized support for each participant.

Coaches of all levels are welcome: you’ll start the program with a self-assessment to determine exactly what the next steps are for you!

Registration for our next global cohort opens once a year – check the website for details!