EDIT 6150
Introduction to Computer-Based Education
Instructor: Dr. Lloyd Rieber
Fall, 2007
Technology Integration Literature Summary and Critique
Submitted by
Peggy Britt
Why is the process of integrating technology into the K-12 classroom such a slow one?
Is there just one roadblock, or are there many? Since the inception of ARPAnet, one
might think that educators would enthusiastically seize the virtually infinite capacity to
store and share knowledge. ARPAnet (Advanced Research Projects Agency) was
developed in 1969 by the Department of Defense as a system for sharing information
among researchers and those in higher education. Now, almost forty years later, what
started with the connection of four university computers to be used by researchers and
scientists has morphed into the Internet as we know it today and has expanded to
encompass millions of computers being used on a daily basis by every-day people.
Today the Internet is big business.
Unfortunately, technology in education is not big business. “Paul Mort and his
colleagues found that a considerable time lag was required for the adoption of
educational innovations. „The average American school lags 25 years behind the best
practice‟ (Mort, 1953).” So, how do we catch up? Where do we start? Do we start with
the students currently in college studying to become teachers and then let attrition take
care of the current teachers? Do we really want to wait that long? No? Then what can
“we” do to speed up the process?
Let us step back a moment and consider why current K-12 teachers are reluctant to use
technology. Of course, not all of them are reluctant; but enough. Some people think too
many. Is it simply a matter of not being able to teach old dogs new tricks? And is it only
the older teachers, or are the younger teachers resistant as well? What will it take to
affect change in the way that technology is used in the K-12 classroom? Larry Cuban,
author of Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom, believes there are two
types of change: first-order change and second-order change. Ertmer (1999) refers to
first-order change as external change, occurring external to the individual. It is a
superficial alteration, where current practices are not really changed. Ertmer refers to
second-order change as internal change, and is deep internalized change in an
individual‟s belief structure. He says, “second-order changes confront fundamental
beliefs about current practice, thus leading to new goals, structures, or roles” (Ertmer, p.
48).
Cuban‟s study found that a teacher‟s belief structure about teaching and learning is one of
the most important factors that inhibited a teacher‟s adoption of the technology
integration pedagogy. The study also confirmed three inhibitors to the adoption of
technology integration strategies: 1) time to learn how to use the technology, 2) lack of
training, and 3) the unreliability of the technology itself. To me, the first two inhibitors
beg the question of why technology integration is not so infused in our Colleges of
Education that each year‟s graduation class of new teachers could not imagine teaching
any other way. Everyone likes a “better mousetrap” so to speak, and beliefs often change
by seeing that better mousetrap in operation. The unreliability of technology can, no
doubt, be a frustration to teachers; especially to teachers just beginning to use technology.
Until technology does become more reliable in the classroom, the flexibility to perhaps
change the order of one‟s (lesson) plans or to have a Plan B comes in handy.
What about current teachers? Brinkerhoff (2006) states that “transitioning teachers from
novice technology users to effective technology integrators capable of supporting student
learning generally takes three to five years.” According to Becker (2001), there are some
steps that can be taken to help teachers make that second-order change, such as
increasing the number of computers in their classroom and developing a process of
professional learning. Some school districts may not have the funds or the resources
available to provide the extra computers or the necessary staff development. Perhaps this
would be an opportunity for partnerships to form between school districts and universities
or businesses. Perhaps a “buddy” system would be possible between more affluent or
technologically advanced school districts with school districts in need of help.
Using the constructionist learning model is an excellent way to integrate technology into
the classroom. Constructionism stems from one of the teaching methods used by teachers
today called constructivism. Constructivism is based on the philosophy of Jean Piaget
and states that students construct their own knowledge by building upon prior knowledge
and that students are active participants in creating this knowledge, not merely passive
recipients. Reeves (1998) believed that computers become cognitive tools when
combined with the constructivist model of teaching.
Taking constructivism (the “v” word) a step further is constructionism (the “n” word) in
which students create a public artifact. WebQuests are one example of project-based
constructionist learning. Students can be motivated by the authentic question of the
WebQuest, by the variety of tools and resources available for them to use, and by the
solution or artifact produced. The focus of WebQuests is on “using information instead
of looking for it” (Starr, 2000). Tom March (1998) states that it is important to link
WebQuests to previous and subsequent activities so that the WebQuest is not an isolated
experience disconnected from the rest of the curriculum. March believes that WebQuests
are a wonderful tool to prompt higher level thinking. Bernie Dodge, a professor at San
Diego State University, and Tom March created WebQuests in 1995. Dodge‟s website,
http://www.webquest.org, contains free WebQuests for teachers to use, as well as free
templates to create their own. Another excellent site for WebQuest templates is
http://www.questgarden.com, thought this site charges a nominal fee of $20 per year after
the initial free thirty-day trial period. Tom March‟s site, http://www.bestwebquests.com,
helps teachers find excellent existing WebQuests.
An alternate to WebQuests are homemade PowerPoint games (Rieber, 2001). Since
PowerPoint is a common, easy to use program, many teachers are comfortable and
willing to use it. For teachers who are more comfortable with technology, homemade
PowerPoint games can be used in the constructionist way by letting students design the
games themselves. For teachers who are less comfortable, the games can be used as an
instructivist tool. PowerPoint games and templates can be found at
http://it.coe.uga.edu/wwild/pptgames/ and other sites on the Internet. Another
stimulating constructionist tool is LEGO/Logo. Students have used LEGO/Logo to
create artifacts, such as a snake and to program its behavior, merging fantasy with science
and math. An Internet search will reveal that templates abound for a variety of games
and activities for the classroom.
We see that there is certainly no shortage of ideas and resources for integrating
technology in the classroom. So why are so many current teachers not using technology
in their classrooms? Why hasn‟t it caught on? What are the barriers? Thomas L
Friedman, author of The World is Flat: A Brief History of the 21st Century, p. 462, states
“People don‟t change when you tell them they should. They change when they tell
themselves they must.”
Michael Fullan‟s study of educational change reports that people do not “resist change as
much as they don‟t know how to cope with it” (p. xii) and this inability to cope with
change is caused by a feeling of “loss, anxiety, and struggle” (p. 30). To overcome these
feelings of uncertainty and anxiety which prevent teachers‟ ability to accept change, it is
essential that teachers have a shared meaning of that change and why the change will
benefit teaching and learning and, ultimately, the student.
Fullan (2001) believes that a shared meaning helps alleviate the anxiety of implementing
any educational change and he argues that, “First, change will always fail until we find
some way of developing infrastructures and processes that engage teachers in developing
new understandings. Second, it turns out that we are talking not about surface meaning,
but rather a deep meaning about new approaches to teaching and learning” (p. 37).
Dr. Sylvia Charp recounts a tale of needing to justify the use of school technology each
year at budget time. Times have changed and now technology is accepted in schools, but
it is not yet universal. When will the time come that students no longer lug backpacks
home that are much too heavy; but, instead, have a copy of their textbooks on CD or
online? When will educational technology be no more daunting than using a toaster?
What will it take to make the change?
Everett Rogers‟ (2003) theory of the diffusion of innovations indicates that a number
somewhere between 10% and 20% is needed to create a critical mass of adopters in any
successful innovation. Literature (Darling-Hammond, 2003) indicates that 33% of
teachers will leave the teaching profession within the first five years. The U.S. Census
Bureau reports there were 6.8 million teachers in the United States during 2006-2007.
The National Center for Education Statistics predicts that 1.7 new teachers will be needed
in 2008-2009. The percentage of new teachers during 2008-2009 appears to be well
above the needed 10% - 20% (Rogers, 2003) to create a critical mass of adopters for a
successful technological innovation for our education system, provided the new teachers
are prepared. Perhaps the answer lies in our programs preparing our new teachers, while
at the same time providing the necessary professional development for our existing
teachers.
References
Charp, S. (2002). Educators' Acceptance of Computer Technology?. T.H.E. Journal ,
29(9) [On-line]. Available: http://www.thejournal.com/magazine/vault/A3953.cfm
Grant, M. (2002). Getting a grip on project-based learning: Theory, cases, and
recommendations. Meridian: Middle School Computer Technology Journal , 5(1)
[On-line]. Available: http://www.ncsu.edu/meridian/win2002/514/index.html
Hussar, W.J. (1999). Predicting the Need for Newly Hired Teachers in the United States
to 2008-09 (NCES 1999-026). Retrieved Nov. 27, 2007, from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/Vol_1/1_4/3-esq14-g.asp
March, T. (1998). Why WebQuests? An introduction. [Online] Available:
http://tommarch.com/writings/intro_wq.php
Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.),
Constructionism (pp. 1-11), Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Rieber, L.P. (2004) Homemade PowerPoint Games: A Constructionist Alternative to
WebQuests [On-line]. Available: http://it.coe.uga.edu/wwild/pptgames/ppt-games-
paper.html
SearchNetworking.com Definitions. Retrieved Nov. 28, 2007, from
http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid7_gci213782,00.html
Shattuck, G. (2007). The Historical Development of Instructional Technology Integration
in K-12 Education. The University of Georgia. Unpublished manuscript.
U.S. Census Bureau (August 16, 2006 (reissued)). Back to School: 2006-2007. Retrieved
Nov. 27, 2007, from http://www.census.gov/Press-
Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/007108.html