ERIC EJ859576: Grounded Tech Integration: An Effective Approach Based on Content, Pedagogy, and Teacher Planning

2009·0.18 MB·English

by  ERIC

By Judi Harris and Mark Hofer
On Problems
Our choicest plans
have fallen through,
our airiest castles
tumbled over,
because of lines
we neatly drew
and later neatly
stumbled over
—Piet Hein
Grounded Tech Integration
Copyright © 2009, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 1.800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or 1.541.302.3777 (Int’l), [email protected], www.iste.org. All rights reserved.
22 Learning & Leading with Technology | September/October 2009
An Effective Approach Based on Content, Pedagogy, and Teacher Planning
I
n many ways, Hein’s aphoristic What is needed instead is an ap- curriculum standards-based learning
poem “On Problems” describes proach to technology integration that: needs. Lesson, project, and unit plans
efforts during the past few decades are organized and structured with
• Focuses on students’ standards-
to integrate technology into K–12 content-based learning activities. We
based learning needs rather than
instruction—which, though successful based the “activity-types” approach to
the specific features of particular
in some contexts, has not produced helping teachers better integrate tech-
tech tools and resources
the educational revolution that was nology into curriculum-based instruc-
• Is easily adaptable to multiple
predicted by technology advocates. tion on the results of this research.
teaching styles and levels of
This is the first installment in a Quite simply, we suggest matching
technological proficiency
seven-part series, in which we present technology integration strategies
• Can be learned and applied
a different approach to curriculum- directly to how teachers match—by
relatively quickly, with few, if any,
based technology integration that specifying learning activities—rather
additional resources required,
systematically erases and then re- than asking teachers to plan instruc-
even in resource-scarce settings
draws the lines—those assumptions tion to the opportunities offered by
• Is predicated upon teacher owner-
and practices that led to less-than- educational technologies.
ship of the planning and imple-
revolutionary tech integration. Planning instruction that is facili-
mentation process to ensure
The remaining articles of this series tated by the use of digital tools and
long-term use
will appear in the Learning Connec- resources can be complex, with each
tions section of L&L, beginning in How can we meet these require- decision affecting other decisions. Yet
this issue with a piece on social studies ments? By selecting educational there are five basic steps to planning a
learning activity types (see page 26). technologies last, as the final step learning event, regardless of the plan-
Subsequent installments that focus on in instructional planning. ning model used.
mathematics, K–6 literacy, science, How can we ensure effective tech
world languages, and English/language integration if technological decisions Choose learning goals.
arts describe learning activity-types are such low-priority tasks? By con- Planning must begin with appro-
taxonomies, along with classroom- straining tech options according to priately selected learning goals
based examples illustrating their use. the types of learning activities includ- for students. In most schools,
ed in an instructional plan. these learning goals are framed by dis-
Tech Integration Redux We think of this as a “grounded” trict, state, and/or national content-
Technology integration efforts often approach to technology integration based curriculum standards.
begin with what’s most unfamiliar because it is based in content, peda-
to many teachers: the technologies gogy, and how teachers plan instruc- Make pedagogical decisions.
themselves. Though it’s true that we tion. In the sections that follow, we’ll Once you determine learning
must first become familiar, comfort- describe how technology integration goals, consider a series of eight
able, and competent with technolo- decisions may be better incorporated practical pedagogical deci-
gies to be able to integrate them into into the ways teachers typically plan sions that will determine the specific
instruction effectively, doing this alone for teaching and learning. parameters of the learning experience
does not ensure effective technologi- you are planning. Based on knowledge
cally facilitated teaching. Most tech- Tech-Integrated Planning of learning needs and preferences, plus
nology integration strategies begin Research tells us that teachers plan the logistical realities of classrooms,
with and focus on the technologies’ af- instruction primarily according to teachers should determine: pe
y
fordances and constraints—what they oH
e
r
can help us do and their limitations. e
How can we ensure effective tech integration if st
Unfortunately, this approach does not M/
o
ensure that educational technologies technological decisions are such low-priority tasks? o.c
t
will be well integrated into instruction o
By constraining tech options according to the types pH
that is keyed to specific content-based ck
o
learning goals. of learning activities included in an instructional plan. st
i
Copyright © 2009, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 1.800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or 1.541.302.3777 (Int’l), [email protected], www.iste.org. All rights reserved.
September/October 2009 | Learning & Leading with Technology 23
Eight Corresponding Continua
• Any additional resources required
More teacher centered More student centered for a learning experience with this
particular design: Are fewer, more,
or no additional resources required
type of Learning (e.g., convergent) Alternate type of Learning (e.g., divergent)
for students to participate in the
learning experience? (This decision
Fewer prior experiences More prior experiences
may be directly related to the tech-
nologies selected in step 5.)
surface comprehension Deep knowledge
Each of these eight parameters can
be identified by marking an interval
shorter Duration plan Longer Duration plan on one of the eight corresponding
continua pictured on the left. Each
interval’s width can vary, representing
More structured Learning Less structured Learning
broader or narrower ranges addressed
for each parameter in the developing
Whole Group small Group individualized instructional plan.
Select activity types to combine.
No Additional resources required Multiple Additional resources required
Once teachers select the stan-
dards-based learning goals
and delineate the eight peda-
We suggest matching technology integration strategies directly
gogical parameters for a lesson, proj-
to how teachers plan—by specifying learning activities—rather
ect, or unit, they can then determine
than asking teachers to plan instruction that is matched to the the nature of the specific activities that
opportunities offered by educational technologies. will comprise the learning experience.
Each content area’s learning activity
• The primary focus of the interac- • The amount of time, both in class types are different because the nature
tions in this learning experience: and at home, required for learning of inquiry and instruction differ
Will it be more teacher centered relative to the depth of understand- among disciplines. Selecting the most
or more student centered? ing sought from this learning expe- appropriate types of educational ac-
• The type(s) of learning described rience: Will a shorter duration or a tivities to combine is easier if teachers
in the curriculum standard(s) the longer duration plan for learning be consider the complete range of activ-
learning experience will address: more appropriate? ity types. This is the idea that under-
For example, should students de- • The amount and type of structure girds the comprehensive learning ac-
velop similar understandings (via for the learning experience, deter- tivity types taxonomies described in
convergent learning) or draw their mined by the standards to be ad- this series of articles and shared via
own conclusions (via divergent dressed, students’ prior knowledge the Learning Activity Types Wiki we
learning)? Should the learning be and skills, the depth of understand- established. The wiki is for anyone in-
more hands-on or more abstract? ing sought, and the amount of time terested in learning to “operationalize
• Students’ prior knowledge and skills required, plus students’ specific and TPACK” (technology, pedagogy, and
relative to the type of standards-based general strengths and challenges content knowledge) via curriculum-
learning that will occur in the learn- relative to the planned activity: Is based learning activity types, getting
ing experience: Do they have fewer or more- or less-structured learning up-to-date information on the tax-
more relevant prior experiences? more appropriate? onomies, and participating in their
• The depth of understanding sought • The learner configuration(s) that vetting and refining in each of the cur-
from this particular learning experi- will best assist learning in the con- riculum areas in which development
ence relative to the curriculum stan- text in which the experience will is happening.
dards to be addressed: Is more in- occur: Would whole-group, small- The breadth of a plan for technol-
troductory/surface comprehension group, individualized, or mixed- ogy-integrated learning is reflected
sought, or should deeper knowledge type configurations work best for in the number of activity types it en-
be constructed? this particular learning experience? compasses. Though activity types can
Copyright © 2009, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 1.800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or 1.541.302.3777 (Int’l), [email protected], www.iste.org. All rights reserved.
24 Learning & Leading with Technology | September/October 2009
The activity types approach to technologically integrated easily into planning with many popu-
lar models (for example, Madeline
instructional planning is focused squarely on students’ standards-
Hunter’s Seven-Step Lesson Plan,
based, curriculum-related learning outcomes, rather than on the
Backwards Design, and Teaching for
technologies that can assist in creating those outcomes. Understanding).
The activity types approach to tech-
be used alone, they rarely are. Gener- more on the technologies being used nologically integrated instructional
ally, the more activity types that are than on the students who are trying to planning is focused squarely on stu-
included in an instructional plan, the use them to learn. Technocentric dents’ standards-based, curriculum-
deeper and more differentiated the learning experiences rarely help stu- related learning outcomes rather than
learning that results. dents meet curriculum-based content on the technologies that can assist in
standards, because the design of the creating those outcomes. The process
Select assessment strategies. learning experience has focused more is designed to help teachers plan effec-
After determining the activity on use of the selected technologies tive, efficient, and engaging learning
types to combine, select ap- than what is most appropriate for a experiences for their students.
propriate assessment strate- particular group of students to learn. In the curriculum-focused articles
gies to gauge student progress in Alternatively, if teachers choose to come, we will describe six learning
achieving the targeted learning goals. learning goals in accordance with activity-types taxonomies, along with
Assessments can serve many purposes, students’ learning needs, if they make classroom-based examples illustrating
including providing the teacher with pedagogical decisions according to their use, drawn from as broad and
feedback on student progress, enabling instructional and contextual realities, inclusive a range of curriculum stan-
students to synthesize information at and if they select learning activity dards, pedagogical approaches, and
multiple points in a unit of study, and types (including assessment strategies) digital and nondigital technologies
appraising students’ mastery of learn- to match those goals and realities, as possible. We will try not to favor a
ing goals at the end of a unit. then the instructional plan is likely to particular view of teaching and learn-
It is important to include assess- succeed. Choosing only from the edu- ing or propose a preferred way of inte-
ment both during learning activities cational technologies recommended grating technology. In doing so, we are
(formatively) and after they are com- for each of the selected learning activ- advocating for teachers to retain—or
plete (summatively). Many activity ity types supports teachers’ technol- in some school districts, regain—their
types can serve as assessments. For ogy integration efforts without shift- decision-making power in instruc-
example, answering questions, par- ing their focus away from students’ tional planning and practice.
ticipating in a group discussion, and curriculum-based learning needs and
creating a timeline can all serve as for- preferences. Resources
mative gauges of student progress in Learning Activity Types Wiki: http://activity
social studies. Similarly, taking a test, Learners First, Technologies Last types.wmwikis.net
Seymour Papert: www.papert.org
writing an essay, and creating a pre- Though we have presented an ap-
TPACK: http://tpack.org
sentation are examples of summative proach to instructional planning as
assessment options. a linear sequence of steps, in practice, Judi Harris is a professor
the process is recursive. As students’ and the Pavey Family Chair
Select tools/resources. Unfor- learning needs and experiences de- in Educational Technology at
the College of William & Mary.
tunately, many teachers velop, as contextual conditions (for
Her teaching and research focus
wishing to incorporate edu- example, technology access) change, on K–12 curriculum-based
cational technologies into as teachers’ expertise grows, and as technology integration, tele-
curriculum-based learning and curriculum requirements shift, the mentoring, and teacher professional development.
teaching begin by selecting the digital decisions and choices made at each of Mark Hofer is an associate
tools and resources they will use. the five stages of planning will simi- professor of educational
When instruction is planned in this larly change. Each new development technology at the College of
way, it becomes what Seymour Papert, may necessitate modifications. William & Mary. He partners
with classroom teachers in
a seminal thinker regarding comput- These five generic steps don’t
exploring the use of technolo-
ers and pedagogy for children, calls comprise an instructional planning
gies to support curriculum-
“technocentric”—instruction focused model per se. They can be incorporated based teaching and learning.
Copyright © 2009, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 1.800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or 1.541.302.3777 (Int’l), [email protected], www.iste.org. All rights reserved.
September/October 2009 | Learning & Leading with Technology 25