In a previous post, I covered the TPACK instructional model. TPACK has been very useful for me, but it is not the only model that I use when designing instruction or working with others to design instruction.

Another model I frequently use is the Technology Integration Matrix. While the language used in the matrix is focused on students and teachers, I encourage you to reframe the language to fit your learning environment. Instead of students and teachers, use learners and librarian, library users and trainer, or whatever words fit for you. 

The Technology Integration Matrix “provides a framework for describing and targeting the use of technology to enhance learning. The TIM incorporates five interdependent characteristics of meaningful learning environments: active, collaborative, constructive, authentic, and goal-directed. These characteristics are associated with five levels of technology integration: entry, adoption, adaptation, infusion, and transformation.”

The matrix, which can be seen here (https://fcit.usf.edu/matrix/matrix/), helps instructors be purposeful in their integration of technology in instructional settings.

Let’s consider some examples of how you could use the Technology Integration Matrix in your instructional settings:

1. You have been leading a workshop on databases. The session is primarily a lecture and demonstration. You would like to make the session more interactive and have the attendees engage in a couple activities. Looking at the Technology Integration Matrix, you decide that the row Active best fits your need for more interactivity. Then, you look at each column. You know you are already doing Entry and Adoption, so decide to focus on Adaptation. You select a few technology tools (i.e. databases) and create specific activities for the attendees to engage in during the session. This helps attendees gain familiarity and confidence with the databases. 
2. You have been teaching a session on systematic reviews. This session is primarily lecture, but you do have a few activities built into the session where attendees analyze systematic reviews. Most of the analysis occurs individually, but you also have one activity that is collaborative. This has been a paper-based activity, but you would like to move it online to save paper. You also feel that the collaborative analysis should be done online because many attendees work across the building and do not collaborate in-person. You review the Technology Integration Matrix and decide your goal fits in the Collaborative row and then fits in both the Adaptation and Infusion columns. It fits in the Adaptation column because you will suggest a few tools for collaborative analysis (e.g hypothes.is and Google Docs), but you also explain how collaboratively analyzing systematic reviews can be beneficial and you suggest that attendees find a tool that works best for them.

For me, the reason the matrix is helpful is because it helps me categorize and name what I am doing and where I want to go with technology in my instructional sessions. Being able to step back and reflect is a necessary part of instruction.