A Framework for Growth: A Story of TIM Implementation in Graphs

Technology Access and Support

The first section of the TUPS survey measures access to the technology specialist (or school-based technology support staff). This data provides a sense of what kind of support teachers have with using technology in their curriculum.

Figure 1 shows growth in teacher access and support from a technology specialist. This school’s 2016 data is not unlike the baseline data from most schools. Most schools provide adequate technical assistance, but lack assistance with integrating or implementing technology in the classroom. Based on the 2016 data, St. Michael intentionally implemented professional development paired with coaching that focused on practical uses of technology in teachers’ own curriculum. This data confirms that the school has been spending funding and time on the right type of support that the teachers need and want.

Preparation for Technology Use

The second section asks: “To what extent do you think the following types of technology-related professional development would be beneficial to you?” This data identifies the means through which current teachers have gained technology skills.

Figure 2 documents the shift toward greater teacher utilization of In-Service/Coaching and Distance Learning professional development to gain skills and knowledge. Schools and districts can strategically plan professional development in multiple formats. For instance, at St. Michael School every teacher (in 2018) participated in an online course, to give them the experience from a student’s perspective of online instruction. Teachers were then able to take this experience and apply it in their own classrooms in 2020 when faced with an expedited need for online learning.

In addition, each of these data points can be drilled down to the individual level. Therefore, smaller trainings can be arranged to address specific individuals at the level they need. This information was used to identify “TIM Coaches” (teachers who could mentor other teachers in the integration of technology) and “power users” who could assist others when the technology specialist is not onsite.

This first section also identifies what technology-related professional development teachers view as beneficial.

Figure 3 notes the shift from the need for introductory technology skills, professional productivity (which was targeted to a large extent in 2019), and instructional apps to training on pedagogy and applications students use. At this school, the first year was devoted to introductory skills and pedagogy. The ensuing years, we were able to focus on higher level technology integration. 2019 was focused on professional productivity and instructional application. With the onset of COVID-19, there is a renewed need for pedagogical training as it pertains to hybrid and remote learning, especially.

Perceptions of Technology Use

This section helps identify the role teachers perceive technology playing in how they teach, when and how they use technology, and more.

When compared year to year, note the shift in perception of importance for student devices and how the use of technology changes the role and pedagogy of the teacher. St. Michael was also intentional on creating a work environment where teachers were encouraged to share their successes and felt comfortable reaching out to each other for assistance. The data in figure 4 shows that over 50% of the teachers feel comfortable assisting another teacher with technology.

Confidence and Comfort Using Technology

This data identifies how confident and comfortable a teacher is in using technology, which makes them more likely to use technology and to use it in new and innovative ways.

Figure 5 shows growth in teacher confidence. This data can also be used to identify professional development needs. For instance, multimedia and copyright were focused on two years ago. However, by 2020, new teachers joined the school. Therefore, this data lets us know that it is time to reteach those topics.

Technology Integration

Section 5 of the TUPS identifies the role teachers perceive technology playing in how they teach, when and how they use technology, and more.

Figure 6 shows that from 2016 to 2020, teachers began to regularly use technology in a variety of learning situations. Over the last four years, targeted professional development was provided on student research, small group instruction, cooperative instruction, goal setting/project management, and creating online assessments. The data suggests most teachers are now using technology in these situations multiple times a week.

It is now anticipated that the range of technology uses will expand greatly this year. In particular, current professional development is intentionally focused on increasing the use of technology to discuss or communicate with students.

Teacher and Student Use of Technology

From this data, the school can identify the technologies teachers and students use and how often they use them. The teachers are asked about a variety of types of technology tools (word processing, spreadsheets, multimedia, etc.) twice. The first section asks how often they, the teachers, use the technology in their classroom. The second sections, asks how often their students use those same technology tools. Again, this data can be used to drive budgeting and professional development.

Regarding teacher technology use, there is a shift in regular use of desktop to use of laptops. In this school’s case, the tools the teachers are using for their day-to-day instruction have gradually begun to change. However, the big changes are seen in the technology tools students use. In 2016, there were several technologies that were not used at all by any students. By 2020, students are using a wider variety of technology and more regularly. Targeted coaching and professional development assisted teachers in incorporating these new tools into student learning.

Technology Skills and Usefulness

In section seven of the TUPS, the teachers are asked about the same technology tools as they were in the previous section. However, this time, they are not rating how often they or the students are using the tools. Instead, they are asked first to rank their skill level with each tool. Then, the teachers indicate their perception of how useful each tool is in the classroom.

Numerous data points and charts can be used from this section of the TUPS. The most useful, perhaps, are the “Quadrant” Analyses.

The teachers’ responses to the two parts of this section are correlated to identify which “quadrant” best defines their skill and usefulness. By using these quadrants, professional development can be targeted based on whether it needs to be skill or application-focused (or both). This data also provides insight into whether or not the teachers see value in learning/using a specific tech tool. When implementing professional development of a Quadrant III or IV tool, the practical use of the tool needs to be explained up front to gain teacher buy-in for the training. Whereas, tools identified as Quadrant I are tools that the teachers KNOW they need to use in the classroom, but they just need to learn the skills. Therefore, these are training sessions the teachers already want and need. The technology tools that are identified as Quadrant II are tools the teachers are both comfortable with and feel are important to use. Not a lot of professional development is needed in this area, however, these data points can be drilled down to identify teacher strengths, prospective teacher tech leads/mentors, pairs of teachers (one high, one low) that can be asked to work together, small groups that DO need the training, etc.

From 2016 to 2020, there are fewer tools that are in Quadrant I (high use, low skill), whereas, there are more tools that are now being rated as Quadrant II (high skill, high use). Again, these can be traced back to targeted professional development and coaching that was provided to teachers over that time. The increase in number of teachers that rank tools as Quadrant II also indicates the increase in teacher skill and use of the different tools. Note, for instance, the shift from Quadrants I and III to Quadrant II in the use of Learning Management Systems (#18). In 2019-2020, the school implemented a new LMS system that enabled online learning. Most professional development and coaching that year focused on using the LMS especially as a tool for remote/distance learning. The fact that the majority of teachers now classify the use of an LMS as Quadrant II means that the teachers feel they are skilled at using it and understand why and how important it is to make full use of the LMS in their classroom.

Samples of Technology Integration Growth

Samples of technology integration growth shown by examining data collected through the TIM-Observation Tool will be provided.

The TIM matrix met the need for a common vocabulary and shared understanding of what technology integration looks like in action.

The TIM matrix focuses on five levels of technology integration (Entry, Adoption, Adaptation, Infusion, and Transformation) in five characteristics of the learning environment (Active, Collaborative, Constructive, Authentic, and Goal Directed).

The TIM provides detailed explanation of what the learning environment looks like for students, teachers, and the physical setting at each level of integration. The descriptors provide the common language needed to set goals and plan and monitor progress toward those goals.

As teachers progress in the level of technology integration in each of the five characteristics of the learning environment, instruction and learning fundamentally shift from Teacher-Directed to Student-Directed. The ultimate goal of applying the Technology Integration Matrix (TIM) model in the school is not to increase use of technology. On the contrary, technology is a tool that teachers can use to increase student engagement, ownership, high-order thinking skills, and much more.

Using the TIM-O tool, observers can document how actively students are collaborating with technology, of their own choosing, in unconventional ways, to meet their learning goals. The TIM provides descriptions of what each level of integration looks like to the student, the teacher, and the classroom setting. This data can be used to set goals for teachers individually or as an entire staff. The data can then be used to show progress toward those goals.

In Figure 13, observations using the TIM-O shows significant increase in the use of technology at the adaptation level and infusion level over a two year period. This means more students were working independently with technology tools and more teachers were observed as facilitating learning without having to guide students’ technology use at every step. In addition, more students were understanding how to use a variety of technology tools and when to apply them as more teachers structured lessons to allow for flexibility in student use of those tools.

Figure 13 also shows the increased comfort level to move from entry level into the adoption and adaptation levels. For example, 40% of observations were at the entry collaborative level in 2017-2018 but only 18% were at the entry collaborative level in 2018-2019, while that same year saw growth from 30% to 44% in the adoption collaborative level and growth from 18% to 29% in the adaptation collaborative level. This means student engagement increased and supported use of tools at an individual and group level. The level of authentic adaptation also grew from 30% to 53% signaling technology tools helped students make a greater and more meaningful connection between their lesson content and their community or world around them. In short, Figure 13 demonstrates shifts in how teachers approached the design of their lessons to incorporate technology in an intentional way.