Asking me to compare and contrast these three frameworks for integrating technology in the classroom is a little bit like asking me to compare and contrast what type of people I think Taylor Swift, Selena Gomez and Arianna Grande are. I will make observations and give my most educated opinion, but if I’m honest, there is a lot more beneath the surface that I don’t know about them than what I can see from the outside.

Similarities

If I personally knew any of the aforementioned pop stars, I could more precisely answer the question of how they are alike and different. But I have no personal experience with any of those people. We don’t hang out. Similarly, I have no real experience with the TPACK, SAMR or T3 model. If I had a classroom on which I could experiment, I could dive into the subject deeper. As it is, I’ll start with the similarities I can see. These frameworks are all models that educators can use to help them organize and include technology in their lesson plans. All three help to communicate the importance of utilizing technology in the classroom; advocating for more tech-savy educators and classrooms (Magana, 17). They all assert that technological knowledge and integration is as significant as pedagogy and content (Magana, 19).  They are all a step in the right direction…and then the direction changes.

Differences

The TPACK model is the most basic of the three. It’s biggest strength is that it highlights the importance of technological integration in the classroom and encourages the use of modern tools. It doesn’t, however, provide much detail on how educators can make this integration. That is where SAMR comes in. It builds on to TPACK by …”providing a more in-depth hierarchy for categorizing technology tool use” (Magana 19). It’s more detailed and can be applied easily to more than one discipline, such as business or construction. It’s so broad, however, that it still doesn’t quite get at how to integrate the technology for educators. Along comes T3 to build even further! This model provides more detail by highlighting translational technology use, transformational technology use, and transcendent technology use. Understanding this model helps educators move from basic tech integration, to deep knowledge and innovative classroom technology.

Well if you’re asking me…

The model that will always resonate with me is whatever model tells me how to do whatever challenging task I’m meant to do. I like SAMR because it is simple and, consequently, so am I. But T3 provides more details and examples of how teachers can build technology into their routine, starting with basic changes and moving to complex changes. At the very least, T3 gives me goals to aim for as an educator and a way to track the progress of those goals. “Are my students benefitting from the technology? Is it useful in more ways than just saving time? Is this technology adding value to the content or just making it more efficient?” These are the questions I will be asking as I build my lesson plans.

References:

Magana, A.J. (2017).  Disruptive classroom technologies:  A framework for innovation in education.   Thousand Oaks, CA:  SAGE. ISBN#: 9781506359090