Due Mon. Feb 12 @ 9PM

4

Principles of Instructional Technology

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

• Compare and contrast the following three pairs of commonly confused terms: education and schooling, teaching and learning, and curriculum and instruction.

• Identify a theory of learning that is compatible with your beliefs about learning and a learning theory that is not compatible with your beliefs about how students learn best.

• Describe the core components of the TPACK model and show the relevance of each to ways in which technology might be used in the classroom.

• Create a graphic illustrating the four phases of the technology integration process and describe the tasks that are most important for classroom teachers to be responsible for.

• Identify two strategies that will assist you in integrating technology into the curriculum.

AP Photo/The Idaho Statesman/Darin Oswald

edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 133 5/29/13 2:15 PM

CHAPTER 4Pre-Test

Meet Dr. Ruben Puentedura A Brief Introduction to the Use of Technology in Education

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMazGEAiZ9c

Introduction

Can teachers be effective if they choose not to use technology in their classrooms? Unfortunately, there is little agreement among educators on this basic question. In this chapter, we will explore issues associated with teaching and learning in order to understand when, how, and why technology has the potential to enhance teach- ing, learning, and performance. Specifically, our goal is to understand whether or not the decision to use technology in the classroom is up to the individual teacher or if there are some larger social obligations that require teachers to support technology use by diverse students in ways that foster meaningful and deep learning.

In other courses you may have been introduced to various theories of learning. Here we will briefly explore selected learning theories in order to understand their implications for our personal beliefs concerning how learning occurs, as research has demonstrated that a teacher’s theoretical framework has considerable implications for the way they adopt and use technology in the classroom (or not!).

The final sections in this chapter will bridge theory, research, and practice by introducing you to a model of the technology integration process. While many technology specialists find all aspects of technology integration exciting, we must not lose sight of the goal for using technology in the classroom: to enhance student learning. Therefore, you’ll be given a roadmap to the process of integrating technology into the curriculum and learn practical strategies, resources, and tools that will facilitate this process.

Pre-Test

1. Which term describes the instructional process and guides classroom methods? a. learning b. development c. curriculum d. assessment

2. Programming a computer when creating a new program is an example of the computer as a

a. tutee. b. tutor. c. tool. d. toy.

edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 134 5/29/13 2:15 PM

CHAPTER 4Section 4.1 The Foundations of Teaching and Learning

3. Which of the following is NOT a primary domain of TPACK? a. technological knowledge (TK) b. pedagogical knowledge (PK) c. content knowledge (CK) d. assessment knowledge (AK)

4. The most complex and ambitious models of technology integration are the a. webbed and connected models. b. fragmented and integrated models. c. shared and nested models. d. immersed and networked models.

5. Blueprints that allow teachers to think about technology integration in ways that are similar to their styles are known as

a. stakeholders. b. research-based interventions. c. study plans. d. activity types.

Answers 1. c. curriculum. The answer can be found in Section 4.1. 2. a. tutee. The answer can be found in Section 4.2. 3. d. assessment knowledge (AK). The answer can be found in Section 4.3. 4. d. immersed and networked models. The answer can be found in Section 4.4. 5. d. activity types. The answer can be found in Section 4.5.

4.1 The Foundations of Teaching and Learning

The purpose of schooling is to transmit the knowledge that a society deems useful from one generation to the next (Whitehead, 1929). As we discussed in Chapter 1, (Section 1.1), American society has relied on schools to produce citizens who are capable of participating in a democracy, mastering a vocation that will enable them to support themselves, and contributing to the well-being of society.

Educators are sometimes conflicted about their responsibilities to serve as cultural guard- ians (Brady, 1989; Jacobs, 2010). On the one hand, they are responsible for transmitting the cultural knowledge that has stood the test of time as being important for past, and presumably future, generations. On the other hand, they are challenged to evaluate fads and trends for evidence of significant change that should be embraced. An example of this type of dilemma is illustrated in the following scenario: Should educators in the early 21st century continue to hold onto traditional printed books, or discard printed texts and adopt new e-book readers? Or, is the more appropriate path something in between these two extremes? How do we discern the essence of cultural knowledge (i.e., reading) but learn to embrace change that affects the container reading materials are delivered in (i.e., students may engage in reading with print books, e-books, or apps)?

In order to try and resolve this kind of dilemma, let’s sort though some important terms. Then, we will revisit the scenario in order to consider the role of technology.

edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 135 5/29/13 2:15 PM

CHAPTER 4Section 4.1 The Foundations of Teaching and Learning

Defining the Essence of Teaching and Learning The term learning and development is often applied to the learning milestones associated with human development. For example, young normally developing children learn lan- guage and how to manipulate their bodies without formal explicit instruction. When learning is considered across the lifespan, we see numerous examples of learning and development that contribute to the growth/education of an individual: how adolescents develop a sense of self through their relationships, how newlyweds learn to function as a couple, and how middle-aged adults learn to care for aging parents. Learning in these contexts often involves circuitous routes, sometimes called the “school of hard knocks,” a phrase meant to convey a contrast between learning that is acquired through books and the trial-and-error of real life.

Another way to understand learning is to consider the amount of structure that is pro- vided within a learning context. Learning to ride a two-wheeled bike is an example of informal learning. In this learning context, a child’s parent, sibling, or friend offers support, advice, and encouragement to help her master the task of riding a bike without training wheels. Learning in schools, in contrast, is known as formal learning. Here the learner must conform to formal structures with rigid rules about grade-level placement, length of the school day, required subjects, and so on. Formal learning tends to be viewed as efficient because it has clearly defined goals, sequential learning activities, appropriate instruc- tional materials, periodic progress monitoring, and more. Informal learning, on the other hand, is more learner-centered, but involves more trial and error because the learning path is not clearly marked.

Education is the sum of all informal and formal learning opportunities that shape an indi- vidual. As a result, a person’s education must be understood as a highly personalized experience rather than a uniform outcome of schooling. Education is now viewed not as something that is completed after 12 or 16 years of schooling but as a lifelong process of learning and development. Whereas the term pedagogy is used to refer to the science of teaching and learning of children, the term andragogy is used to describe the science of teaching adults. After adults complete their formal schooling, their ongoing education typically takes the form of self-directed learning (Brookfield, 1985; Candy, 1991; Knowles, 1980). That is, adult learners decide what they want to learn (e.g., how to be a bee keeper), how they want to learn (e.g., attend a class, view video tutorials on the Internet), and when they have completed the learning task (e.g., after simply gaining awareness infor- mation, after building a bee hive in the backyard).

Learning: The Interaction Between Curriculum–Instruction–Assessment A final set of definitions involve what are known as C–I–A. To understand the factors associated with learning in schools, educators must be immersed in the interaction of three components: curriculum, instruction, and assessment (C–I–A). At times, we focus on each component separately; however, it is important to understand the interaction of these components with the learning process as we seek to improve student achievement through schooling.

Curriculum is a body of knowledge that someone has deemed it is important to know. Thus, it outlines what is worth knowing and serves as a blueprint for the instructional

edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 136 5/29/13 2:15 PM

CHAPTER 4Section 4.1 The Foundations of Teaching and Learning

process. While this seems like an objective process, it is fundamentally a valuing task. That is, our values impact the decisions concerning what to put in the curriculum and what to leave out. This valuing process affects every parent, teacher, and curriculum designer as they define what students need to know. The curriculum development process makes decisions about (a) what a student needs to know, (b) what information should be left out because it is assumed students already know the information, (c) time constraints that limit the amount of time that can be devoted to a lesson or unit, and (d) the curriculum scope and sequence that identifies some information as too complex for the present pur- pose of instruction but that will be revisited in the future.

Perhaps you are familiar with the work of Edward Hirsch (author of the books Cultural Literacy and Dictionary of Cultural Literacy and the book series, What Every Child Should Know in ___ Grade . . . ). As a professor of English, with a small group of colleagues, Hirsch has set about trying to define the core knowledge that American students need to know in order to share a cultural literary history (to learn more, visit http://www.coreknowledge .org). While his intent is noble, his work is controversial and has been criticized as a sub- jective response to the question of what is worth knowing.

In contrast, consider the process used to develop and adopt the Common Core State Stan- dards (CCSS; see http://www.corestandards.org/), which involved conversations among many stakeholders to reach agreement on what is important to know concerning English and math in K–12. The CCSS represents a curriculum blueprint of what students should be learning in each subject across the K–12 grades. Both initiatives have resulted in cur- ricula that are used by schools. If given a choice, would you prefer to use Culture Literacy or the Common Core State Standards curriculum in your classroom? Why?

Instruction is the general term that encompasses the interactive teaching and learning pro- cess that is used to help students learn the content of the curriculum. Teaching is the sci- ence of designing instructional environments, materials, and activities to enhance learn- ing. What works for one student does not work for all students. As a result, teachers seek to develop an array of instructional methods for engaging students in the process of learn- ing. Teaching is what the teacher does, and the other half of the equation (learning) is the responsibility of the student.

Whereas historical conceptions of learning considered the student to be an empty vessel gradually filled with knowledge dispersed by the teacher, we now know that learning is an active process that involves constructing knowledge by making meaning out of infor- mation. Many types of interventions are used in the classroom to help students learn: reading, watching a video, conducting an experiment, collaborating with peers, and so on. Integrating technology into the curriculum involves determining how digital learn- ing tools and materials align with the curriculum in ways that help teachers teach and/or help students learn.

Assessment refers to the evaluation of student learning. Although we currently tend to think of assessment as high-stakes testing, the primary purpose of assessment is to pro- vide feedback to the teacher and student about the amount and quality of learning.

We typically speak of three types of assessments. Diagnostic assessment seeks to deter- mine what the student knows and what gaps are present in the student’s knowledge and

edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 137 5/29/13 2:15 PM

CHAPTER 4Section 4.1 The Foundations of Teaching and Learning

skills. This type of assessment is used to determine where to place a student in a curricu- lum sequence as well as what type of remediation is needed to close any learning gaps. Formative assessment, a second type of assessment, is conducted periodically during an instructional unit to ascertain student progress in order to identify students who may need remediation or additional support. It is sometimes referred to as progress monitoring. Finally, summative assessment is conducted at the end of a unit, term, or school year, and is designed to provide a final overall measure of student learning. Technology can be used in any number of ways to enhance assessment.

Now that we have explored the key vocabulary associated with teaching and learning, let’s revisit the dilemma posed by e-book technologies introduced earlier: Should educa- tors in the early 21st century continue to embrace traditional printed books, or discard printed texts and adopt new e-book readers? Or is the more appropriate path something in between these two extremes?

First, the decision about what to teach is a question about curriculum and, therefore, it is value-based. A teacher who insists on using e-books may do so because of the growing popularity of this format and the per- spective that reading in the future will increasingly take place using screens. Some books are only avail- able in print, and some e-books are only available in digital format. So, by asking questions about what we want to teach, the format question may be answered for us.

On the other hand, if we intend to teach using a book that is available in both formats, the question changes from being a curriculum issue to an instructional decision. If a book is available in both print and digital format, what are the advantages/dis-

advantages of each (i.e., cost, availability of e-book readers, teacher preferences, student preferences)? This is also an area where the instructional needs of diverse learners should be considered. That is, will a struggling reader find an e-book more motivating to read? Are supports (i.e., font size adjustability, text-to-speech capabilities) built into the digital e-book that make it more accessible and engaging for struggling readers?

Finally, by using student assessment data, we gain insight into the question about the effectiveness of each format for the students in our class. Ultimately we are trying to deter- mine what works for whom and under what conditions.

With books now available in both print and digital formats, educators need to decide which formats they want their students to use. What attributes of each technology make them accessible and engaging for diverse learners?

jader alto/Marka/SuperStock

edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 138 5/29/13 2:15 PM

CHAPTER 4Section 4.2 Influence of Learning Theories on the Way Teachers Approach Technology

Pause to Reflect How would you compare and contrast the terms curriculum and instruction? Teaching and learning? Using examples from your own life, can you describe a meaningful informal learning experience? A meaningful formal learning experience?

The effective use of technology in education involves a keen understanding of the many strategies for using technology to support C–I–A. Therefore, as we continue to explore the possibilities afforded by technology, you will be challenged to evaluate whether or not new tools (e.g., e-books) will replace historical tools (e.g., printed texts), or whether we should adopt new technologies simply as one more tool to make the curriculum accessible and engaging for diverse learners. As we will see, the deployment of technology within each of the components of C–I–A may yield different types of outcomes. At the present time, many experts believe that the key leverage point for deploying technology should focus on the Instruction (I) in the interactive equation.

4.2 Influence of Learning Theories on the Way Teachers Approach Technology

Research has demonstrated that teachers’ beliefs impact how they think about and use technology in the classroom (Brush, Glazewski, & Hew, 2008; Ertmer, 2005; Ert-mer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Judson, 2006; Levin & Wadmany, 2006). The pur- pose of this section is to explore how theoretical frameworks impact the way we under- stand how and why technology should be used in the classroom. The goal is to help you recognize the theories that are compatible with what you think about learning and how these perspectives will color your thinking with regard to embracing technology, limiting its use, or avoiding its use.

Early Days of Technology Integration Taylor (1980) developed a model for technology integration that had a profound impact on how educators initially thought about the role of the computer in the classroom. Taylor suggested that that the computer could be used in four roles: tutor, tool, tutee, and toy.

When used as a tutor, the computer presents some subject material, the student responds, the computer evaluates the response, and then, based on the results, the computer branches to remediate or moves on to present new information. When schools focus on using the computer to teach content, sometimes called computer-assisted instruction (CAI), we see the perspective of computer as tutor. Almost all educational software, and many apps, use the core principles of C–I–A to define a portion of curriculum, present the content in an interesting interactive technology format (instruction), and involve some level of perfor- mance assessment. However, CAI has never been the premier model of technology use in schools. This may suggest the difficulty the field of education has had in identifying and

edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 139 5/29/13 2:15 PM

CHAPTER 4Section 4.2 Influence of Learning Theories on the Way Teachers Approach Technology

implementing CAI software and web resources to support all topics of the curriculum for 180 school days per year without an adequate technology infrastructure (i.e., one com- puter per student, a technology integration plan). However, as we will discuss in Chapter 10, the concept of the computer as a personal tutor is enjoying a resurgence because of new technology developments known as personalization—that is, providing computer- based instruction that branches to optimize individual learning.

When used as a tool, the computer saves the learner time, enhances productivity, and allows the user to focus intellectual energy on higher-order tasks. Computers as produc- tivity tools have been the predominant focus of technology applications both in and out- side of schools. When middle school students learn how to operate each of the compo- nents in Microsoft Office, for example, this is an example of technology tool use in the curriculum. For many years, tool use has been the dominant model of technology use in education because it requires only a small investment in a core collection of programs that can be used across the curriculum (i.e., Word-, Excel-, PowerPoint-).

The computer serves as a tutee when the learner is engaged in programming (“teaching” the computer how to do a task). In the early days of computer use in education, it was thought that teachers would develop their own software. This vision was clearly mis- guided. However, educators who are interested in the computer as an object to be taught (tutee) now work in the field known as computer science. Computer science is sometimes taught to middle and high school students to introduce them to the fundamentals of pro- gramming languages that can be implemented on various devices (computers, tablets, handheld devices) as well as via the Web. Readers interested in classroom applications of programming are encouraged to explore the free open source programming language known as Scratch (http://scratch.mit.edu/). Proponents of teaching all students some basic computer programming argue that it allows students to learn logical thinking and problem solving, and makes them better consumers of technology because they have a basic understanding about how software, apps, and websites work.

Finally, when Taylor spoke of the computer as a toy, he recognized the possibilities it held for play. While this characteristic has not been embraced by schools, viewing computers as toys has become a reality in the context of digital gaming systems and online games. In fact, the field of gaming has advanced so far that educators and researchers are now looking to the field of video games for new pedagogical insights about learning (Dickey, 2005; Gros, 2007; Marino & Beecher, 2010; Tobias & Fletcher, 2007). In particular, they are seeking answers to the question: Why is it that a student will play a game for hours but be frustrated and unwilling to complete a learning activity in school? That is, researchers and developers are trying to identify the relevant factors that impact challenge, engagement, failure, and motivation in order to understand how a new generation of instructional materials might take on some of the relevant characteristics of games.

Taylor’s work provides a framework for understanding the application of technology in education that many educators and administrators still subscribe to today. Indeed, exam- ples of each of the four components continue to be found in schools today—in particular, tool use. And this makes sense when we view the primary role of technology to provide CAI or to serve as a tutee for students to develop programming skills. However, Taylor’s framework is less helpful if we think about the role of technology in creative pursuits (i.e., digital photography and Adobe Photoshop-), communication (i.e., video conferencing, Facebook), or entirely new uses of technology that exert significant influence on society

edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 140 5/29/13 2:15 PM

CHAPTER 4Section 4.2 Influence of Learning Theories on the Way Teachers Approach Technology

Index of Learning Theories and Models

http://www.learning-theories.com/

A Simple Guide To 4 Complex Learning Theories

http://edudemic.com/2012/12/a-simple-guide-to-4-complex-learning-theories/

Theories of Learning in Educational Psychology

http://www.lifecircles-inc.com/Learningtheories/learningmap.html

Theories of Educational Technology

https://sites.google.com/a/boisestate.edu/edtechtheories/

such as YouTube, Netflix, and Wikipe- dia, and only are beginning to impact the future of education. As we move toward a point in society where technology is ubiquitous, educators may be confronted with decisions in which we are required to articu- late our beliefs about the conditions under which learning occurs. For that reason, we now turn our atten- tion to several learning theories to better understand how our percep- tions of learning influence our deci- sion to use, or not use, technology to enhance student learning.

Learning Theory When researchers develop a theory, they are able to show relationships between selected components of a phenomenon. Many theories of learning cannot be directly tested and proven the way theories in the physical sciences can be. As a result, there are many theories of learning.

Before we examine the process of integrating technology into the curriculum, it is neces- sary to briefly examine common theories of learning. This will assist you in determining which theories reflect your personal beliefs about how learning occurs.

Learning theories are often classified concerning their basic premise about how people make sense of the world and gain understanding by absorbing, processing, and retaining information during the learning process. Within the field of educational technology, theo- rists have applied a number of frameworks to the task of designing computer-based instruc- tion to enhance learning (Roblyer & Doering, 2013). Explore the following web resources to learn more about specific theories of learning in order to identify which theories are most compatible with your own thinking about the optimal conditions that foster learning:

When considering the various ways computers are used today, how does Taylor’s framework apply to computer systems like tablets and smartphones?

Fancy Collection/SuperStock

edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 141 5/29/13 2:15 PM

CHAPTER 4Section 4.2 Influence of Learning Theories on the Way Teachers Approach Technology

For our immediate purposes, it is important to distinguish between theories of learning that are grounded in behaviorism and those that are grounded in constructivism. Educators who embrace behavioral approaches to learning believe that knowledge can be defined and transmitted to students in order to produce the intended learning outcomes. Theoreti- cal leaders of behaviorism are B. F. Skinner (1968) and Robert Gagne (1985). Behaviorists approach learning as task of conditioning—that is, preparing the student to respond to rewards and incentives for producing the desired behavior. Drill and practice is a com- mon technology application that often utilizes behavioral learning principles.

Educators who embrace constructivism approaches to learning believe that learners must use information to construct personal meaning before it is transformed into knowledge. That is, knowledge is not something to be transmitted. Rather, knowledge is something that must be woven into mental models based on previous knowledge and understand- ing. Theoretical leaders in constructivism include Albert Bandura (1977), Lev Vygotsky (1962), Jean Piaget (1963), and Jerome Bruner (1971). Teachers who hold constructivism frameworks approach teaching as a process of exposing students to meaningful experi- ences. They expect students to become actively engaged in the process of exploration, testing out ideas about what works, what doesn’t, and why. Technology applications in a constructivist classroom tend to be open-ended in order to allow students plenty of options for knowledge building.

Although some educators may adopt the work of a single learning theorist as a model for teaching and learning, in most cases they select elements from many learning theories as they develop their personal philosophy of education. As a result, we seldom find teachers who are pure behaviorists or pure constructivists. Understanding your theory of learn- ing will help you as you select technology tools for your classroom. For example, if you believe that students must master a body of factual content, you may search for flashcard apps that students can practice using the smartphones or online quiz programs like Quia (http://www.quia.com) to test their knowledge. If you believe students construct knowl- edge, you may search for online museums like the Library of Congress (http://loc.gov) that offer rich collections of digital artifacts that students can explore as they research a specific topic. You may also provide access to creative tools like Kerpoof (http://www .kerpoof.com/) or Animation-ish (http://fablevisionlearning.com/animationish/) that provide students with rich palettes of tools for digital storytelling in which they docu- ment and express what they have learned. Our purpose is not to argue that one theory is better than another. Instead, we seek to understand how learning theory affects the design, adoption, and use of technology in the classroom in order to enhance the academic achievement of diverse learners.

Social Justice Perspectives Concerning Technology and Learning As we discussed in Chapter 1, education is viewed as a fundamental right in the United States based on the belief that education offers both tangible economic benefits and intangible opportunities for a better life. Educators with an interest in social justice and equity have raised two types of questions regarding the role of technology in education and the value or belief system associated with decisions to use, or not use, technology in the classroom.

edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 142 5/29/13 2:15 PM

CHAPTER 4Section 4.3 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

Pause to Reflect How would you describe your philosophy of education? How does your perspective on the nature of teaching and learning affect your view about whether technology is essential, or optional, in your classroom?

First, given the opportunities derived from being able to effectively use technology, it is important to determine whether students attending schools in economically deprived areas have the same level of access to technology as students attending schools in more affluent areas. This line of research examines issues of equity. While the findings fluctu- ate based on when a given snapshot was taken, there is considerable evidence to suggest that inner-city schools have less technology than suburban schools and that schools with higher minority student populations have less technology than schools with a majority of white students (Brown, 2005; Damarin, 2000; Kalyanpur & Kirmani, 2005). This situation is often referred to as the Digital Divide.

A second type of concern involves whether or not choosing to teach with technology is simply an individual teacher decision or whether there are larger social justice obliga- tions that morally require the use of technology to overcome historical barriers (Banister & Reinhart, 2011; Swain & Edyburn, 2007; Swain & Pearson, 2002). In other words, can teachers be allowed to claim that they are “good teachers” and therefore do not need to use technology in their classroom? Or, are technology skills so important for the future of our children that we should mandate technology use in every classroom?

Your philosophy of education will help you answer these questions and reveal the types of theories of learning that you hold. As you interview for teaching positions, you may discover that administrators and teacher interview teams will probe your thinking about social justice issues and your advocacy for the use of technology to enhance teaching and learning, so it is a good thing to be prepared to be able to articulate your thoughts.

4.3 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

In recent years, the field of educational technology has begun to recognize the complex interactions that affect teachers’ decisions and approaches to using technology effec-tively in the classroom. One of the most widely recognized models for describing the relationships between technology, pedagogy, and instructional content is known as Tech- nological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) (see Figure 4.1).

edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 143 5/29/13 2:15 PM

CHAPTER 4Section 4.3 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

Figure 4.1: TPACK model

The TPACK model shown here illustrates how the seven components overlap and interact.

Source: Reproduced by permission of the publisher, . 2012 by tpack.org

TPACK has been critically important for advancing research about the use of technology in education because it provides administrators, educators, and researchers with a com- mon language for discussing the various relationships between content, pedagogy, and technology (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). As the graphic in Figure 4.1 illustrates, there are three primary domains: technological knowledge (TK), pedagogical knowledge (PK), and content knowledge (CK).

Briefly, TK focuses on the mechanical know-how information associated with using tech- nology (much like the kind presented in Chapter 2). PK is the knowledge about teaching and learning that you have gained in your education courses that help you learn how to be an effective teacher. CK is the specialized content knowledge that teachers gain within their teacher certification focus area (e.g., special education, math, English). Collectively, these three domains describe the general content of teacher preparation programs across the United States, as they represent the core domains of the current knowledge that con- tributes to the work of an effective teacher.

Perhaps the most important features of the TPACK model are the overlapping areas that provide rich contexts for understanding the effective use of technology. Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) is the specialized content associated with the use of tech- nology to enhance teaching and learning. TPK is the focus of this textbook as we align

Technological Pedagogical Content

Knowledge (TPACK)

Technological Pedagogical Knowledge

(TPK)

Technological Content

Knowledge (TCK)

Pedagogical Content

Knowledge (PCK)

Pedagogical Knowledge

(PK)

Content Knowledge

(CK)

Technological Knowledge

(TK)

Contexts

edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 144 5/29/13 2:15 PM

CHAPTER 4Section 4.3 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

Creative Writing Prompts

http://www.creativewritingprompts.com/

Plinky

http://www.plinky.com/

Toasted Cheese Calendar

http://www.toasted-cheese.com/webcal/webcal.cgi

technology tools with principles of effective instruction. Teachers operating within this domain are able to align curriculum objectives with appropriate technology tools. For example, if a student has difficulty getting started with a creative writing assignment, TPK enables the teacher to identify several types of websites that offer interesting prompts to get the writing process started:

The goal of using technology with diverse learners is centered on a deep understanding of TPK rather than simplistic applications of technology as outlined by Taylor (1980). The challenge is to understand where learners get stuck and to exploit the characteristics of high-quality interactive technologies to allow them to access, engage, and succeed at aca- demic tasks that were formerly difficult or impossible to complete.

Technological Content Knowledge (TCK), in turn, involves the special- ized knowledge associated with how technology is used within a specific subject area. Just as social stud- ies teachers are familiar with vir- tual museums and digital archives, English teachers are familiar with e-books and online writing tools. We will continue to develop your TCK in Chapters 6–8.

The third type of knowledge, Peda- gogical Content Knowledge (PCK), is the knowledge you gain in your dis- cipline-specific methods courses. For example, special education majors study PCK in their methods courses as they learn how to teach reading and math. Science teachers learn about problem-based learning and methods of inquiry in their methods

courses. The design of this text in Chapters 6–8 deliberately tries to review the PCK you have acquired in your education classes by emphasizing the pedagogical methods you have learned about in order to enhance the development of your TCK.

Technology like this dissecting application aligns curriculum objectives with technology tools by providing a way for even the most squeamish student to participate comfortably in dissections.

AP Photo/The Press of Atlantic City/Vernon Ogrodnek

edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 145 5/29/13 2:15 PM

CHAPTER 4Section 4.4 A Roadmap of the Technology Integration Process

Finally, at the intersection of all three elements is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). Mishra and Koehler (2006) argue that true technology integration involves understanding and negotiating the relationships between these three compo- nents of knowledge. A teacher capable of negotiating these relationships represents a form of expertise that is different from, and greater than, the knowledge of a disciplinary expert (e.g., a mathematician or a historian), a technology expert (e.g., a computer scientist), and a pedagogical expert (e.g., an experienced educator). Effective technology integration for pedagogy around specific subject matter requires developing sensitivity to the dynamic (transactional) relationship among all three components. As you complete your education degree, it is important to be mindful of the TPACK model and of which components char- acterize your approach to teaching and learning using technology.

The body of research on TPACK is growing (AACTE Committee on Innovation and Tech- nology, 2008; Harris, Mishra, & Koehler, 2009; Jaipal & Figg, 2010). In addition, research- ers have begun to develop assessment instruments to evaluate teachers’ understanding and use of TPACK principles (Schmidt et al., 2009). In contrast to the primitive stage of assistive technology outcome measurement discussed in Chapter 3, TPACK research has significantly advanced the field of instructional technology by providing a way to discuss, and measure, components of the technology adoption and integration process.

Pause to Reflect As you reflect on your own teaching experience, which component of the TPACK model do you find most interesting?

4.4 A Roadmap of the Technology Integration Process

Most schools, while often unknowingly, use a two-step model that they believe leads to technology integration. Step one: Buy. Step two: Use. Not surprisingly, this model is not effective, as suggested by the widespread lament of administra- tors that they have extensive collections of hardware, software, and technology tools that are underutilized. In short, the buy–use model does not result in effective adoption and implementation of technology that produces gains in student achievement.

This section introduces a model of a successful technology integration process. The model will provide you with a roadmap of the phases and tasks involved in integrating tech- nology into the curriculum. Unfortunately, in many schools the process of technology integration is a do-it-yourself endeavor. If you find yourself in a school without systemic support, the model will serve as a personal roadmap to your adventure in exploiting the power of technology for diverse students. However, be sure to share the model among all stakeholders to foster a common vision about the technology integration process, secure the collaborative support of everyone to facilitate the process, and ensure that the out- come is to use technology effectively to close the achievement gap.

edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 146 5/29/13 2:15 PM

CHAPTER 4Section 4.4 A Roadmap of the Technology Integration Process

The Importance of Technology Integration Sheingold (1991) aptly summarizes a recurrent theme in the literature, that “technology is not likely to have a qualitative impact on education unless it is deeply integrated into the purposes and activities of the classroom” (p. 20). Thus, we are introduced to the notion that technology use in the classroom must be purposeful.

Gardner and Edyburn (2000) elaborate on the meaning of term technology integration:

We believe the term, technology integration, is often carelessly used to describe any situation where students use computers. We must recognize a more precise meaning of the phrase technology integration. First, tech- nology is much more than computers. Second, integration involves the purposeful selection and implementation of technology tools for the single purpose of enhancing instruction (Edyburn, 1997). Unfortunately, we often confuse the goals and activities of “teaching about technology” with inte- gration efforts that result in “teaching with technology.” (p. 196)

Roblyer, Edwards, and Havriluk (1997) offer the following perspective on the key tasks associated with technology integration:

In perhaps the most important—and the most difficult—challenge, teachers must identify specific school activities where technology can help improve existing conditions or to create important educational opportunities that did not exist without it. As part of this process, teachers decide what they need to make these changes occur. This process of determining where and how technology fits is known among users of educational technology as integration. (p. 2)

It is important to note that while these experts were writing before the TPACK model was developed, they were clearly advocating for outcomes that we now understand are called TCK, TPK, and TPACK (see Figure 4.1). In short, the literature is very clear: Technology is not an add-on to the classroom. Rather, it must be adopted and used in ways that make technology fundamental to the instructional process.

Technology Integration: Would I Know It if I Saw It? In an effort to clarify what technology integration is and isn’t, Dias (1999) made the fol- lowing observations that

technology is integrated when it is used in a seamless manner to support and extend curriculum objectives and to engage students in meaningful learning. It is not something one does separately; it is part of the daily activities taking place in the classroom. . . . The primary goal is not to use the technology. . . . Technology enriches the activity and enables students to demonstrate what they know in new and creative ways. (p. 11)

edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 147 5/29/13 2:15 PM

CHAPTER 4Section 4.4 A Roadmap of the Technology Integration Process

Milone (1998) distilled the wisdom of many technology-using teachers into a list of 10 characteristics of effective technology integration. An abbreviated summary of his list pro- vides observable benchmarks commonly associated with classrooms where technology has been integrated into the curriculum:

1. An outside observer would view the use of technology as a seamless compo- nent of the lesson.

2. Students work toward a lesson-relevant goal. 3. The technology activity is a logical extension of the lesson. 4. A real problem is being solved by the use of technology. 5. You can describe how a particular student is benefiting from the technology. 6. You’d have trouble accomplishing your learning goals if the technology were

removed. 7. You can explain what the technology is supposed to do in a few sentences. 8. All students are able to participate. 9. Students are genuinely interested and enthusiastic about learning.

10. More cool stuff is happening than you expected. (p. 7)

As you consider this list, can you think of situations where you have seen technology inte- grated into the curriculum? Similarly, can you use this list to identify examples of technol- ogy use in schools that do not represent the effective use of technology?

A Primer of Technology Integration Key Concepts The following is a list of key concepts, often used in discussions concerning technology integration, and their definitions. Think about whether or not you have heard these con- cepts in your school as new technologies (i.e., interactive whiteboards, iPads) have been acquired and implemented.

Technology Integration The goal of integrating technology into the curriculum is to link software, media, websites, and technology tools with specific instructional objectives in ways that enhance teaching, learning, and performance. Technology is not an add-on to the curriculum. Rather, it is fundamental to the business of teaching and learning.

Alignment Alignment is the process of identifying specific curriculum goals or objectives and link- ing each goal to appropriate software, media, websites, and technology tools that might be used in the teaching and learning process. The purpose of aligning curriculum with technology goals is to enable students to achieve the stated goals or objectives. Many in- service workshops now focus on aligning instructional activities with the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), and yet relatively few resources align technology with CCSS.

edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 148 5/29/13 2:15 PM

CHAPTER 4Section 4.4 A Roadmap of the Technology Integration Process

Curriculum Correspondence When technology is integrated into the curriculum, there is ample evidence of curriculum correspondence. That is, there is a connection between what students do at the computer and the work they do at their desk. Application of the principle of curriculum correspon- dence results in classroom applications of technology that are essential, important, mean- ingful, and substantially linked to CCSS and, for students with disabilities, to their IEP.

Outcome As a result of the routine use of technology in the pursuit of educational goals, students typically are engaged in learning activities at a deeper level than found in traditional paper-and-pencil tasks. They also produce projects that are more complex and sophisti- cated than would otherwise be possible. Often teachers report that due to the use of tech- nology, students gain knowledge and skills representative of students at much higher grade levels.

Routine Use When technology is integrated into the curriculum, students regularly use technology as they complete spe- cific tasks. Technology should not be reserved simply for special instruc- tional units or be used as a special event.

Teacher Thinking and Planning When technology has been integrated into the curriculum, teachers are able to articulate meaningful purposes for using technology. Careful analysis of their comments reveals why the tech- nology tools are essential for achiev- ing the intended learning outcomes. That is, typically, the teachers are not willing to revert back to the previous (nontechnology-enhanced) instructional methods because they are convinced of the supe- rior outcomes that result from the technology tools being used.

Technology Infusion This term is commonly used as a synonym for technology integration. However, some people prefer this term to imply a higher level of integration; that is, technology is so fused with the activities of the classroom that you cannot distinguish it separately.

When integrating technology into education, making sure it’s used regularly is key. How would you determine which activities effectively use class time and which do not?

Stockbyte/Thinkstock

edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 149 5/29/13 2:15 PM

CHAPTER 4Section 4.4 A Roadmap of the Technology Integration Process

Transparency When technology has been fully integrated, the focus is on what students know and can do rather than on the technology. We take no notice of the technology (i.e., it has achieved transparency) because the focus is on the engagement of the students in deep meaningful learning activities. In contrast, when educators and technology specialists place their pri- mary focus on new technologies (e.g., “we have the latest iPad”), processor speeds (e.g., “our computers have Intel Core i7-3930K , 3.20GHz chips”), or storage space (e.g., “our computers are equipped with 4-terabyte hard drives”), they have failed to achieve true technology integration because their emphasis is on “the stuff.”

Challenges Associated With Technology Integration While technology can be a valuable resource for improving instruction, the process of integrating it into the curriculum is not easily or quickly accomplished. The difficulties are well documented: lack of teacher time; limited access to hardware, software, and sup- port; insufficient leadership and lack of a common vision or rationale for technology use; limited training and support; and the impact of current assessment practices on defin- ing what teachers must teach and what students must learn, when what they learn with technology may not be readily measured on standardized tests (U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 1995). Perhaps you have already encountered some of these bar- riers as you have tried to use technology within your classroom.

Willis (1993) adds a number of other dimensions of the problems many educators con- front: Curricular integration is a complex, difficult-to-learn process; many educators feel isolated and alone; time to experiment, explore, and study innovations is essential but rare in schools; top-down projects tend to fail over time; feelings of resentment and resistance destroy projects; ownership is critical to success; bottom-up projects tend to fail over time; administrative support is critical; nonexistent, inadequate, or inconsistent support is a major reason for failure; and theories of change are useful planning guides for managing the change process.

Despite a clearly stated commitment to technology integration and recognition of the com- mon barriers, the literature generally overlooks an essential component of the integration process. Namely, what does technology integration look like, or how is it achieved? With- out models, principles, and strategies, the challenge of integrating technology into the curriculum can be overwhelming and can lead to unpredictable results.

Ten Models for Integrating Curriculum and Technology Integrating technology into the curriculum is often difficult because many educators do not have any experience in curriculum design and development. In addition, technol- ogy specialists are seldom trained in the design and development of curriculum. Fogarty (1991) provides an excellent introduction to curriculum integration as she describes 10 methods for organizing curricula. The models are organized within three general integra- tion strategies: (1) within single disciplines, (2) across several disciplines, and (3) within and across learners. In the sections that follow, we examine the implications of each cur- riculum integration model of how technology may be used in the classroom.

edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 150 5/29/13 2:15 PM

CHAPTER 4Section 4.4 A Roadmap of the Technology Integration Process

Integrating Curricula and Technology Within a Single Discipline The first strategy involves integration within a single discipline (see Figure 4.2). Models in this area tend to be appropriate for individual teachers working within their subject area (e.g., middle and high school) but also serve as a developmentally appropriate point to begin technology integration efforts. Three integration models are useful to consider when making connections within a single discipline: the fragmented model, the con- nected model, and the nested model.

Figure 4.2: Models for single discipline integration

This figure illustrates three single discipline technology integration models: the fragmented model, the connected model, and the nested model.

The Fragmented Model

Description: This model may be considered the traditional model of instruction. Each sub- ject or discipline is taught as a separate experience with little or no attention to overlap- ping ideas, themes, or relationships among people, places, or events. Every topic is a frag- ment the student is expected to assimilate.

In Practice: In the classroom, a student might use a graphic organizer program like Inspi- ration to plan a paper, a full-text periodical database in the library, and a word processor in English class, and never encounter an assignment in his classes where he is expected to use all of these tools together. Teachers may not even be aware that these tools are being used in other classes. The fundamental problem with this educational practice is that students fail to develop the connections necessary to develop advanced thinking and problem solving skills because everything is taught in isolation.

The Connected Model

Description: In this model, effort is made within a specific subject area to connect concepts or link one topic to another in order to explicitly relate ideas. Common types of connec- tions include topic-to-topic, concept-to-concept, or one year’s work to that of the next.

In Practice: While studying a unit on space where students traditionally learn about the planets and solar system, a teacher may link current events. Students could visit the NASA

The Fragmented Model The Connected Model The Nested Model

edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 151 5/29/13 2:15 PM

CHAPTER 4Section 4.4 A Roadmap of the Technology Integration Process

website to learn about current missions to Mars and view photos of the surface (photos that will not appear in textbooks for years!). These activities may be followed by a mini- unit about Mars that highlights the technical difficulties that must be resolved to make it feasible for a manned mission to land on our neighboring planet.

The Nested Model

Description: In this model, the teacher begins in a single subject area and then targets mul- tiple skills that will be linked. For example, when teaching a unit on transportation within the community, the teacher may target multiple skills, including reading a bus schedule (a reading skill), conversing socially with others at the bus stop (a social skill), and identify- ing exact change (a problem-solving skill).

In Practice: A teacher might design a collaborative learning unit where students need to work in groups of three, sharing a single laptop computer. She may define roles for the students to alternate in each day: team leader, driver (enters information at the keyboard), and recorder. This plan allows the teacher to pursue multiple goals regarding content knowledge, cooperative learning, and problem solving.

Integrating Curricula and Technology Across Several Disciplines The second integration strategy involves integration across several disciplines (see Figure 4.3). The models in this area tend to be widely used at the elementary level and in middle schools that are organized in families or pods where time and structures are sometimes more flexible. Five integration models are helpful for assisting students in creating con- nections across several disciplines: the sequenced model, the shared model, the webbed model, the threaded model, and the integrated model.

Figure 4.3: Models for multidiscipline integration

This figure illustrates five multidiscipline technology integration models: the sequenced model, the shared model, the webbed model, the threaded model, and the integrated model.

The Sequenced Model The Shared Model The Webbed Model

The Threaded Model The Integrated Model

edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 152 5/29/13 2:15 PM

CHAPTER 4Section 4.4 A Roadmap of the Technology Integration Process

The Sequenced Model

Description: In this model, emphasis is placed on rearranging and sequencing topics to coincide with one another. In this case, similar ideas are taught during the same time period by multiple teachers. While teachers maintain their separate classes, students ben- efit from the cooperative lesson planning, which enables them to explore key concepts in multiple environments.

In Practice: As a result of their cooperative planning, the week that the computer teacher introduces students to how to create formulas in spreadsheets, the math teacher helps students visit websites that offer various formulas and calculation engines (e.g., mort- gage, variable interests rates on loan payments). Thus, students are introduced to several methods in which technology can be used to speed complex calculations and essentially receive a “double dose” of instruction on key skills and their real-world application.

The Shared Model

Description: In this model, planning and teaching focus on the overlap of key concepts or ideas between two disciplines. For example, measurement is a concept that has applica- tions in both the math and the science classroom.

In Practice: As the language arts teacher presents a unit on proofreading, in the computer lab students learn how to use the spelling and grammar checkers built into Microsoft Word-. In both environments, students gain insight into their abilities to successfully com- plete proofreading tasks. The shared model and the sequenced model both require efforts by two or more teachers to coordinate instructional topics. However, the sequenced model allows teachers to pursue their own outcomes for instruction within a disciplinary framework. In contrast, the shared model seeks to deepen students’ knowledge through a shared understanding of skills and their application in multiple disciplines.

The Webbed Model

Description: A common model of integration, the webbed model focuses on identifying a theme that is used to organize concepts, topics, and ideas from multiple disciplines. This may include complex topics like rainforests or culture that can be studied from the van- tage point of many disciplines. Similarly, ideas like power or abundance/scarcity may be manifest in many contexts.

In Practice: A common thematic unit in many elementary schools involves studying dino- saurs as the theme, and the web connections involve reading about dinosaurs, doing research on a specific dinosaur, comparing and contrasting their weights, locating areas on a globe where dinosaurs are thought to have lived, and so on. Imaginative software even allows students to create their own dinosaurs from a gallery of parts! The webbed model allows many related topics and tools to be connected across the curriculum. Many elementary and middle schools have a signature unit for which they are well known (e.g., sixth grade Medieval Feast) that integrates the subject matter across all classrooms as part of a weeklong event.

edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 153 5/29/13 2:15 PM

CHAPTER 4Section 4.4 A Roadmap of the Technology Integration Process

The Threaded Model

Description: In this model, integration is advanced through skills embedded in the cur- riculum throughout various disciplines, such as writing, presenting, study skills, use of technology, and so on. This model takes a “big picture” view of the world and engages students in the “big ideas.”

In Practice: In a school that has a mission involving social justice, the faculty may plan to thread a big idea like “personal responsibility” throughout the curriculum. This means students will encounter opportunities in English Language Arts to read biographies of individuals who stood up for what they believed despite considerable personal attacks. In the science classroom they will be introduced to the ethics associated with research. In social studies they will explore the responsibilities of citizenship in a democratic soci- ety. Naturally, appropriate technology tools and resources will be used as each topic is explored. The goal of this model is to demonstrate that big ideas are not limited to one domain but have significant application.

The Integrated Model

Description: As the name suggests, this model takes an interdisciplinary approach that involves team teaching and collaboratively examining the curriculum for overlaps and common concerns. As such, it involves a sophisticated analysis of the interrelationships among disciplines.

In Practice: World War II could be studied as an historical event. However, in this model, teachers in multiple disciplines (i.e., English, American history, technology) assist stu- dents in understanding the complex developments. Students may (a) use email to contact and communicate with WWII veterans to get firsthand accounts; (b) use the Internet to access the Library of Congress and obtain images that document the period; and (c) search online reference sites to locate factual information about people, places, and significant events in the 1940s. Presentation tools like desktop publishing, presentation software, and webpage development software enable students to document their work and tell the story of their learning adventure.

Integrating Curricula and Technology Within and Across Learners The third integration strategy represents the most ambitious goal of integration: integrat- ing within and across learners (see Figure 4.4). The final two integration models are the most complex and, therefore, perhaps, the least common: the immersed model and the networked model.

edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 154 5/29/13 2:15 PM

CHAPTER 4Section 4.4 A Roadmap of the Technology Integration Process

Figure 4.4: Models for integration within and across learners

This figure illustrates models for use when integrating technology within and across learners: the immersed and networked models.

The Immersed Model

Description: To understand this model of integration, we need to consider the learner and her lens of experience. Thus, the disciplines become part of the learner’s lens of expertise. The learner filters all content through her lens of experience and interest. Often this model is seen at advanced levels of education (i.e., senior thesis, master’s and doctoral studies) as the student is engaged in an intensely personal struggle of “sense making” to deter- mine what’s important, what’s not, and how all the topics and facts fit together.

In Practice: Students struggling to make sense of a great deal of information in multiple disciplines are likely to use a wide variety of tools such as word processors, presenta- tion software, online searches, digital reference and archives, and drawing/paint/graphic tools as they conduct a personal investigation that makes connections across disciplinary boundaries and integrates knowledge from multiple domains.

The Networked Model

Description: This model of curriculum integration primarily describes the work of an expert. All learning is filtered through the expert’s eyes, and connections are made effi- ciently within and across disciplines. As a result, it reflects an aspirational goal for learn- ing—that is, a leader who is sufficiently skilled in multiple domains of knowledge to make connections within and across disciplines.

In Practice: An architect specializing in urban planning may learn of a call for proposals for the redesign of an area of the central city, assemble a team of colleagues via email to collaborate in a design, utilize computer-assisted design tools to prepare sample designs, exchange the designs electronically, access city planning records, utilize geographical information systems, and create an “electronic walk-thru” using virtual reality software. Knowledge from many disciplines informs this work, and a robust technology toolkit fos- ters a high level of collaboration and performance. Novice learners seldom have enough content knowledge to complete these types of learning projects successfully.

The Immersed Model The Networked Model

edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 155 5/29/13 2:15 PM

CHAPTER 4Section 4.4 A Roadmap of the Technology Integration Process

Why is curriculum integration important? The essence of learning is connection building: linking new information with what we already know. While Fogarty (1991) has described 10 models of integration, the first, the fragmented model, is really a nonexample. If we do not help students make connections within the curriculum, we are essentially implement- ing the fragmented model, leaving students to their own devices to try to make meaning of the content they receive as they move from classroom to classroom. If educators fail to eliminate the fragmented model of curriculum, it means that we are content with the out- come of schooling known as the achievement gap. Thus, efforts to integrate curriculum and technology must utilize one of the nine other models.

Pause to Reflect As you explored the 10 curriculum integration models, are there one or more models that you have already used in your classroom? What did you learn about the new models that may be worth exploring in your classroom in the weeks ahead?

A Model of the Technology Integration Process Despite the importance of technology integration, early in the author’s career when he was a statewide special education technology specialist, he discovered the need for a model of the technology integration process. He needed a framework that he could share with teachers and administrators to illustrate where they were in the journey and the ways that he could contribute to their efforts. The model in Figure 4.5 is the result of his work to translate theory into practice (Edyburn, 2002).

The technology integration model was designed to (a) describe the various tasks involved in integrating technology into the curriculum, (b) provide a roadmap for individuals inter- ested in technology integration, (c) serve as a model for fostering a collaborative vision among the major stakeholders, and (d) assist in identifying resources, strategies, and tools for facilitating the process. The technology integration process describes the major tasks involved in the four phases of selecting, acquiring, implementing, and integrating instruc- tional technologies into the curriculum.

Figure 4.5: Edyburn’s technology integration process model

This figure illustrates Edyburn’s technology integration process model, as it progresses from Phase 1: Selection to Phase 4: Integration.

Source: .Knowledge by Design, Inc. Reprinted with permission.

1 Selection

• Planning • Locating • Reviewing • Deciding

2 Acquisition

• Previewing • Evaluating • Purchasing

3 Implement-

ation

• Organizing • Teacher

training • Student

training

4 Integration

• Linking • Managing • Assessing • Extending

edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 156 5/29/13 2:15 PM

CHAPTER 4Section 4.4 A Roadmap of the Technology Integration Process

The process is generic in the sense that it is the same regardless of ability level, subject matter, or type of technology. It is divided into four phases, each comprised of three to four tasks that must be completed before advancing to the next phase. The process is recursive. That is, while Phase 1 results in a comprehensive list of products that address a specific instructional objective, Phases 2, 3, and 4 must be repeated with each product. Thus, a significant commitment of time and effort is necessary. As a reasonable goal, it is suggested that educators initially work through this process until they have found 3–10 products that will support the varied needs of their students for a specific instructional unit. The following sections describe each phase and task in the model.

Phase 1: Selection This phase focuses on planning for the use of technology, media, and materials to enhance teaching and learning. These tasks can be completed cooperatively with colleagues in the context of program planning or individually. Upon completion of Phase 1, we will have a comprehensive, prioritized listing of products that support the teaching and learning of a specific instructional objective.

Planning involves identifying instructional objectives and goals for using technology. The concept of targets of difficulty provides a way to think about where to start: What objec- tives are consistently difficult for students to learn? There is no need to know whether there are products available to teach these topics; at this point, we simply create a list of learning outcomes and prioritize it based on the instructional needs of our students.

Locating involves searching for appropriate technologies, media, and materials to support the specified objective. Thus, we conduct an exhaustive multifaceted search to identify any products that purportedly could be used to enhance instruction for the objective. This process enables us to construct a comprehensive list so that we do not have to repeat the search later after we begin evaluating a few products.

Reviewing involves ranking the lists of possibilities created in the locating task. This is accomplished by examining reviews, recommendations, and evaluation tools to deter- mine what others have found useful. One outcome of the reviewing task is that we may begin to prioritize the list we created in our locating search.

Deciding involves determining what to do with the list of products that has been assem- bled. For example, will you look at each of the products on your list? Only the top five recommended products? Perhaps only the top one? The limits of time and the amount of effort we wish to devote to the process will help us decide how many products to exam- ine. As a result of our work in Phase 1, we now have the essential information to move ahead on tasks that will result in a decision to purchase (or acquire) a specific product that will enhance the learning outcomes we began with.

edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 157 5/29/13 2:15 PM

CHAPTER 4Section 4.4 A Roadmap of the Technology Integration Process

Phase 2: Acquisition The tasks in this phase involve per- sonally reviewing products to assess whether or not a given product will meet the needs and expectations of both teachers and students. Subse- quently, successful evaluation results in a decision to purchase a product. At the end of this phase, we will own a product that can be used to enhance teaching and learning.

Previewing involves the administra- tive arrangements that are necessary to conduct a hands-on review a prod- uct. Often this means simply down- loading a demo copy from the Web or watching one or more introduc- tory videos about the product.

Evaluating involves assessing whether or not a given product will meet the needs and expec- tations of the teacher and students. While evaluation forms may be helpful, a comparison of three or more similar products usually results in a decision about which product is most suitable for a given classroom. The cycle of previewing and evaluating may continue down the entire list generated in the locating task. Only after the evaluation results in a decision to purchase a product does the integration process move to the next task.

Purchasing involves the administrative details required to acquire sufficient copies of a given product. Congratulations! Your work thus far has advanced to the stage where your school now owns a new product that will support students as they engage in 21st-century learning.

Phase 3: Implementation This phase refocuses our attention away from the marketplace and our preoccupation with shopping by requiring us to examine the factors involved in “making it work.” At the end of this phase, we will have assimilated a new product into our school’s technology network and trained teachers and students to use it.

Organizing involves inventorying and installing a newly purchased product. Decisions about whether to install a product on an individual machine or on a network are made. For standalone devices like iPads, this may involve purchasing charging carts and a secu- rity system for storing the devices at the end of the day. For technologies like interactive whiteboards, this task will involve scheduling time for the board to be physically mounted in the classroom along with possible modification to the classroom electrical system.

Teacher training requires that teachers receive the necessary training to fully utilize a prod- uct. Typically, however, training is simply “teach yourself” because only a single copy of the product was purchased. Teachers need to acquire the skills and knowledge to operate

One way to preview technology tools you are considering is to attend technology conferences and participate in live demonstrations. What are some other preview methods you might employ?

Oliver Berg/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images

edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 158 5/29/13 2:15 PM

CHAPTER 4Section 4.4 A Roadmap of the Technology Integration Process

the product, conduct basic troubleshooting, as well as generate methods and ideas for using the product in the classroom. When a product is purchased with a site license, group trainings are usually held with a vendor or outside trainer to ensure that all users have the necessary skills to utilize the product.

Student training involves introducing the students to a product, including how to access it, why they would use it, basic navigation, and the content skills needed to operate the product independently. This task ensures that students are prepared to interact with the product when it is introduced in the curriculum.

Phase 4: Integration Only after both teachers and students have moved into Phase 4 can we begin to talk about integration of technology into the curriculum. The tasks involved in this phase focus directly on using products in the classroom to enhance teaching and learning. Consider- able time and effort has been expended to reach this phase. However, this is the phase where we see the fruits of our labor.

Linking involves examining the curriculum and determining when a product should be used, how it can best be used to facilitate learning, and what activities would be useful both prior and subsequent to a product’s use by students. Curriculum frameworks and calendars are important tools for this task to align technology tools with curriculum goals and instructional activities.

Managing involves providing time for students to use a product and ensuring that all stu- dents are achieving the objectives. While access to a lab is useful, creative strategies must be used for managing technology in classrooms that do not have 1–1 device ratios (one computer for one student). In addition, plans must be made to consider the needs of stu- dents who will need more than average time to complete the lesson, activities, or project.

Assessing involves evaluating the results of instruction and determining whether any changes are needed now or in the future. Often in special education, a product may be revisited during the school year to provide additional opportunities for maintenance of previously learned skills. Some students may become trapped in the Managing–Assess- ing phase of CAI because they are unable to make adequate progress to exit the program. This is a situation that teachers will want to carefully monitor.

Finally, the task of extending recognizes that unless we can create additional instructional applications for a new tool, it will end up being returned to the shelf for storage until some time in the future. For example, a program that teaches students how to add fractions with uncommon denominators may be considered consumable once all the students have mas- tered the objective. That means, the software goes back on the shelf until we need it again next year. On the other hand, if we are able to identify methods of extending the value of the product, such as a word processor, we are able to continue the technology integra- tion process at the linking task in Phase 4 rather than starting the entire process over. This insight suggests why the task of locating CAI software to support the entire curriculum is so time consuming. In contrast, the preference to focus on tools means that Phases 1–3 can be completed once, and then the investment is reward by the integration of the tools across the curriculum, allowing teachers to focus their energy in Phase 4.

edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 159 5/29/13 2:15 PM

CHAPTER 4Section 4.5 Technology Integration Strategies

Putting the Model Into Practice Readers are encouraged to explore ways in which the model may assist in evaluating their current technology integration efforts. An excellent starting point is to identify tasks that receive too much attention or tasks that have been overlooked. In addition, build- ing-level and district technology committees are encouraged to consider how they might develop strategies to facilitate movement through Phases 1–3 and celebrate the evolving local knowledge base concerning the tasks in Phase 4. With your understanding that the technology integration process is more involved than simply buy–use, in the next section we will examine strategies for translating the technology integration process into practice.

Pause to Reflect How would you compare and contrast the buy–use model of technology integration with Edyburn’s model? Would you enjoy serving on a technology committee that is engaged in all of the tasks? Or would you prefer to have others help you focus simply on the technology integration tasks found in Phase 4?

4.5 Technology Integration Strategies

In the final section of this chapter, we examine four strategies that you can use to facili-tate the technology integration process. As you read about each of the strategies, con-sider which might be most helpful in your school. Stakeholders: A Helper’s View of the Integration Process The concept of stakeholders comes from the field of policy analysis where new initiatives are considered from the viewpoints of individuals and groups with a significant interest in the topic. As we think about the groups who have an interest in effective use of technol- ogy for instruction, many groups come to mind, including students, teachers, administra- tors, technology specialists, and resource centers, to name a few. Considering the interests of various groups of stakeholders helps decision makers understand the impact of their decisions. In our situation, we want to be sure we are inclusive of everyone who can help (or, unfortunately in some cases, hinder) the technology integration process.

Figure 4.6 illustrates the technology integration process from the viewpoints of various stakeholders. While everyone may have an interest in completing each task, tasks in brown indicate that a given group has a significant interest in the successful design and implementation of these tasks. This profile helps us understand the collaborative nature of our work. When the model is used as a common vision among the stakeholders, we can confidently defer some tasks to our colleagues. However, if we are unable to collaborate, the technology integration process defaults to a “do-it-yourself project,” which means that the individual teacher is responsible for completing all of the tasks in order to help her

edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 160 5/29/13 2:15 PM

CHAPTER 4Section 4.5 Technology Integration Strategies

students gain access to the benefits of technology-enhanced instruction. This may explain why some teachers choose not to use technology—they simply do not have enough time or knowledge to complete all of the tasks.

Figure 4.6: Stakeholder views of the technology integration process

This figure highlights the viewpoints of different participants in Edyburn’s technology integration process model.

Source: .Knowledge by Design, Inc. Reprinted with permission.

1 Selection

• Planning • Locating • Reviewing • Deciding

2 Acquisition

• Previewing • Evaluating • Purchasing

3 Implement-

ation

4 Integration

• Linking • Managing • Assessing • Extending

1 Selection

• Planning • Locating • Reviewing • Deciding

2 Acquisition

• Previewing • Evaluating • Purchasing

3 Implement-

ation

4 Integration

• Linking • Managing • Assessing • Extending

1 Selection

• Planning • Locating • Reviewing • Deciding

2 Acquisition

3 Implement-

ation

4 Integration

1 Selection

2 Acquisition

• Previewing • Evaluating • Purchasing

3 Implement-

ation

4 Integration

• Linking • Managing • Assessing • Extending

1 Selection

• Planning • Locating • Reviewing • Deciding

2 Acquisition

• Previewing • Evaluating • Purchasing

3 Implement-

ation

4 Integration

• Linking • Managing • Assessing • Extending

Student perspective

Teacher perspective

Administrator perspective

Technology specialist perspective

Resource center perspective

• Linking • Managing • Assessing • Extending

• Planning • Locating • Reviewing • Deciding

• Previewing • Evaluating • Purchasing

• Organizing • Teacher training • Student training

• Organizing • Teacher training • Student training

• Organizing • Teacher training • Student training

• Organizing • Teacher training • Student training

• Organizing • Teacher training • Student training

edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 161 5/29/13 2:15 PM

CHAPTER 4Section 4.5 Technology Integration Strategies

Action Planning Do you find these activity types useful for thinking about the kinds of technologies that can be inte- grated into a lesson? Considering the technology integration process outlined in this chapter, would you consider these tools as facilitating (a) planning, (b) teacher training, or (c) linking? Do you believe these activity type resources are valuable to share with other teachers? Why or why not?

Action Planning Who can you contact within your building or district for assistance with other technology integration tasks? Do you feel comfortable sharing the technology integration roadmap with your colleagues and administrators? As you consider the stakeholders’ perspective of the technology integration process, which tasks are you willing to assume responsibility for? Why is it important that we facilitate the work of teachers so that they can focus their efforts on the tasks in Phase 4?

Activity Types Judi Harris and Mark Hofer have been concerned about the long-standing evidence of the sustained difficulty educators have had regarding technology integration. In an effort to find a solution, they have been studying and developing an approach to technology inte- gration known as activity types. Their goal has been to identify universal learning activities found in classrooms and align them with specific types of technology tools in the hope that these types of blueprints will allow teachers to think about technology integration in a manner that is more compatible with their general approaches to instructional planning.

Activity types are a teacher-friendly approach to technology integration. Visit the follow- ing wiki and download the materials for one or more subject areas of interest:

Learning Activity Types Wiki

http://activitytypes.wmwikis.net/

As you browse the resource guide, notice that the first column identifies the common types of learning activities that teachers expect students to complete. For example, read a text passage, locate reference material, or develop a presentation. Then, notice the con- nections in the right-hand column concerning the generic types of technologies that could be used in the classroom to support and engage students as they complete each type of learning activity. This approach to technology integration is noteworthy because it allows teachers to begin searching for technology in response to specific instructional activities instead of traditional technology training that begins by showing teachers “cool tools” and then expecting them to figure out ways the tools may fit into instruction.

edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 162 5/29/13 2:15 PM

CHAPTER 4Section 4.5 Technology Integration Strategies

Research-Based Interventions One of the tenets of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 is the requirement that educators use scientifically based research to inform their instructional decisions and practices. Many researchers have applauded this development (Shavelson & Towne, 2002). They argue that much is known about effective instructional practices and that such knowledge should be used routinely in classrooms in order to maximize student learning (Hattie, 2009).

However, practitioners have responded to this federal edict with caution and confusion, raising questions such as: How do we know whether or not a given instructional practice is research-based? Are we expected to read and critique research studies? What are we supposed to do if there is not adequate evidence supporting the instructional methodol- ogy or commercial materials that we intend to purchase?

The emphasis on using interventions whose effectiveness has been demonstrated through rig- orous scientific experimentation is also known as evidence-based practice. Increasingly, school district administrators are required to justify instructional purchases by pointing to research that demon- strates the efficacy of a given product or inter- vention. Unfortunately, with many innovative products, the research base is not adequate because the innovative tool is profoundly differ- ent than anything we had in the past (e.g., consider the iPod, iPad, and interactive whiteboards). In situations like these, it may be necessary to look for research that describes a more fundamental learning principle. That is, rather than trying to “prove” that iPads will enhance students’ read- ing achievement, it may be necessary to locate research that describes the importance of student engagement in reading that subsequently leads to reading gains (i.e., the more you read, the more you know). Thus, aligning a technology tool with a well-established principle of learning often serves as sufficient evidence to support the adop- tion of an innovative technology.

NCLB mandates the use of evidence-based practice in the classroom. How would you support a link between classroom technology and higher achievement?

AP Photo/The West Bend Daily News/John Ehlke

edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 163 5/29/13 2:15 PM

CHAPTER 4Section 4.5 Technology Integration Strategies

Action Planning If your school district is focused on ensuring that evidence-based practices are being used, consult the following three resources to identify research regarding interventions that can be implemented with technology.

1. The What Works Clearinghouse (http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/) is perhaps the best known among these organizations. Their work is authoritative. In an effort to help practitioners utilize research on evidence-based practices, they created a companion web site known as Doing What Works (http://dww.ed.gov).

2. The Campbell Collaboration (http://www.campbellcollaboration.org) is recognized as an interna- tional independent source of quality reviews on evidence-based practice.

3. The Best Evidence Encyclopedia (http://www.bestevidence.org) is a user-friendly resource created by researcher Robert Slavin.

Resources That Provide Suggestions for Creatively Using Technology Tools Educators working to integrate technology into the curriculum soon discover that there is never enough time to explore all the new tools, nor enough funding to purchase all the new technologies. As a result, it is important to attend professional conferences and moni- tor blogs so that you can stay up-to-date regarding classroom application of technology. We will revisit this topic again in Chapter 10 as we address the challenge of how to stay up-to-date in a field that changes as fast as educational technology. For now, let’s focus on identifying sources that will provide us with ongoing professional development on how to use technology effectively in the classroom.

Action Planning This strategy is not about reading blogs like Engadget (http://www.engadget.com/) or Uber- gizmo (http://www.ubergizmo.com/) to find the latest, coolest tools. Rather, the goal is to identify online communities that share suggestions on the creative use of a small collection of flexible and powerful tools.

Here are a few communities that inspire some educators with the imaginative use of tools to enhance teaching and learning. As you explore these resources, what information are you discovering that you might share with other teachers to facilitate their technology integration efforts?

iLearnTechnology

http://ilearntechnology.com/

EdTech Solutions: Teaching Every Student

http://teachingeverystudent.blogspot.com/

ProfHacker

http://chronicle.com/blogs/profhacker/

edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 164 5/29/13 2:15 PM

CHAPTER 4Post-Test

Summary

In order for technology to be effective in schools, research has demonstrated that it must be integrated into the curriculum. Research has also shown that teachers’ theories of learning affect their willingness to use, or not use, technology. To date, few schools have adopted a formal technology integration process and, as a result, often default to a flawed two-step model: buy–use. To overcome this problem, 10 models of curriculum integration were presented along with a roadmap to the technology integration process. Unless a school adopts such a roadmap and builds collaborative capacity with all of the stakeholder groups, teachers are often left to navigate the technology integration process as a do-it-yourself project. To fully maximize the potential of technology, schools need to maintain their focus on the effective use of technology to enhance teaching, learning, and performance rather than suffering from the allure of shopping for the latest cool tools.

Post-Test

1. Which term describes the instructional process and guides classroom methods? a. learning b. development c. curriculum d. assessment

2. Programming a computer when creating a new program is an example of the computer as a

a. tutee. b. tutor. c. tool. d. toy.

3. Which of the following is NOT a primary domain of TPACK? a. technological knowledge (TK) b. pedagogical knowledge (PK) c. content knowledge (CK) d. assessment knowledge (AK)

4. The most complex and ambitious models of technology integration are the a. webbed and connected models. b. fragmented and integrated models. c. shared and nested models. d. immersed and networked models.

Pause to Reflect Which strategies did you find most helpful in transferring the theory of technology integration into practical applications that will allow you to explore the power of technology for diverse learners?

edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 165 5/29/13 2:15 PM

CHAPTER 4Post-Test

5. Blueprints that allow teachers to think about technology integration in ways that are similar to their styles are known as

a. stakeholders. b. research-based interventions. c. study plans. d. activity types.

6. According to Whitehead (1929) schooling’s purpose is to a. encourage conformity among students. b. transmit the knowledge that a society deems useful between generations. c. prepare students for colleges and careers. d. teach the basic and advanced skills needed for life in the real world.

7. Swain and Edyburn (2007) questioned whether a. technology’s use for individuals with disabilities should be different than for

those without. b. the importance of technology in education should be decided by individual

teachers. c. accessibility to technology should be the same for all students and schools. d. explicitly teaching students the latest in technology is as beneficial as teaching

general technology skills.

8. While taking classes in development, assessment, content area instruction, and methods, Eduardo is mostly focused on

a. technological knowledge (TK). b. pedagogical knowledge (PK). c. content knowledge (CK). d. assessment knowledge (AK).

9. The sequenced, shared, and webbed models are all a. not common in education. b. recommended for working with high-risk students. c. types of integrated curricula and technology within disciplines models. d. types of integrated curricula and technology across disciplines models.

10. The strategy for facilitating the technology implementation that focuses on net- working and attending conferences is

a. stakeholders. b. exploring resources. c. activity types. d. trustees.

Answers 1. c. curriculum. The answer can be found in Section 4.1. 2. a. tutee. The answer can be found in Section 4.2. 3. d. assessment knowledge (AK). The answer can be found in Section 4.3. 4. d. immersed and networked models. The answer can be found in Section 4.4. 5. d. activity types. The answer can be found in Section 4.5. 6. b. transmit the knowledge that a society deems useful between generations. The answer can be found in

Section 4.1.

edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 166 5/29/13 2:15 PM

CHAPTER 4Critical Thinking Questions and Exercises

7. b. the importance of technology in education should be decided by individual teachers. The answer can be found in Section 4.2.

8. b. pedagogical knowledge (PK). The answer can be found in Section 4.3. 9. d. types of integrated curricula and technology across disciplines models. The answer can be found in

Section 4.4. 10. b. explore resources. The answer can be found in Section 4.5.

Key Ideas

• The following three pairs of words are not synonyms: education and schooling; teaching and learning; and curriculum and instruction. Be sure you are able to iden- tify the points of distinction as well as the points of confusion.

• Understanding a teacher’s theory of learning has important implications for understanding whether they will use technology in the classroom, and how.

• TPACK is a technology integration model illustrating the key relationships between technology, content, and pedagogy. The most interesting relationships are in the areas of overlap (TPK, TCK, PCK, and TPACK).

• The barriers to technology integration are numerous: lack of teacher time; limited access to hardware, software, and support; insufficient leadership and lack of a common vision or rationale for technology use; limited training and support; and the impact of current assessment practices on defining what teachers must teach and what students must learn, when what they learn with technology may not be readily measured on standardized tests.

• Using the technology integration process roadmap to foster a shared vision among the key stakeholders is necessary to scale the benefits of technology to all classrooms. Otherwise, the benefits of technology may be confined to the class- rooms or a few star technology-using teachers.

Critical Thinking Questions and Exercises

1. Think of the big ideas and important themes that you have been learning about in this chapter. Write a headline regarding the principles of instructional technol- ogy that summarizes and captures a key aspect that you feel is significant and important. Why do you feel strongly about this specific aspect?

2. Drawing on your experience, prior knowledge, or reading in this chapter, do the following:

a. Make a claim about the principles of instructional technology, issue, or idea being explored.

b. Identify support for your claim. What things do you see, feel, or know that lend evidence to your claim?

c. Raise a question related to your claim. What may make you doubt the claim? What seems left hanging? What isn’t fully explained? What further ideas or issues does your claim raise?

edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 167 5/29/13 2:15 PM

CHAPTER 4Critical Thinking Questions and Exercises

iLearnTEchnology

http://ilearntechnology.com/

EdTech Solutions: Teaching Every Student

http://teachingeverystudent.blogspot.com/

ProfHacker

http://chronicle.com/blogs/profhacker/

3. Read the following blog posting that outlines one professor ’s thoughts about the role of innovation and creativity as it applies to teaching, learning, and technol- ogy in the digital age. What can you take away from this professor ’s thoughts and experiences?

The McDonald’s of Digital Age Learning? Reflections on a Steve Jobs Interview

http://etale.org/main/2013/03/24/the-mcdonalds-of-digital-age-learning -reflections-on-a-steve-jobs-interview/

4. Revisit the technology integration model. Then, read the following statements regarding initiatives in different school districts. How would you classify the essential nature of each task as an initiative to facilitate the technology integra- tion process? As an example, the first statement has been classified.

a. The district technology specialist distributes a blog posting that compares and contrasts five common social networking tools. (Reviewing)

b. Our building purchased a site license for a literacy support tool called Solo from Don Johnston, Inc. ___________

c. During a regional in-service, a teacher shares examples of “quick-start” guides to help students remember keyboard shortcuts for using complex software tools like Photoshop and Dreamweaver. ___________

d. One teacher teaches a technology-enhanced unit on rainforests to one group of students while another teacher teaches a special math unit to her students. ___________

e. The school library media specialist creates a database cataloging the school’s software collection so that staff can access the information through a webpage. ___________

f. An assistive technology specialist determines that a student will need special screen reading software in order to be able to read information from the Inter- net during an upcoming unit. ___________

g. The computer coordinator sends a “thought for the week” email message that includes strategies for using common tools like Microsoft Word-, Firefox, and Facebook to be more productive. ___________

5. Review the following three blogs devoted to technology integration. Using new information you discover, can you identify three practical technology integration strategies that you could use in your classroom?

edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 168 5/29/13 2:15 PM

CHAPTER 4Web Watch

Key Terms

CAI Acronym for computer-assisted instruc- tion; refers to the use of technology to enhance learning as the computer presents information and manages the learner’s performance data.

C–I–A Acronym for the term curriculum– instruction–assessment; used to address the three interactive components that govern the context of teaching and learning.

curriculum correspondence A connec- tion between what the student does with technology and the work that she does at her desk.

learning The process a learner engages in order to know more about a topic. Learn- ing may occur in formal or informal con- texts. The science that informs the learn- ing of children is known as pedagogy. The science that informs the learning of adults is known as andragogy.

learning theory A framework that describes the relevant variables that affect learning. Each learning theory represents a particular viewpoint about the relation- ships among variables that are thought to facilitate or impair learning. The work of teachers is typically influenced by the theory of learning they espouse.

technology We consider technology to include hardware, software, media, and online materials, as well as apps.

technology integration The process of incorporating technology into the class- room in ways that facilitate student achievement of curriculum goals.

TPACK A model of the variables asso- ciated with effective use of technology. Three key components involve technology, pedagogy, and content. The most interest- ing parts of the model concern the overlap between two or more of the components (e.g., TCK, TCK, and PCK).

transparency The concept that technology use in the classroom is not visible. Rather, use of the technology is so routine that no special attention or consideration is given to the tools.

Web Watch

Levels of Technology Integration Connections website describes a theoretical framework and provides tools for measuring technology integration. http://www.loticonnection.com/

NetTrekker Search is a subscription service that allows teachers to search for digital learning resources by grade level, Common Core State Standard, and more. http://www.nettrekker.com/us/

edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 169 5/29/13 2:15 PM

CHAPTER 4Recommendations for Your Professional Bookshelf

Recommendations for Your Professional Bookshelf

Roblyer, M. D., & Doering, A. H. (2013). Integrating educational technology into teaching (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

A comprehensive textbook regarding the integration of technology into the K–12 curriculum.

Brooks-Young, S. (2010). Teaching with the tools kids really use. Thousand Oaks, CA: Cor- win Press. Available online at https://www.livebinders.com/play/play?id=61927

Approaches technology integration from the standpoint of using tools that stu- dents routinely use.

edy80779_04_c04_133-170.indd 170 5/29/13 2:15 PM