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 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 belongs to the respective authors.
Recent TIM Publications and Presentations from FCIT
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
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
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.
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).
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.
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: e Relationship Between Teacher Perceptions of Technology Use and Level of Classroom Technology Integration. (Doctoral dissertation, Southeastern University).
Research on Concepts Central to the TIM
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.