1

Running head: TECHNOLOGICAL PROFICIENCY PAPER

Technological Proficiency Paper

Ransome Nfor

Azusa Pacific University

God First!
 2
ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this paper is to assess my level of technology use in the classroom. The

assessments were based on 3 main frameworks namely; SAMR, TPACK and T3 frameworks.

The method employed to collect information was mostly inquiry based and self-assessment

questions. Based on the SAMR framework, I happened to fall in between the substitution and

augmentation stage. This is to say that I mostly use technology to enhance the curriculum.

Assessing using the Koehler’s (2012) TPACK survey revealed that my knowledge of

pedagogical and content knowledge (PCK) is well above my technological knowledge (TK).

Significant improvement is to be done as far as infusing technology into designing lessons and

choosing the methods to deliver the lessons. The T3 self-assessment revealed that my use of

technology is mostly for automation and consumption related tasks. I mostly use technology in

the classroom to replace analog tasks to digital tasks. (Magana, 2017). According to Magana

(2017), using technology at the translational stage is mainly for the purpose of saving time and

reducing errors. Apart from assessing with these 3 frameworks, I took a technical assessment test

on general computer, internet and other tech related knowledge and had an 86%. Conclusively,

irrespective of the framework used to assess, there is considerable area of opportunity for me to

achieve. I have set the bar high and I hope that by the end of this program one will have made a

significant improvement.

God First!
 3
T3 FRAMEWORK
ASSESSING TECHNOLOGICAL PROFICIENCY LEVEL

This research is about assessing my current level technological proficiency using

frameworks such as SAMR, TPACK and T3 frameworks. These frameworks are mostly

inquiry-based and self-assessing as discussed the subsequent paragraphs.

1. TPACK FRAMEWORK

The TPACK model considers technology as a tool that is used to layer our use of

pedagogical knowledge in teaching. It is important to mention that the concept of TK in

TPACK was introduced by Matthew J. Koehler and Punya Mishra both professors from

Michigan State University in 1998. (Magana, 2017). It is not technology-centric

framework but rather considers technology as a necessity needed to complement the

pedagogical and content knowledge acquired. (Common sense educator, n.d). My

curriculum delivery and preparation is well ground on the content knowledge (CK) and

pedagogical knowledge (PK). My training of becoming a teacher mainly focused on

finding an intersection between CK and PK. PCK to a reasonable extent is a comfortable

subject for me to talk about. In modern world of modernized students, the only option left

is to continue to device strategies of intersecting technological knowledge (TK) with

PCK. As revealed by my assessment on Koehler’s (2012) TPACK survey, I have a solid

foundation on the PCK and my area of improvement is mainly to develop my TPK and

TCK and to blend these three components (TK, CK, and PK) in order to effectively

deliver 21st century lessons.

2. SAMR FRAMEWORK

This framework designed by Dr. Ruben Puentedura was specifically designed to

support and aid teachers to embed technology into teaching. (Shrock, 2018). I used

God First!
 4
REFERENCES
assessment from BoostEDU transforming teacher resources (Basic and in depth) to assess

my level of technology infusion into teaching (Kelly, 2019). The results revealed that I

mostly use technology for enhancement (substitution and augmentation) of the

curriculum. I originated from a system that believes technology produces an easily

distracted generation but statistics have proven that when technology is well managed, it

will produce enhanced instructional engagement. (Marzano & Magana, 2014). Education

in developing countries is mostly void of technology impregnation in the curriculum.

Traditional methods such as taking notes, writing presentations, writing tests etc. on

sheets of paper are still employed. It was a breakthrough for me to substitute these

methods with technology. For example I will asked students to take notes on google Doc

instead of sheets of papers, they will submit their assignments on google classroom for

grading instead of me using the pen to correct the assignment, they will take their test on

google forms etc. I will go ahead sometimes to use technology to augment the

functionality of some exercises. I will ask them to submit their papers on a share drive

and I will pair the students and have them comment on each other’s assignment.

(Magana, 2017). Also, during a laboratory experiment, I will have the procedure deliver

to them through a video of me instead of it on a piece of paper.

I am looking forward to use technology to modify and redefine the content of

the lessons I dispense and this will go a long way to enhance my methods of teaching

also. These are my areas of growth. I have thought of modifying a lesson so that students

could interact with students of other schools in the district to compare their perspective

and understanding. I do well when it comes to enhancing (substitution and augmentation)

the curriculum and teaching with technology.

God First!
 5
T3 FRAMEWORK

3. T3 FRAMEWORK

In order to assess my current level technology proficiency based on the T3

framework, one employed the use of the Teacher self-assessment guide from the book titled

‘Disruptive Classroom Technologies’ by Sonny Magana. The results showed that my use

of technology in the classroom is mostly for automation and consumption (translational).

One mostly uses technology in the classroom to save time and reduce task related-errors

(Magana, 2017). I have come a long way to master tools like google doc, sheets, Microsoft

Excel etc. which are mostly used in automation of task or mainly changing task from analog

to digital (Magana, 2017). Students in my classroom mostly use websites, E-books and

digital textbooks to consume information. (Magana, 2017). This for some reason constitute

my strength but just like Eddie Van Halen’s advice ‘You can keep doing what you are

doing in the stage you are in, but if you want to get better, you are going to have to go

through a transformative phase!’. (As cited in Magana, 2017). I am already working on

substantially redefining the tasks of my lessons and my role in the teaching process as to

make a step forward (transformational). From taking the assessment, I fall in the beginning

stage of transformational and transcendent stage. There is much room for growth as far as

using technology in a transformational and transcendent manner is concerned.

4. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT OF COMPUTER KNOWLEDGE

This assessment consisted of questions on technical proficiency about computer,

internet and general computer knowledge (Bhatia, 2013). I had a score of 86% (43 out

of 50 questions).

God First!
 6
REFERENCES
REFERENCES

Bhatia, S. () ProProfs delightfully smart tools. Retrieved from

https://www.proprofs.com/quiz-school/story.php?title=technical-proficiency-

assessment

Common sense education (n.d). Introduction to the TPACK model. Retrieved from

https://www.commonsense.org/education/videos/introduction-to-the-tpack-model.

Kelly, M. (2019). SAMR self-assessment. Retrieved from

https://www.boostedu.org/self-assessment/

Koehler, J. M. (2012). Assessing Teachers’ TPACK. Retrieved from

http://matt-koehler.com/tpack2/assessing-teachers-tpack/

Magana, S. (2017). Disruptive classroom technologies. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Corwin

Magana, S., & Marzano, R.J. (2014). Enhancing the art and science of teaching

with technology. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree

Shrock, K. (2018). SAMR and BLOOM’S. Retrieved from

http://www.schrockguide.net/samr.html

God First!