Published Research

Theoretical foundations. Evidence-based implementation.

 

Developed from a research base founded in constructivist pedagogy and effective teacher practice, the TIM provides a framework for describing and targeting the use of technology to enhance learning. The TIM and TIM Tools (TUPS, TIM-O, TIM-R, TIM-LP, and ARTI) can be used to support research and evaluation in a variety of contexts.

The TIM and TIM tools are appearing as the backbone or supportive resource in book chapters, journal articles, dissertations, and conference papers. Over the past few years the TIM has shown up with increasing frequency in literature reviews for pieces focusing on technology integration, regardless of the methods or tools used. This tells us that the TIM is regarded as a key framework for defining and describing effective technology integration. We are now seeing an increase in both number and breadth of studies that use the TIM or TIM Tools as a central component. TIM-centered studies have been conducted in educational settings ranging from kindergarten to university, and from different countries across the world. Research methods used in these studies include quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. Here are some of the ways that we are seeing TIM and the TIM Tools used in research:

  • TIM as a theoretical framework for a study
  • TIM as a coding scheme for analyzing data
  • TIM-O as a tool for collecting classroom observation data
  • TUPS as a tool for collecting data about teacher perceptions and use of technology

The references listed below include both publications and presentations about the Technology Integration Matrix and other published work that informs the evaluation of technology use in teaching and learning. All credit and responsibility for these works belong to the respective authors.

TIM Publications and Presentations from FCIT

These are articles and conference papers that were written by FCIT staff and focus on the TIM itself or use one or more of the TIM Tools. If you are looking for the most recent and comprehensive overview of the TIM and its development, you can find our book chapter from 2016 here.

Harmes, J. C., Welsh, J. L., & Winkelman, R. J. (2016). A framework for defining and evaluating technology integration in the instruction of real-world skills. In S. Ferrara, Y. Rosen, & M. Tager (Eds.), Handbook of research on technology tools for real-world skill development (pp. 137-162). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Electronic version of the chapter available from publisher.
In-depth background on the foundational concepts of the TIM and its development, comparison with other models for technology integration, classroom examples, and implementation strategies
Kozdras, D., & Welsh, J. (2018). Enter the matrix: A pedagogy for infusing technology. In E. Langran & J. Borup (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 536-541). Washington, D.C., United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Welsh, J., & Harmes, J. C., (2018). Pedagogical patterns in K12 technology integration. In E. Langran & J. Borup (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1080-1085). Washington, D.C., United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Welsh, J. L., Harmes, J. C., & Winkelman, R. (2011). Tech tips: Florida’s Technology Integration Matrix. Principal Leadership, 12(2), 69-71. PDF of the article available from the State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA)

Background Research

The studies listed here include pieces that FCIT researchers did as part of their development of early versions of the TIM, the TUPS, and the ARTI, as well as the two publications that informed the initial theoretical development of the matrix.

Allsopp, M. M., Hohlfeld, T., & Kemker, K. (2007, November). The Technology Integration Matrix: The development and field-test of an Internet based multi-media assessment tool for the implementation of instructional technology in the classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Florida Educational Research Association, Tampa, FL.
Brief paper describing initial field testing of early versions of the TIM
Apple Computer, Inc. (1995). Changing the conversation about teaching, learning, & technology: A report on 10 years of ACOT Research. Cupertino, CA: Apple Computer, Inc.
Report describing the levels of technology integration found in the ACOT studies; these levels were adapted and modified to become the levels (columns) of the TIM.
Barron, A. E., Kemker, K., Harmes, C., & Kalaydjian, K. (2003, Summer). Large-scale research study on technology in K­-12 schools: Technology integration as it relates to the National Technology Standards. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 25(4), 489-507.
Study that used FCIT’s original version of the TUPS to survey all teachers in a large district in Florida
Dawson, K., Cavanaugh, C. & Ritzhaupt, A. (2009). The evolution of ARTI: An online tool to promote classroom-based technology outcomes via teacher inquiry. In I. Gibson et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2009 (pp. 36-41). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Paper describing the action research tool, ARTI, that is part of the TIM Tools suite
Dawson, K., Cavanaugh, C., & Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2012). ARTI: An online tool to support teacher action research for technology integration. In C. Hartshorne, T. Heafner, & T. Petty (Eds.), Teacher education programs and online learning tools: Innovations in teacher preparation (pp. 375-391). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Hogarty, K. Y., Lang, T. R., & Kromrey, J. D. (2003). Another look at technology use in classrooms: The development and validation of an instrument to measure teachers’ perceptions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63(1), 137-160.
Validation study of FCIT’s original version of the survey that was later revised and expanded to become the TUPS (part of the TIM Tools suite)
Jonassen, D., Howland, J., Moore, J., & Marra, R. (2003). Learning to solve problems with technology: A constructivist perspective (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Foundational book whose concepts were modified and expanded to become the five characteristics (rows) of the TIM

Studies that Incorporate the TIM & TIM Tools

This is the place to find examples of studies from across the globe that use the TIM and/or TIM Tools.

Bachenheimer, B. A. (2011). Management-based CIPP evaluation of Northern New Jersey School District’s digital backpack program. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida).
Balula, A., & Moreira, A. (2014). SCAI: A three-dimension model for e-teaching evaluation in higher education. In Evaluation of online higher education: Learning, interaction and technology. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Barbour, D. R. (2014). The Technology Integration Matrix and student engagement: A correlational study. (Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral University).
Ferreira, S., & Andrade, A. (2011). Systematic analysis of quality technology enhanced learning environments in higher education: an organizational perspective 2.0. Education in a Technological World: Communicating Current and Emerging Research and Technological Efforts, 428-439.
Harris, L., & Yearta, L. (2019). The UDL and TIM as frameworks for understanding first year teachers’ technology integration proficiency. In K. Graziano (Ed.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2591-2595). Las Vegas, NV, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Heafner, T. & Triplett, N. (2017). Comparing technology-mediated learning environments. In P. Resta & S. Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 862-869). Austin, TX, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Jahnke, I., Bergstrom, P., Marell-Olsson, E., Hall, L., & Kuma, S. (2017). Digital Didactical Designs as research framework: iPad integration in Nordic schools. Computers & Education, 113, 1-15.
Kieran, L., & Anderson, C. (2014). Guiding preservice teacher candidates to implement student-centered applications of technology in the classroom. In M. Searson & M. Ochoa (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2014 (pp. 2414-2421). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Kohl, A. (2019). One-to-one learning-success factors for meaningful technology integration. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). National Louis University. Retrieved from: https://digitalcommons.nl.edu/diss/382
Kruger, M., & Bester, R. (2014). Integrating eLearning to support medical education at the New University of Botswana School of Medicine. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 12(1), 52-76.
Ledford, D. M. (2016). Development of a professional learning framework to improve teacher practice in technology integration. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Boise State University, Boise, Idaho.
Levene, J. & Boulware, D. D. (2014). Sustaining innovation through online professional development: A design approach. In M. Searson & M. Ochoa (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2014–Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2901-2906). Jacksonville, Florida, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
McLeod, S. (2018). Technology integration, leadership, and organizational support frameworks for instructional improvement with information technology. In J. Voogt et al. (Eds.), Second handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education. Springer International Handbooks of Education. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Muilenburg, L. Y., & Burge, Z. L. (2015). Revisiting teacher preparation: Responding to technology transience in the educational setting. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 16(2), 93–105.
Özel, Ö. (2019). The state of technology: Linkages between kindergarten teachers’ career stages and the stages of technology adaption in Turkey. In W. B. James & C. Cobanoglu (Eds.) Advances in Global Education and Research, Volume 3 (pp. 100-108).
Pombo, L., Carlos, V. & Loureiro, M.J. (2016). Edulabs for the integration of technologies in basic education – monitoring the AGIRE project. International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES), 2(1), 16-29.
Poyo, S. (2018). Transforming teacher preparation: Assessing digital learners’ needs for instruction in dual learning environments. In E. Langran & J. Borup (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1682-1689). Washington, D.C., United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Pritchard, K. K. (2018). Understanding teacher and student use of iPads: A case study. (Doctoral dissertation). Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, Vol 79(4-A)(E).
Liu, F., Ritzhaupt, A.D., Dawson, K. & Barron, A. (2016). Explaining technology integration in K-12 classrooms: a multilevel path analysis model. Educational Technology Research and Development. doi:10.1007/s11423-016-9487-9.
Sawyer, L. M. (2017). Perceptions and Practice: Relationship Between Teacher Perceptions of Technology Use and Level of Classroom Technology Integration. (Doctoral dissertation, Southeastern University).
Strudler, N., & Schrader, P. G. (2016). Engage, empower, explore: An evaluation study of one-to-one implementation at twelve urban middle schools. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), Denver, CO.

Research on Concepts Central to the TIM

The TIM is built on research-based teaching practices that often result in improved student outcomes. The resources included here are intended to serve as foundational pieces, and are organized by TIM characteristic (active, collaborative, constructive, authentic, and goal-directed) with the addition of student-centered instruction, student engagement, and technology integration.

Active Learning

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014, June 10). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415.
Markant, D. B., Ruggeri, A., Gureckis, T. M., & Xu, F. (2016). Enhanced memory as a common effect of active learning. Mind, Brain, and Education, 10(3), 142-152.
Newmann, F. M., Marks, H. M., & Gamoran, A. (1996). Authentic pedagogy and student performance. American Journal of Education, 104, 280-312.

Authentic Learning

Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2013). Removing obstacles to the pedagogical changes required by Jonassen’s vision of authentic technology-enabled learning. Computers & Education, 64, 175-182.
Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., & Oliver, R. (2014). Authentic learning environments. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 401-412). New York: Springer.
King, M. B., Newmann, F. M., & Carmichael, D. L. (2009, January/February). Authentic intellectual work: Common standards for teaching social studies. Social Education, 73(1), 43-49.

Collaborative Learning

Goodyear, P., Jones, C., & Thompson, K.  (2014). Computer-supported collaborative learning: Instructional approaches, group processes, and educational designs. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 439-451). New York: Springer.

Goal-Directed Learning

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, school. (Expanded ed.). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Student-Centered Instruction

Cornelius-White, J. (2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 113-143.
Wenglinsky, H. (1999). The link between teacher classroom practices and student academic performance. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 10(12).

Student Engagement

Fredericks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59-109.

Technology Integration

Davies, R. S., & West, R. E. (2014).  Technology integration in schools. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 841-853). New York: Springer.

Please help us stay up-to-date on how you are using the TIM & TIM Tools in your research efforts! This gives us valuable information for improving the work we do at FCIT, and also helps your colleagues and the education field at large. If you have published research that incorporates the TIM or TIM Tools, please send us the citation information for possible inclusion on our Research page. You can do that by completing the TIM Research Citation Submission Form.

 

Related TIM Articles

You may also be interested in articles on the Technology Integration Matrix and related topics from our Teaching and Learning with Technology series.