Download Compare the similarities among the models: what`s the same or

Compare the similarities among the models: what’s the same or similar among all 4 or at least 2 or 3 of the
four? All of the models have levels that progress from a low use or integration of technology to a high use
of educational technology in the curriculum. The lowest level normally has a very basic use of technology
that is usually in place of previous teaching methods. It also is easily replaced or easily replaces previous
methods. This level progresses to a limited use of educational technology and then to a fully integrated or
committed curriculum. The highest level is not only fully integrated, but developed around as a basis for
teaching the content area. At this level students are expected to be performing new tasks that were not
available without the technology, and are expected to share knowledge through collaboration.
Contrast the differences: what’s different? is there anything other than the names of the stages that are
significantly different? Each model differs slightly. Whether it is based on a different number of stages or a
different focus for the model (deals with teacher, student, or combination). Between the different models,
they all have four or five levels of educational technology adaption in the classroom. With Lloyd Reiber’s
model, he deals with more of how a teacher commits to technology, adapts their curriculum, and then
continues to progress between “entry” and “evolution”. His model goes beyond the others in that it deals
with the entire educational system. ACOT (Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow) stages, Mr. Puentedura with
TPCK and SAMR, and Texas STaR all have some type of assessment. Mr. Puentedura though measures the
levels by the effect the educational technology has on student performance. The higher it raises a grade, the
higher the level of adaption.
Draw a conclusion: which one(s) gave you the most insight or were most helpful to your developing
understanding of the goals of technology integration? Rueben Puentedura’s presentation was the most
insightful to me in helping me understand the goals of technology integration. Not only did he explain his
model but he gave examples of each stage. He even gave examples of how the lower adaption stages can be
effective for certain courses if the technology is utilized correctly. The examples showed how content,
pedagogy, and technology are supposed to work together.
Optional item: Pick a model and identify what stage you think you are currently in. Is this stage where you
want be? Why or why not? My educational philosophy is the only thing I have to work off of in this case.
However, based on that, I would have to say that my technology adaption stage would be around the
Integration/Adaption/Augmentation or Modification levels. I wanted to aim, as a Math teacher, to use
calculators, spreadsheets, and the creation of online tools to help students collaborate with one another. I
consider this to be a middle of the road adaption of educational technology now.