Currently, “technology integration” isn’t fully integrated into many teachers’ instructional planning. Instead, it is often taught, thought about, and done separately, despite empassioned calls for ubiquitous computer access and use in our schools. Our work with teachers and students has shown that to truly and effectively integrate use of a full range of technologies for teaching and learning, we must stop separating our planning for technology use from the rest of our instructional planning.

The reasons why this shift is required are implied in the term “technology integration” itself. The notion of “integration” suggests that what is being integrated – in this case, educational technology -- is not held separate. It becomes part of a larger body or system. To plan instruction (or professional development) that truly integrates use of the full range of educational technologies, the entire process of planning for instruction must be addressed, of which the selection of appropriate technologies is only one part. Segregating and focusing upon just one aspect – technology use -- of a complex, contextually variable, and holistic process -- instructional planning – virtually guarantees that the separate part will remain separate, in both teachers’ minds and students’ experiences. The segregated nature of educational technology use in elementary, middle-level, and secondary schools during the past several decades has demonstrated the frustrating truth of this assertion.

The approach to technology integration that we will share with interested NECC 2008 participants requires us to focus in a balanced way upon all aspects of instructional planning, including those parts that require technological choices to be made. This “activity types” approach to planning – an outgrowth of Judi’s earlier work with telecollaborative activity structures -- provides flexible guidelines for planning all aspects of instruction, beginning with students’ standards-related learning needs.

When using an activity types approach to instructional planning, teachers keep students’ needs, preferences, and prior experiences in front-and-center focus, with curriculum standards and possible activity types in close visual peripheries, and contextual factors such as access to digital tools within sight, so that all of these factors are considered concurrently, albeit with differing emphases at different times and in differing situations. As such, teachers function as active decision-makers in the planning process. We think that it is essential to the success of any instructional plan that teachers are this empowered, rather than functioning either as traditional instructional designers, who start from scratch and “reinvent the wheel;” or as automatons, who follow step-by-step instructions printed in teachers’ manuals or district-supplied, scripted lessons. The first of these alternate roles is not practical, given time and workload constraints in today’s classrooms, and the second ignores the pedagogical expertise, creativity, and ownership without which instructional planning cannot give rise to engaged, meaningful, successful, and sustained student learning.

Instead, we will offer a flexible compromise during a session at NECC 2008 – an adaptable strategy for curriculum-based instructional planning that concurrently assists teachers with technology integration. The resulting plans are focused upon students’ differentiated, standards-based learning needs and preferences, rather than the tools and resources that can support that learning. This, we believe, is true technology integration.

Outline

I. Introduction: The Problem (~10 min.)

A. Educational technology use isn’t well-integrated into teaching and learning in many classrooms.

B. Why is this so? (Characteristics of current approaches to professional development in technology integration)

C. How can we improve technology integration? Help teachers to better integrate appropriate technology use into planning for instruction.

II. The Activity Types Approach to Instructional Planning (~20 min.)

A. Research on teachers’ planning shows it to be situated, contextually dependent, and focused upon learning activities. A successful approach to instructional planning that effectively integrates technology should mirror these characteristics.

B. 5 basic steps in technology integrated instructional planning
1. Choose learning goals
2. Make practical pedagogical decisions about the nature of the learning experience
3. Select and sequence appropriate activity types to combine to form the learning experience
4. Select formative and summative assessment strategies that will reveal what and how well students are learning
5. Select tools and resources that will best help students to benefit from the learning experience being planned

C. 7 pedagogical decisions to make after learning goals are chosen (Responses to each decision are displayed on separate continua.)

1. The type of learning described in the curriculum standard(s) to be addressed in the learning experience being planned: Should students develop similar understandings (via convergent learning) or draw their own conclusions (via divergent learning)?

2. Students’ prior knowledge and skills relative to the type of standards-based learning that will occur in the learning experience being planned: Do they have fewer or more relevant prior experiences?

3. The depth of understanding sought from this particular learning experience, relative to the curriculum standards to be addressed: Is more introductory/surface comprehension sought or deeper knowledge to be constructed?

4. The amount of time, both in class and at home, required for learning relative to the depth of understanding sought from this particular learning experience: Will a shorter duration or a longer duration plan for students’ learning be most appropriate?

5. The amount and type of structure for the learning experience, determined by the standards to be addressed, students’ prior knowledge and skills, the depth of understanding sought, and the amount of time required, plus students’ specific and general strengths and challenges relative to the planned activity: Is more- or less-structured learning most appropriate?

6. The learner configuration(s) that will best assist students’ learning in the context in which the experience will occur: Would whole-group, small-group, individualized, or mixed-type configurations work best for this particular learning experience?

7. Any additional resources required for a learning experience with this particular design: Are fewer, more, or no additional resources required for students to participate in the learning experience being planned?

D. Learning activity types vary by content area.

E. Sample content-based activity types taxonomy

1. What is an activity type? How is it used in instructional planning?

2. Sample content area: Social Studies (40 activity types total)

a) 13 knowledge-building activity types (overview & several examples)
b) 27 knowledge expression activity types (overview & several examples)
(1)  6 convergent knowledge expression activity types
(2) 21 divergent knowledge expression activity types

3. Activity types for other content areas are being developed in 2008-2009 and will be shared in summer/fall 2009.

E. Activity types are combined to form lessons, learning activities, projects, and unit plans

III. Selected classroom-based example of social studies unit plan, described according to the activity types instructional planning approach (~15 min.)

IV. Summary & key points to take away (~5 min.)

A. Planning for technology integration must be fully integrated into content-based instructional planning if technology use is to be well-integrated in classroom-based teaching & learning.

B. Technology integration professional development should help teachers to approach instructional planning holistically, rather than focusing only upon technology use.

C. Teachers’ agency in instructional planning is essential to the success of both instruction and technology integration.

V. Questions, comments & reactions from participants (~10 min.)

Supporting Research

Harris, J.B. (2008). TPCK in inservice education: Assisting experienced teachers’ “planned improvisations.” In AACTE Committee on Technology & Innovation (Ed.). Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge for educators (pp. 251-271). New York, NY: Routledge.

Harris, J. B., Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. American Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Chicago, IL: April 11, 2007.

Harris, J. (1998). Virtual architecture: Designing and directing curriculum-based telecomputing. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE).

Presenter Background

Judi Harris is a professor and the Pavey Family Chair in Educational Technology in the School of Education at the College of William & Mary, where she coordinates the Curriculum and Educational Technology doctoral program. Judi’s research and service focus upon K-12 curriculum-based educational computing and teacher professional development. She has authored Way of the Ferret: Finding and Using Educational Resources on the Internet (1994 & 1995, ISTE), one of the first books about K-12 educational use of the Internet; Teaching and Learning with the Internet Facilitator’s Guide (1996, ASCD); Design Tools for the Internet-Supported Classroom (1998, ASCD); Virtual Architecture: Designing and Directing Curriculum-Based Telecomputing (1998 & forthcoming, ISTE), used in many graduate educational technology and teacher preparation courses nationally; and more than 185 research and pedagogical articles on curriculum-based applications of educational technologies.

Judi presents sessions regularly at state, national, and international educational computing and research conferences. Her work is used by teachers, school technology specialists, and teacher educators, especially her “activity structures” method for designing curriculum-based learning activities that incorporate use of online tools and resources. Her nonprofit Electronic Emissary (http://emissary.wm.edu/) curriculum-based telementoring service and research effort, begun in 1992, is the longest-running K-12 effort of its kind, and has served students and teachers worldwide.

Mark Hofer is an assistant professor of Educational Technology in the School of Education at the College of William & Mary. A former high school social studies classroom teacher, Mark centers his research and project work on the effective integration of technology in K-12 social studies classrooms. He partners with classroom teachers in exploring the use of digital technologies to support curriculum-based teaching and learning. He regularly publishes his work in scholarly and practitioner journals including Social Studies Research and Practice, The Social Studies, Learning and Leading with Technology, and Social Studies and the Young Learner. He also presents at national and international conferences including the International Assembly of the National Council for the Social Studies, the National Educational Computing Conference, and the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association.