Technology Integration and Instructional Design

Technology Integration and Instructional Design By Jennifer Summerville and Angelia Reid-Griffin We required that students consider how they will use the model to design, and plan their lessons to best meet the needs of their learners and the requirements of the state and NETS. T eaching pre-service and in-service teachers to use technologies in their classrooms begins with their training at the university. Many teacher education programs require students to take a foundational level course in technology education. As these foundational courses are continually revamped to include technologies for various disciplines, teacher education programs find it difficult to establish a consistent platform for preparing students to incorporate instructional design principles with new instructional technology tools. Instructional design is a widely-acknowledged system of planning, implementing, and evaluating instruction (Gagne, Wager, Golas, & Keller, 2005; Reiser & Dick, 1996; Shelly, Cashman, Gunter, & Gunter, 2006). Historically, instructional design was recognized for its use in the military, and now gradually has become more mainstream in teacher education programs. The premise of instructional design is to make learning more efficient. Reiser and Dick (1996), Morgan (1989), and Bowsher (1989) note that employing this organized approach in such diverse settings as schools, developing countries, and business has lead to valuable methods of instruction. Snellbecker (1947) and Morrison, Ross, and Kemp (2007) proposed that this structured systematic process establishes the link between educational research and practical application. There are instructional design models that incorporate technology integration. One notable example is the U.S. Air Force model, which was the pioneer of instructional design models, according to Seels and Glasgow (1998). This model addressed the need for a systematic approach to instruction for military courses that focused on technology integration (p. 172). Other instructional design models incorporating technology integration include the Reiser and Dick model; the ASSURE model; the Teacher Decision Making model, which gives explanation to the ADDIE process (Analysis, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evaluate); and the Kemp model. We used each of the models in previous teaching practices and found the models did not entirely address the needs of our Instructional Technology course. Therefore, we chose to develop a model that would be a good fit with our own teaching pedagogy. We were able to develop a platform, using a systematic approach that blends the principles of instructional planning with technology integration. Instructors of our Instructional Technology course collaborated to develop modules aligned with principles of instructional design. This seemed to be an ideal way to provide students additional opportunities to design instructional activities that incorporated appropriate technology for their curriculum and grade levels. This marriage of technology integration and the use of technology as a tool through instructional design offers the population of students we serve numerous opportunities to engage in lesson-building activities. Volume 52, Number 5 TechTrends September/October 2008 45

The eight modules of the Instructional Technology course provide students with experiences to meet some of the basic computer competencies stated in ISTE National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS-T) and Students (NETS-S). Although research indicates the use of instructional design models to deliver technology-enhanced instruction can lead to effective teaching, there are few models for developing design skills that integrate technology within the education curriculum. This article addresses this research need by focusing on the instructional design model that we used to teach pre-service students to plan activities effectively integrating technologies. Since most of the students enrolled in the Instructional Technology courses have already taken the undergraduatelevel course Instructional Design and Evaluation for Pre-service Teachers, we will focus the discussion on how the model was used with a module that specifically addressed instructional design principles, incorporating the integration of technology in lesson planning. Context The course Instructional Technology is required of all education majors at a four-year university in the southeastern region of the United States. We were both instructors of Instructional Technology courses during the development and implementation of the model described in this article. They also served as instructors of the university s instructional design course for teacher education candidates. The students enrolled in the Instructional Technology courses were teacher education candidates with novice-level computer skills. We categorized the students as traditional and non-traditional students. Traditional students were defined as undergraduates obtaining their first bachelor s degree, immediately following high school; non-traditional students were defined as returning students who had a college degree or were returning to school after several years away from formal schooling. These students sought to teach at the Pre-K, elementary, middle, or secondary level with discipline interests varying from Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Studies, Physical Education, Music Education, and Special Education. All sections of the course used Integrating Technology and Digital Media into the Classroom from the Shelly Cashman Series (Shelly et al., 2006). The instructors sequenced the text into eight modules. Each of the eight modules was completed in approximately two weeks,, and this course lasted about 15 weeks. Students were required to read the chapter(s) for each module and prepare for discussions about relevant issues, usually in an online discussion forum or in class, on campus. At the end of each module, students completed a project based upon the content of the chapters and appropriate technology tools. The course was presented to students in either an online or blended teaching platform, based on the instructor s teaching preference. The online and blended platforms utilized webbased teaching tools such as Blackboard Campus Edition or Vista to present materials and interact with students. The blended courses offered some face-to-face meetings on campus as well as online meetings. As instructors of the course, we generalized that the students technology experiences differed greatly. Many of the traditional students had some experience using the technologies and software programs, while the non-traditional students had little or no experience using the tools. Depending on their levels of confidence using the tools, students chose to enroll in either the online or blended sections of the course. Because many of the students enrolled in our courses may have had some experience with instructional design, we developed a module that specifically addressed using principles of instructional design in the design and development of lesson plans using technology tools. In particular, we used a product called TaskStream as a portfolio builder for students to use from their initial courses in education through completion of their degrees. Within TaskStream, students are able to choose from a selection of tools that allow multiple options for using their lesson plans in the future, including saving all of their materials onto the site for use in other classes. Students could also e-mail the plans to the instructors or peers. To provide reflective practice we required students in our courses to publish their lesson plans for review so that feedback could be given from a variety of sources. The focus of the module, entitled Using Technology to Enhance Instructional Design is a lesson plan model that we use in our state. Within this module, students build a sample lesson using an online version of the Lesson Plan template from TaskStream (Shelly et al., 2006). Students are required to plan a simple lesson on a topic of their choice, given their major and subject area. The lesson must be based on state standards and the National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS), which 46 TechTrends September/October 2008 Volume 52, Number 5

they must include and cite in their lesson plan, and designed appropriately for their learners. Students must also cite any references used in developing the lesson. The lesson plan template in TaskStream allows students to fill-in critical information such as subject, topic, grade level and a summary of the lesson (see Appendix A). Using the template, students complete the lesson plan based on sound pedagogy. It is not sufficient for students to simply fill-in the blanks of the lesson template. We required that students consider how they will use the model to design, and plan their lessons to best meet the needs of their learners and the requirements of the state and NETS. A model for instructional design for pre-service teachers A model often comes from a theoretical perspective. As Seels and Glasgow (1998) note, many differences of opinion concerning instructional design models have come from constructivists due to the cognitive principles expressed in many models (p. 183). Building on a constructivist framework, we prepared an instructional design model for how to apply the theory in practice. The model combines both theory and practice and eliminated some of the fixed steps from other traditional models. Some of these instructional models include Reiser and Dick, Teacher Decision Making model (ADDIE), and ASSURE. These models, used previously in our teaching practices, did not address the needs of the Instructional Technology course, which led to the analysis of these models along with Kemp s Model for Instructional Design (see Figure 1) and later to the development of our own model. We found that some of the models incorporated methodical features for the incorporation of technology use in teaching, however the rather linear and inflexible designs of their approaches to planning and delivering instruction were too limiting to pedagogical practices. The Reiser and Dick (1996) seven series model proved to be problematic when students tried to incorporate a variety of approaches to using technology with their instructional plans. The model as noted by Shambaugh and Magliaro (2006) did not leave any room for the in-depth analysis of the curriculum that supports technology integration. The model seemed to maintain instruction at the forefront of the planning process (Shambaugh & Magliaro, 2006, p. 40). Although Reiser and Dick (1996) indicated the importance of flexibility in planning instruction, their plan was not as flexible as they suggested. They based their steps solely on teachers first stating instructional goals and then allowing the rest to follow along that statement (p. 6). The integration of technologies by users of this model Figure 1: The Kemp Model of Instructional Design can be implemented in the choice of media step. Reiser and Dick (1996) describe this step as the physical means by which instruction is delivered to students (p. 68). We felt that because preparing teachers to select the correct media for their curriculum served as the main goal of this course, this model s approach was too restrictive. Therefore we decided against the use of the Reiser and Dick model with this course. We also considered the more widely known ASSURE model in the field of instructional technology (Heinich et al., 2002; Shelly et al., 2006). This model provides processes for implementing instruction that uses technology effectively. Shelly et al. indicated that when using technology, an instructional design model and planning take on a more important role for the teacher (2006, p. 6.22). The six stages of the ASSURE model are analyze learner; state objectives; select methods, media, and materials; utilize media and materials; require learner participation; and evaluate and revise (Shelly et al., 2006). At first glance, this model seemed ideal for our course, however, in an effort to provide students with instructional design process skills that were flexible and encompassed the principles of educational research and practice, this model seemed to fall short of our expectations. It failed to support our practice of teaching students to develop instruction that focuses not only on the learners needs but also adheres to the requirements of the state and NETS. This left us again searching for an instructional design process that would meet our goals for the courses. In teaching our instructional design courses, we came across the Shambaugh Volume 52, Number 5 TechTrends September/October 2008 47

Figure 2: The Summerville Integrated Model. and Magliaro (2006) Teacher Decision Making process which described many of the points found in ADDIE. ADDIE is one of the most widely used processes in instructional design but has come under scrutiny as to whether it is a model or process. As explained by Molenda (2003), the ADDIE model does not exist and is merely a colloquial label for the systematic development process (Morrison, Ross, Kemp, 2006, p. 13). The Teacher Decision Making process too failed to allow flexibility in it linear arrangement. Jennifer Summerville had used the Kemp Model of Instructional Design previously in an instructional design course and thought that it may be a good design for this course. The Kemp model (Kemp & Smellie, 1994) has an elliptical nature in addressing the core processes for instruction. We both found the unique design of the model to be a good fit with our own teaching pedagogy. However, we both felt that the model did not address how knowledge is transferred among the tiers. We felt it would not help our student effectively incorporate technology in planning their instructional tasks. Jennifer Summerville, the author of the model shown in Figure 2, took a more circular, cyclical approach to the design of instruction and less of a linear approach. This circular model allowed incorporation of the different elements that are important to the overall design of instruction and supported design of instruction developed and implemented for preservice teachers in the undergraduate course. The model s outer layers of Learner Analysis, Instructional Strategies and Task Analysis are the beginning steps in the process of instructional design. We addressed the first tier only briefly in this course because they are covered more thoroughly in the instructional design course. The focus of the instructional technology courses begins with the second tier where one finds Media (which includes both Design and Selection), Content Analysis, Government Mandates and Lesson Planning. We continue through both Assessment and Evaluation and finally end with our most important goal, the Transfer of knowledge. This is not only a design model but also a teaching model. The circular nature of the new instructional design model allows for maximum flexibility in design. We view the use of this model as stressing re-visitation of each section within each tier. One can begin with Government Mandates, for example, and revisit them at any time. However, movement from one tier to the next does not indicate that the previous tier should be forgotten. Therefore, we believe the review of the first tier is essential for students in this course. Each of the tiers does have its own importance and should be visited and somewhat completed in a sequential order. After all, one does not begin with the concept of Transfer. That is an endstate. How the course modules fit the design model The eight modules of the Instructional Technology course provide students with experiences to meet some of the basic computer competencies stated in ISTE National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS-T) and Students (NETS-S). Within each of the modules, students learn the mechanics of the technologies and demonstrate an understanding of how to integrate them into the classroom. Aligning with the model, the course goal is for students to develop lessons that impact the learners cognition and academic achievement (Anonymous, 2004). Each module supports this goal by providing instructional activities for students to obtain application skills as they interact with various media. During these interactions with different media, students learn to focus on applications relevant to their specific content as they develop their lesson. Each module project is evaluated by a group of peers for adherence to required criteria. Students have an opportunity to review and discuss the projects prior to final review by the instructor. They also have an opportunity to review and evaluate their own work in a final portfolio project in which they can make changes to all of the modules to create the best body of work possible to represent their knowledge of a variety of media. 48 TechTrends September/October 2008 Volume 52, Number 5

Module one: In this first module, students are required to have an understanding of NETS (International Society for Technology in Education, 2000-2002) and apply that understanding of the standards to a project in which they are given a budget for purchasing technology and supportive equipment and materials. They write up the budget and rationale using a word processing program. Within the first module, students must take into account media, government mandates, content analysis, and planning. They also begin to touch on the inner circles of assessment, evaluation, and transfer. Module two: Students select an educational website for evaluation. The website is of their choosing but must be educational in nature (as opposed to a website for business or training). The evaluation form focuses on critical evaluation of not only media attributes but what students learn from the site. In addition, we require students to explain how the website that they review may or may not meet NETS and how the site may or may not be appropriate in the classroom (as a part of both content analysis and lesson planning). The emphasis of this project is on the whole of the process from media attributes to transfer. Module three: Students use TaskStream to help them develop a lesson plan. Students must identify state standards and possibly NETS that apply to their lessons, they select media, methods and materials to use in their classrooms, they analyze content for the lesson, and they plan the lesson, using the Six Point Lesson Plan template (see Appendix A). Students also plan for assessment and evaluation within their lesson plan. In addition, because this project is so comprehensive, the emphasis is on transfer of knowledge from one daily lesson to the next. Students not only learn how to encourage transfer within their own lessons but they, as students, are encouraged to transfer their own knowledge of lessons, media and instructional design to other modules. The key to this module is not the tool but the use of the tool in an appropriate manner. Some students initially fill in the blanks with minimal verbiage. We discourage surface thinking and encourage students to consider their actual classrooms while they design their lessons. Since students have the ability to easily share their plans with others with the click of a button they can receive feedback on the quality of their lessons from multiple resources. Module four: Students use PowerPoint for a part of the lesson that they have designed. They are to take state standards and NETS into account when they create their PowerPoint lesson. They subscribe to good media design standards as they create their PowerPoint so that they use the media to its best advantage (as opposed to creating something loud with clashing colors). Students use the PowerPoint presentation that they created for Module 4 as a part of an overall lesson plan and analyze the content that they include in the presentation. The product should align with their lesson created in module three. In this module, the following standards are addressed: NETS-S 3A, 3B, 4A, and 6B (International Society for Technology in Education, 2000-2002). This module allows students to further analyze media and content relevant for developing the activity. Students are required to plan for the assessment of the content that they present in their PowerPoint and should plan to have their media, methods, and materials evaluated by peers and possibly their own students. Module five: Students use the Microsoft Excel program to develop classroom record keeping skills by creating an electronic grade book. Student use the tools in Excel to calculate students grades and create graphs to compare students performances. In addition to creating a grade book, students produce a progress report they would distribute to parents. The assignment requires students to compare the scores of an individual student in their grade book with that of the entire class through the use of graphs. Students also are required to use the If-Then command and create their own quizzes using the instructions given. They are encouraged to share their If-Then quizzes with a peer to check for accuracy. Module six: Students create a WebQuest for use in their classroom. The comprehensive nature of a WebQuest lends itself to the whole of the circular module. WebQuests can be a powerful tool for educators because they can be implemented at almost every grade level and with different subject matter. They also make good use of timely information gained from online resources, which may be updated more often than print-based materials (Summerville, 2000).The development of these tools further extends students exposure to lesson design by requiring analysis of appropriate media and awareness of government mandates in publishing items on-line. Each module project is evaluated by a group of peers for adherence to required criteria. Students have an opportunity to review and discuss the projects prior to final review by the instructor. Volume 52, Number 5 TechTrends September/October 2008 49

Module seven: Students evaluate media by completing evaluation of one of the computer software programs available in the education computer lab. Kathy Shrock s (2006) Website Evaluation Form and the Software Evaluation Rubric developed by Shelly et al. (2006) were used in this module. As with the web evaluation, students discussed the relevance of the program to their curriculum and grade level. The software evaluation tool allows students to develop skills using decision making rubrics as they learn to select appropriate materials for their learner s needs. This module leads to competence in evaluating media that will empower learners to transfer knowledge learned into real classroom settings. Module eight: Students create a PowerPoint presentation regarding the integration of emerging technologies in their classrooms. It is a persuasive presentation with a main objective of the assignment being that students are able to address objections about newer technologies and how those technologies can be used effectively and efficiently in the classroom. Once again, the presentations are peer reviewed, either in a faceto-face class setting or online. The final evaluation tool for this course consists of an electronic portfolio in which students compile their products from the eight modules. The portfolio is developed on TaskStream and the required products are consistent for each section of the Instructional Technology course. The products are evaluated by peers and individual instructors of the Instructional Technology course. The portfolio provides evidence that students are competent in complying with the basic computer NETS and are able to transfer knowledge of computer integration into an actual classroom. All core education courses require the use of TaskStream to build a pre-admittance portfolio whereby assignments can be used in methods classes and reviewed by methods faculty. The Instructional Technology final portfolio can be used as a stand-alone representation of the work completed in Instructional Technology and as a model for creating a portfolio product for other classes. Use of the model in reflective practice Due to the circular nature of the Summerville Integrated Model, students and practitioners are encouraged to explore each ring of the model, section by section, until one is satisfied that each section is completed in an appropriate and thorough manner. As in the real world of the professional instructional designer, sections may be revisited as warranted by formative evaluation. If, for example, it is discovered that a NETS or state standard has been overlooked or shortchanged, the missing information can be included before it impacts transfer. As one may note from both the model and the explanation of the modules within the undergraduate Instructional Technology course, we strive for students to understand that integrating technology into instruction is not a simple matter of using the tools. It is also not a use it and forget it proposition. Everything that we do every tool that we select every standard to which we adhere all the content that we design every time we assess, evaluate and revise, we are working toward a common goal (Summerville, 2006). That goal is the transfer of knowledge to other subjects. To this end, the Summerville Integrated Model is a model of instructional design both for teachers as learners and for them to take with them into their own classrooms. Summary and recommendations We have found that this model and approach to learning has worked well for teaching pre-service teachers and appears to be a positive learning experience for our students. Many of the methods faculty are pleased with the abilities of students to create lessons that are learner appropriate. Students feel more confident about designing lessons and using the toolsets presented in class as a part of their own classrooms. Some of our colleague s concerns include the amount of time needed to address the instructional planning issue in the Instructional Technology course. Many fear that too much time allocated in the course for instructional design may take away from the instructional time for teaching new technologies. Although we have not found this to be the case as yet, the increasing complexity of the tools may necessitate that the course be redesigned or even split into two separate courses (e.g., Tools and Integration ). The model that we proposed allows for higher-level thinking and reflection of teacher candidates. It provides for the opportunity of peer and self-evaluation. The practical experiences that students are presented with during these courses lead to quality products that they can use in their own classrooms. Students are able to focus on the process of instructional design and technology integration, so the inevitable obsolescence of tools becomes less of an issue. Instead of a focus on cutting edge, changeable technology tools, our students focus on transfer and that is our main goal. 50 TechTrends September/October 2008 Volume 52, Number 5

Taskstream Lesson Plan Template Vital Information Author: Title of Lesson: Subject(s): Topic or Unit of Study: Grade/Level: Summary: Focus and Review (Establish Prior Knowledge) Statement (Inform) of Objectives Teacher Input (Present Tasks, Information, and Guidance) Guided Practice (Elicit Performance) Independent Practice: Seatwork and Homework (Retain and Transfer) Closure (Plan for Maintenance) Standards North Carolina Standard Course of Study: NETS-Students: NETS-Teachers: References Cite Standards from lesson curriculum area and NETS (for students) and cite all references. Save copy of lesson on USB drive in initials folder. Upload lesson on WEBCT and submit Desktop Project Assignment. Appendix A: Taskstream Lesson Plan Template Jennifer Summerville serves as the Associate Dean for Distance Learning and the Weekend College at Collin College and was previously an Associate Professor of Instructional Design at University of North Carolina at Wilmington and an Assistant Professor of Instructional Design and Technology at Emporia State University. Her research interests include learner-centered and policy issues in online and distance education and cognitive and personality issues in the design and development of instruction in both corporate and educational environments. She received her Ph.D. from University of Northern Colorado in Educational Technology, holds an M.S. in Computer Education and Cognitive Systems from University of North Texas, and has a B.B.A in Marketing from Baylor University. dr_j2@yahoo.com Angelia Reid-Griffin is an Assistant Professor in the Instructional Technology, Foundations and Secondary Education Department at the University of North Carolina Wilmington s School of Education. Her teaching and research interests include using technology as an instructional and learning tool, motivating students to enter science, math, and technology careers and minority teacher shortage. griffin@uncw.edu References Anonymous. (2004). Instructional technology education syllabus. UNC-Wilmington: Watson School of Education. Bowsher, J. E. (1989). Educating America: Lessons learned in the nation s corporations. New York: Wiley. Gagne, R., Wager, W., Golas, K., & Keller, J. (2005). Principles of instructional design (5th ed.) Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Heinich, M., Molenda, M., Russell, J., & Smaldino, S. (2002). Instructional media and technologies for learning (7th ed). Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall. (Shelly book).international Society for Technology in Education. (2000-2002). National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS-T). Retrieved November 1, 2006, from http:// cnets.iste.org/teachers/t_profile-stu.html Kemp, J. & Smellie, D. (1994). Planning, producing, and using instructional technologies (7 th ed.). Harper Collins Publishers. Morgan, R. M. (1989). Instructional systems development in third world countries. Educational Technology Research & Development, 37, 47-56. Morrison, G. R., S. M. Ross, et al. (2007). Designing effective instruction. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Reiser, R. A., & W. Dick (1996). Instructional Planning: A guide for teachers. Boston, Allyn and Bacon. Schrock, K. (2006). Critical evaluation of a web site: Websites for use by educators. Retrieved August 1, 2006, from http://discoveryschool.com/schrockguide/ Seels, B., & Z. Glasgow (1998). Making instructional design decisions. Upper Saddle River, Prentice Hall. Shambaugh, N., & S. G. Magliaro (2006). Instructional Design: A systematic approach for reflective practice. Boston, Pearson A and B. Shellbecker, G. (1974). Learning theory, instructional theory, and psychoeducational design. New York: McGraw-Hill. Shelly, G., Cashman, T. J., Gunter, G. A., & Gunter, R. E. (2006). Teachers discovering computers: Integrating technology and digital media in the classroom (4th ed.). Boston: Thomson Course Technology. Summerville, J. (2006). The Summerville Integrated Model of Instructional Design. Summerville, J. (2000). WebQuests as a part of technology integration: Training preservice teachers. TechTrends, March/April. TaskStream. (2002-2007). TaskStream Tools of Engagement. Retrieved May 8, 2004, from http://www.taskstream.com Volume 52, Number 5 TechTrends September/October 2008 51