Implementing Technology Integration
Through the years, technology has increased usage as it expands globally. Many technology tools are used as technology evolves. Innovative ideas add to existing technology, creating a platform of improved digital gadgets, designs, and technological tools with additional features (Lamphere, 2019). The world has experienced an innovative shift from analog to the current digital realities of today (Lamphere, 2019).
The history of technology created new and improved ways to connect, from rotary phones to the iPhone, from stationary computers to portable laptops, which provides an instant and creative way of communicating and interacting. Pellegrino and Quellmalz (2010) noted that technology expands across disciplines to create a dynamic and innovative educational system with learning tools to enhance knowledge and build skills. The integration of technology continues to grow and improve throughout history.
Lamphere (2019) revealed that technological advancement has transformed the social-cultural society we know. The technological landscape seems to improve and change through each decade. Lamphere (2019) noted that the innovation of technology had increased social homogenization; social homogenization is a trend that has changed the standardization of how we communicate as a culture in a global market, taking us through a stage of conformity. Technology continues to advance, but in different ways, to improve existing technology and introduce new and original ideas as history repeats itself in one form or another.
Through conformity, we seek to fit in, and through social homogenization, the social media platforms exhibit distinctive designs with various applications that offer uniform features worldwide. Lamphere (2019) revealed how social media platforms elicit similar designs and features, creating social homogenization (structure uniform) and the new age of conformity (change). The shift of conformity seems to stagnate some competition for social media sites. Lamphere (2019) noted that when these sites mimic one another, there is little distinction. One may inherit more influence over another and become dominant while the other becomes obsolete or less used. Some examples include how Facebook dominated Myspace and Snapchat overshadowed Vine.
Application Of Instructional Design Theory
Incorporating the application of Instructional Design theory lays the groundwork to better understand the history and the current state of technology, and gain insight into the lens of future technology (An, 2021). It is essential to know how technology has previously evolved as we have experienced its integration throughout history. Three components of the theory of instruction can guide technology implementation. The three types of instruction theory consist of methods, conditions, and outcomes that later extended to the additional framework of the organization, delivery, and management as one enters the world of technology, teaching, and learning (An, 2021).
Merrill’s first principles of instruction and usability properties may enhance utilizing the Instructional Design theory to incorporate methods, conditions, and outcomes when integrating technology. Adopting Merrill’s first principles of instructional and usability properties could provide the foundation of strategies for increasing learners’ knowledge-based and higher-order thinking skills. The pedagogical design helps guide one’s learning perspective and create a usability framework. The framework creates the right conditions and leads to the acceptance of positive outcomes for the organization, delivery, and management of integrating technology. One should exhibit organizational skills to manage and deliver the use of technology in various disciplines as the future of technology continues to grow.
Similarly, incorporating an Instructional Design theory such as “Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction” (ARCA) increases how integrating technology supports strategies that motivate one and expand their learning experiences. Milman and Wessmiller (2020) revealed that Keller’s ARCS model encourages one’s learning desire once one becomes organized, gains attention to learn, and manages one’s confidence level in receiving information and delivering on the relevance of materials, and in establishing a satisfactory outcome.
Technology Integration In Education
An (2021) noted that the twenty-first-century use of technology integration and digital tools leads to an innovative teaching and learning environment. The rich, inclusive environment filled with innovative delivery methods helps one stay current with the growing demands of technology and global advancements. Integrating digital media in the learning environment provides learning tools that allow improvement in teaching and learning, processing information, and opportunities to communicate, interact, and collaborate with others (Carvalho and Yeoman, 2021). Alkhezzi and Ahmed (2020) viewed technology by using two standard models of integration that guide teaching and learning, processing information, and opportunities to communicate, interact, and collaborate with others by incorporating “Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, Redefinition” (SAMR), and “Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge” (TPACK) models. Including the SAMR model ensures integrating technology that improves existing technology with upgraded, advanced, new, and additional support tools to enhance delivery and student learning. In contrast, TPACK lays the foundation for effective interaction (Alkhezzi and Ahmed 2020).
Integrating technology into the curriculum is promising and benefits the teaching perspectives on increasing digital technology use in the classroom and beyond. Incorporating various approaches ensures that learning options and styles help student learners. Lewin et al. (2018) revealed how essential it is to provide learning by implementing appropriate digital tools in a pedagogical platform that is current, consistent, and inclusive with today’s teaching and learning styles. Technology integration helps build digital communication and collaboration on a global forum. Lewin et al. (2018) revealed that educators create a learning platform to increase technological awareness and knowledge to compete internationally.
Assessing Learning Outcomes
Pellegrino and Quellmalz’s (2010) stance on diagnostic assessment of technology integration might be complex, but it provides a means for collecting, interpreting, and reporting essential information. Once educators understand the implications of integrating technology after utilizing innovative assessments, they can better implement an inclusive approach and solutions to benefit the population served. Pellegrino and Quellmalz (2010) revealed that assessing technology improves how one utilizes instructional strategies and solutions to enhance teaching and learning outcomes.
- Alkhezzi, F., and MS Ahmed. 2020. “Integration: Models, frameworks, and theories.” College Student Journal, 491–504
- An, Y. 2021. “A history of instructional media, instructional design, and theories.” International Journal of Technology in Education (GO) 4 (1): 1–21.
- Carvalho, L., and P. Yeoman. 2021. “Performativity of material in learning: The learning-whole in action.” Journal of New Approaches in Education Research 10 (1): 28–42.
- Chin, SP, E. Tsui, and C. Lee. 2016. “Enhancing learning effectiveness by adopting a knowledge-based usability guidelines.” VINE: The Journal of Information & Knowledge Management Systems 46 (1): 123–152.
- Lamphere, C. 2019. “Conformity is the new black: The next phase of technology and the internet.” Online Searcher 43 (3): 51–54.
- Lewin, C., S. Cranmer, and S. McNicol. 2018. “Developing digital pedagogy through learning design: An activity theory perspective.” British Journal of Educational Technology 49 (6): 1131–1144.
- Milman, NB, and J. Wessmiller. 2020. “Motivating the online learner using Keller’s ARCS model”. Distance Learning 17 (4): 33–37.
- Pellegrino, JW, and ES Quellmalz. 2010. “Perspectives on the Integration of Technology and Assessment.” Journal of Research on Technology in Education 43 (2): 119–134.