• Math Topics
• Common Core
• Initiatives
• Methodology
• Resources
• Projects
• Manipulatives
• Software
• Learning Support
• Standardized Test Prep
• Technology Integration
• Assisting Readers
• Professionalism
• Associations
• Journals
• News
• Professional Development
• Standards
• Educational Research
• CT4ME Publications

Are you confused by terms that educators use? The ASCD Lexicon of Learning might be what you need.

 

 

 

Technology Integration

Part 1: Essential Questions (Page 1 of 2)

 

How is educational technology defined?

Historically, there have been numerous definitions and statements concerning the nature and function of educational technology, according to Saettler (2004).  Educational technology has been a term including both instructional technologies, which focus on the teacher and the pedagogies they might employ, and learning technologies, which focus on the learner.  Its meaning has been "intertwined with certain historical conceptions and practices or bound to specific philosophical and psychological theory as well as with particular scientific orientations" and clouded by "the tendency in some quarters to equate new information technology with a technology of instruction" (Saettler, 2004, p. 5).  In the 20th century, four paradigm shifts, each with different philosophical and theoretical orientations, affected theory and practice and definitions of educational technology.  Saettler characterized those as "(1) the physical science or media view; (2) the communications and systems concept; (3) the behavioral science-based view . . .; and (4) the cognitive science perspective" (p. 7).

Definitions, and resulting mindset of the educational technologist, have been influenced by the nature of technology of the time and what could be done with it.  In the early and mid-20th century, the focus was on using tools associated with instructional technologies from blackboards to overhead projectors, B. F. Skinner's learning machines, films and movies, and mainframe computers. However, the advent of computer terminals, personal computers, the Internet, and the growth of broadband communications in the late 20^th century enabled mindset shifts toward learning technologies, as those advances enabled greater interactivity and increased possibilities for collaboration among learners.

Thus in the 21st century, we see definitions reflecting a new mindset leaning toward learning technologies and on how instructional technologies can best serve learning. For example, the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) defines educational technology as "the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using and managing appropriate technological processes and resources” (Richey, Silber, & Ely, 2008, p. 24).  AECT has also addressed this issue fully in its book Educational Technology: A Definition with Commentary, edited by Alan Januszewski and Michael Molenda (2007).

 

 

Back to top

 

How is technology affecting the learning process?

Nature of Learning

Technology is changing the nature of learning.  As noted in the National Education Technology Plan 2010 (U.S. Department of Education, 2010), there are "three connected types of human learning—factual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and motivational engagement ...  supported by three different brain systems. ... Social sciences reveal that human expertise integrates all three types of learning. Technology has increased our ability to both study and enhance all three types of learning" (p. 15).

One does not have to look far to see the affect and influence of the rise of broadband Internet connectivity, the increase in social networking, and greater use of mobile devices on learning.  These have enabled those who possess technology to quickly capture knowledge and information, easily communicate, get feedback from, and collaborate with peers.  Technology becomes another vehicle for creativity, self-expression, and self-production and publication.

Empowering Students

Technology is empowering students in four key ways, according to Lemke and Coughlin (2009): democratization of knowledge, participatory learning, authentic learning and multimodal learning.  Democratization is brought about because the "Internet has become a treasure trove for content related to the academic curriculum, providing learners with free access to thousands of valuable courses, information sources, and experts" (p. 54).  "The advent of low-cost global communications has led to mass collaboration in the social, economic, and political sectors" (p. 56) and has found its way into classrooms.  Teachers and students can use tools such as blogs and wikis for participatory and authentic learning in the context of those global issues. Sophisticated media combining text and visuals is supporting multimodal learning, but at the same time is posing challenges for educators in terms of helping learners to interpret and understand multimedia messages (Lemke & Coughlin, 2009).

This multimodal learning is evident in the what 21st century students have come to expect in their learning.  They want learning on demand and speed is the name of the game.  They are not afraid of technology. They multi-task, think less linearly than those of us over 30, enjoy fantasy as an element of their lives, are less tolerant of passive activities, and use their tools to stay connected with each other.  That connectedness is the main goal of their multitasking, according to Sprenger (2009), rather than for being productive.  However, excessive connectedness can lead to stress, which overtime can potentially "lower the effectiveness of the immune system, weaken cognitive functioning, and, in some cases, lead to depression" (p. 36).  Their excessive communicating digitally, while being efficient, also has the potential to weaken the development of emotional intelligence in dealing with face-to-face situations (e.g., reading facial cues and body language).

Probable Effects on Cognition

The rapid way in which ideas become freely available, the desire to get that information quickly, and the instantaneous way of switching from one source to another potentially affects learning in yet other ways.  While Schmidt (2010) noted benefits of technology (e.g., online gaming improves strategic reasoning, navigational reasoning, and hand-eye coordination), he voiced a concern that people might be losing deep-reading skills, as they spend less time reading long-form literature passages.  This probably has an effect on cognition and reading, although no one really knows what that does.

In Gasser and Palfrey's (2009) view, multitasking is not going to go away.  It helps today's youth to cope with the vast amount of information coming their way.  It takes on a couple of forms: parallel processing or doing more than one thing at the same time and task-switching or quickly changing from doing one thing to doing another.  Rather than preventing our students from multitasking, a better approach would be to help students understand how multitasking challenges their learning.  After reviewing several studies on the affects of multitasking, Gasser and Palfrey concluded:

• Multitasking does not render learning impossible.  It does not even necessarily make it more difficult to accomplish tasks.  However, we can safely conclude that task-switching in particular increases the amount of time needed to finish a task.
• Multitasking is likely to change learning qualitatively by making the learner rely on different memory systems that vary in flexibility when it comes to the use of knowledge.
• The loss of attention and the time spent switching from task to task is likely to have an adverse effect on digital natives' ability to learn complex new facts and concepts.  (p. 18)

Multitasking and participatory learning can be seen in the online activities of youth, many of whom benefit from the informal settings and activities they have defined for themselves.  In what has been called "the most extensive U.S. study of youth media use" to date, Mizuko Ito, Heather Horst, Matteo Bittanti, Danah Boyd, Becky Herr-Stephenson, Patricia G. Lange, C.J. Pascoe, and Laura Robinson (2008) found that youth use online media to extend friendships and interests. They engage in peer-based, self-directed learning online (pp. 1-2). The scenario has implications for instructional designers and educators:

• Adults should facilitate young people's engagement with digital media. "Contrary to adult perceptions, while hanging out online, youth are picking up basic social and technical skills they need to fully participate in contemporary society. Erecting barriers to participation deprives teens of access to these forms of learning" (p. 2).
• Youth using new media often learn from their peers, not teachers or adults. Yet, in interest-driven participation, adults have an important role to play (e.g. in setting learning goals) (pp. 2-3).
• To stay relevant in the 21st century, education institutions need to keep pace with the rapid changes introduced by digital media.

Commenting on results of a Pew Internet & American Life Project report, psychology professor Larry Rosen (2013) pointed out the multitasking with technology that learners do also can negatively affect academic performance in school as learners are unable to focus for long periods of time on any one task.  They might be only able to stay on task for as little as 3-5 minutes before being distracted by such things as having multiple devices in their study environments (e.g., iPods, laptops, smart phones), texting, and using Facebook (p. 62).

So how should educators facilitate young people's engagement with digital media?  The key is teaching learners how to focus using a process in instruction involving "technology breaks."  According to Rosen (2013):

A tech breaks starts with the teacher asking all students to check their texts, the web, Facebook, whatever, for a minute and then turn the device on silent and place it upside down on the desk in plain sight and to "focus" on the classroom work for 15 minutes.  The upside-down device prohibits external distractions from vibrations and flashing alerts and provide a signal to the brain that there is no need to be internally distracted, because an opportunity to "check in" will be coming soon. (p. 64)

At the end of the focus time, the tech break begins again, and the cycle continues.  Teachers might begin with a focus time of about 15 minutes, gradually increasing the focus time between tech breaks.  However, they might find the maximum focus time might reach about 30 minutes.  Rosen indicated that this technique has also proved successful at the dinner table at home or in restaurants, and during business meetings.

Rise of Informal Learning and New Learning Theory

Technology has also contributed to a rise in informal learning, or at least has made it more evident.  While content and courses are still viewed as the starting point of learning, George Siemens (2005a) indicated that the Web and the Internet are changing that, proof of which is illustrated in Ito and colleagues' study (2008) and in Lemke and Coughlin's view that the Internet has been a change agent for democratization of knowledge (2009).  The majority of education no longer occurs in formal settings.  People are learning "through communities of practice, personal networks, and through completion of work-related tasks" in an environment in which "[k]now-how and know-what is being supplemented with know-where (the understanding of where to find knowledge needed)" (Introduction section). Thus, he viewed making connections, not content, should be perceived as the beginning point of the learning process.

Siemens' theory "connectivism" calls for a rethinking of learning in the digital age, illustrating that technology has led to new learning theory.  To date theories of behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism have dominated instructional design and still have their place in the domains of learning (see Table 1).  However, those theories are challenged in the digital age because "[m]any of the processes previously handled by learning theories (especially in cognitive information processing) can now be off-loaded to, or supported by, technology" (Siemens, 2005a, Introduction).  In contrast to established theories of learning, the essence of connectivism is that learning is viewed as a connections/network-forming process (Siemens, 2005c).

Connectivism recognizes that learning resides in a collective of individuals' opinions and even in non-human appliances. Core skills include an ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts and to locate sources of unknown knowledge when you need it at its point of application.  The intent of learning activities is currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge).  Because knowledge is increasing exponentially, it can rapidly change what is perceived as a reality.  Thus, the decision making process (what to learn and its meaning) is a learning process itself (Siemens, 2005a).  The process is complicated by new communications tools that have sprung up, which give greater end-user control over what is published on the Web, resulting in some amateur contributions of questionable quality.

 

Table 1: Learning Domains with Associated Theories
Learning Domain	Associated Theories	Traits	Percent of learning over a lifetime contributed by the domain
Transmission: Learning as instructor led courses, lectures, demonstrations	Behaviorism & Cognitivism	High organizational control over content and structure; Learning is mastering pre-determined objectives; developmental and formative learning occurs; formal learning	about 10%
Emergence: Learning as reflection and cognition	Cognitivism & Constructivism	High personal control over content and structure; Learning is learner constructed; personal learning and innovation occur; informal learning	about 1-2%
Acquisition: Learning as self-selected (e.g., exploring, experimenting, self-instruction, inquiry, satisfying a curiosity)	Constructivism & Connectivism	High personal control over content with some personal control over structure.  Learning is learner motivated, collaborative; involves a variety of sources; group and needs-based learning occurs; informal learning	about 20%
Accretion: Learning as continual/embedded process; often subliminal or unconscious (e.g., accounting for learning of language, culture, habits, prejudices, social rules, behaviors)	Connectivism	High personal control over content with high organizational control over structure; Learning in a network; knowing-where to find information is valued; connection-making; informal learning	about 70%
Sources for content and percentages adapted from: Siemens, G. (2005). Learning development model: Bridging learning design and modern knowledge needs. Elearnspace. Retrieved July 24, 2007 from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/ldc.htm  Wilson, L. O., (1997). Types of learning. Retrieved September 12, 2012 from http://www4.uwsp.edu/education/lwilson/learning/typesofl.htm

 

Personalization as a Trend in Life-Long Learning

Personalization is among trends driving the global economy, and this is no less true when working with technology, and the internet (Kelleher, 2006).  According to Siemens (2005b), learning ecologies and networks are structures that enable continual and personalized learning and should be considered in instructional design.  Learning communities, information sources, and individuals can all be considered nodes or connection points in a network and it only takes two nodes to share resources.  Networks need to occur within an ecology.  An ecological approach to learning is open, adaptive, decentralized, tolerates experimentation/failure, reflects a need for simplicity, promotes trust and learning in safe environments, and includes many tools for dialogue and making connections.  A learning ecology includes the following (Siemens, 2005b, sec: Learning Ecology):

• A space for gurus and beginners to connect (master/apprentice)
• A space for self-expression (blog, journal)
• A space for debate and dialogue (listserv, discussion forum, open meetings)
• A space to search archived knowledge (portal, website)
• A space to learn in a structured manner (courses, tutorials)
• A space to communicate new information and knowledge indicative of changing elements within the field of practice (news, research)

Ultimately, the value of the theory of connectivism is its link to the concept of life-long learning.  According to Siemens (2005c), "We are moving from formal, rigid learning into an environment of informal, connection-based, network-creating learning...Knowing is no longer a destination. Knowing is a process of walking in varying degrees of alignment with a dynamic environment" (Conclusion section). Gone are the days of "this is what it is."

For personalized learning to really take-off in classrooms and revolutionize education, technology will need to be at the forefront.  According to Thomas Greaves (2012), the most effective implementations include a "well-implemented 1-to-1 laptop initiative," "learning management systems ...because they provide the framework that supports several different personalization functions without adding a lot of extra work for the teacher," "access to online remedial coursework," and "open access to search tools" (p. 35).

Educators must keep in mind, however, that a true personalized learning environment (PLE) "draws on a variety of discrete tools, chosen by the learner, which can be connected or used in concert in a transparent way. ... a PLE is not simply a technology but an approach or process that is individualized by design, and thus different from person to person. It involves sociological and philosophical considerations and cannot be packaged, passed out, and handed around as a cell phone or tablet computer could. Widespread adoption of PLEs ... will almost certainly also require a shift in attitudes toward technology, teaching, and learning" (Johnson, Adams, & Haywood, 2011, p. 30).

 

 

Emerging Technologies Impact Teaching and Learning

The K-12 Horizon Reports (Johnson, Adams, & Haywood, 2011; Johnson, Levine, Smith, & Haywood, 2010; Johnson, Levine, Smith, & Smythe, 2009) lend support to views expressed above. Written as a joint effort of the New Media Consortium and the Consortium for School Networking (CoSN) with funding from Microsoft, the reports examine "emerging technologies for their potential impact on and use in teaching, learning, and creative expression within the environment of pre-college education" (Johnson, Levine, Smith, & Smythe, 2009, p. 3).  Thus in summation, look for the following predictions from the 2009 report for technology adoptions that will change the learning process in the near future:

• In one year or less: collaborative environments and online communication tools.  Johnson, Levine, Smith, and Smythe (2009) indicated, “both groups of technologies are now standard in the digital toolset of postsecondary students. In many grade schools, on the other hand, integrating these kinds of technologies into teaching and learning has proven difficult because of barriers such as policy constraints on using online tools, the fact that many students do not bring laptops to school (as opposed to many college students, who do), and policies that restrict Internet access in many schools” (p. 4).

• Within two to three years, mobiles and cloud computing.  This time estimate "is a reflection of the fact that younger students are, at present, less likely than college-age students to carry mobile devices, especially Internet-capable ones — although there is a growing trend that suggests this will not always be the case — and that access to cloud-based applications is more difficult for younger students for the same reasons that collaborative environments and online communication tools are often out of reach” (p. 4). Note that cloud computing refers to large groups of networked servers, which have "made processing power and storage capacity available in abundant quantities. Applications that are developed to run in the cloud and take advantage of the ability to scale up or down along with the number of users and storage demands are changing the way we think about programs and files. Collaborative work, research, social networking, media sharing, virtual computers: all are enabled by applications that live in the cloud” (p. 5).

• In four to five years, smart objects and the personal web . Smart object appliances aimed at consumers are appearing on the market, and the technology shows promise for linking physical objects with rich caches of online content, but common use in schools is still several years away. The technology was placed on the same horizon in the higher education edition of the 2009 Horizon Report. The personal web, on the other hand, is perceived as being slightly closer to mainstream adoption in higher education than in grade schools; the topic appears on the mid-term horizon for higher education” (p. 4).

From the 2010 K-12 Horizon Report, Johnson, Levine, Smith, and Haywood (2010) noted that cloud computing and collaborative environments remain as top emerging technologies for adoptions within 2010-2011, followed by interest in and rise of adoptions of game-based-learning and mobiles within two to three years from 2010.  On a further horizon, set for four to five years away from 2010, look for adoptions of augmented reality and flexible displays, which are elaborated on within this report. Of key interest is that technology integration is challenged by the fundamental structure of K-12 education.  Unfortunately, many activities related to learning and education that take place outside the school setting are often undervalued or not acknowledged.  Table 2 contains comparisons of emerging technologies from K-12 Horizon Reports from 2009-2012.

 

Table 2: Emerging Technologies Predicted in K-12 Horizon Reports 2009-2012
Time	2009	2010	2011	2012
1 yr. or less	Collaborative environments and online communication	Cloud computing and collaborative environments	Mobile apps and cloud computing	Mobile devices and apps; and tablet computing
2-3 yrs.	Mobiles and cloud computing	Game-based learning and mobiles	Game-based learning and open content	Game-based learning and personal learning environments
4-5 yrs.	Smart objects and the personal web	Augmented reality and flexible displays	Personalized learning environments and learning analytics	Augmented reality and natural user interfaces
Sources: Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Cummins, M. (2012). The NMC Horizon Report: 2012 K-12 Edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2012-horizon-report-K12.pdf Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Haywood, K. (2011). The NMC Horizon Report: 2011 K-12 Edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from http://media.nmc.org/iTunesU/HR-K12/2011/2011-Horizon-Report-K12.pdf Johnson, L., Smith, R., Levine, A., & Haywood, K. (2010). 2010 Horizon Report: K-12 Edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2010-Horizon-Report-K12.pdf Johnson, L., Levine, A., Smith, R., & Smythe, T. (2009). 2009 Horizon Report: K-12 edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2009-Horizon-Report-K12.pdf

 

To further keep abreast of how technology is changing the learning process, visit MindShift, which explores "the future of learning in all its dimensions – covering cultural and technology trends, groundbreaking research, education policy and more" (About this Site section).

New and Enhanced Processes in Mathematics Education

Technology (e.g., Web 2.0 and the social internet) is changing the learning process within mathematics education in ways Lemke and Coughlin (2009) noted (i.e., democratization of knowledge, participatory learning, authentic learning and multimodal learning) and in consideration of Siemens (2005c) theory of connectivism.  Maria Droujkova (2009), developer of Natural Math, formulated a Math 2.0 framework “where mathematical education is viewed within a cultural context, defining learning as taking on roles in communities and networks. Changes in mathematics education, then, are culture shifts that include many events at individual, family, local community and group, and global network levels" (p. 2).  This framework considers mathematical authoring; community mathematics; humanistic mathematics; executable mathematics; and psychology of mathematics learning and education (p. 2). In describing these directions, she noted (p. 3):

• Tools and practices of user-generated content, as well as the internet participatory trends of co-production, crowdsourcing, and open educational resources can powerfully support mathematical authoring.
• For community mathematics, free, well-designed communication platforms such as nings, blogs, wikis, microblogging, forums, aggregators, and distributed content mash-ups can support online and local math clubs and math circles, topical discussion and study communities, and networks growing around a variety of particular math endeavors: competitions, educational philosophies, comic strips, books, or curricula.
• . . . Humanistic mathematics approach promotes activities that an audience can enjoy. On the web, this includes infusing mathematics into robust artistic and musical communities; creation and viral spread of appealing math-rich media; and developing newbie-friendly tools and communities supporting authoring of such media.”
• . . . Web 2.0 brings several crucial changes to this field of executable mathematics, including zero-cost distribution of virtual manipulatives; an invitation for everybody to create their own math-rich objects through programming or “construction set” mash-up environments; situating math objects in multi-user virtual worlds; and ease of sharing and continuing development in open educational resource communities.
• Psychology of mathematics education incorporates theories of teaching and learning, studies and practices of meta-cognition, developmental awareness, and support of emotional well-being such as math anxiety reduction. Web 2.0 requires a shift toward more social views on the psychology of mathematics education and its role, within this framework, of supporting the other four dimensions. (Droujkova, 2009, p. 3)

Math in a Cultural Context (MCC): Lessons Learned from Yup’ik Eskimo Elders from the University of Alaska Fairbanks exemplifies Droujkova's framework. MCC is "a long-term and ongoing set of interrelated federally funded projects. Central to MCC is its long-term collaboration with Yup’ik elders, teachers, and Alaskan school districts to develop culturally based curricular materials, especially supplemental math curriculum for elementary school students." In addition to supplemental math modules for grades 2-6, MCC includes  "supporting materials such as DVD clips of teachers’ implementing exemplary lessons, written case studies, a Guide to Implementing MCC, literacy activities and stories that develop cultural, mathematical, and contextual connections for students. Most importantly, most MCC modules have been tested using either a quasi or experimental design with findings repeatedly showing that MCC students outperform comparable control group students who use their regular math curriculum." (MCC section: About Us)

Another resource illustrating community mathematics in Droujkova's framework (2009) is the National Association of Math Circles, which is for students.  According to the Association, "Mathematical Circles are a form of education enrichment and outreach that bring mathematicians and mathematical scientists into direct contact with pre-college students. These students, and sometimes their teachers, meet with mathematical professionals in an informal setting, after school or on weekends, to work on interesting problems or topics in mathematics. The goal is to get the students excited about the mathematics, giving them a setting that encourages them to become passionate about mathematics" (Introduction to Math Circles section).  Similarly, middle school teachers can take advantage of the Math Teachers’ Circle Network from the American Institute of Mathematics.  Their math circles throughout the United States work to foster an enjoyment of mathematics among middle school math teachers within a culture of problem solving.

 

 

Back to top

 

What is technological literacy?

The North Central Regional Educational Laboratory and the Metiri Group (2003) offer a definition of Literacy for the Digital Age. This definition includes basic literacy, scientific literacy, economic literacy, technological literacy, visual literacy, information literacy, multicultural literacy, and global awareness.  "Technological literacy is knowledge about what technology is, how it works, what purposes it can serve, and how it can be used efficiently and effectively to achieve specific goals" (p. 15).

The International Technology Education Association (ITEA, 2000) defined technological literacy as the "ability to use, manage, assess, and understand technology" (p. 9). Greg Pearson and A. Thomas Young (2002) stated that it “encompasses three interdependent dimensions--knowledge, ways of thinking and acting, and capabilities," with the goal "to provide people with the tools to participate intelligently and thoughtfully in the world around them" (p. 9).  "Although technical competency is not the same as technological literacy, the development of skills in technology can lead to a better understanding of the underlying technology and could be used as a basis for teaching about the nature, history, and role of technology in our lives" (p. 11).

In its Framework for 21st Century Learning, the Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2009) defined ICT (information, communications, and technology) literacy as applying technology effectively.  Learners should be able to:

• Use technology as a tool to research, organize, evaluate and communicate information

• Use digital technologies (computers, PDAs, media players, GPS, etc.), communication/networking tools and social networks appropriately to access, manage, integrate, evaluate and create information to successfully function in a knowledge economy

• Apply a fundamental understanding of the ethical/legal issues surrounding the access and use of information technologies(section: P21 Framework Definitions Document, pp. 5-6).

The emergence and integration of ICT into instruction and student lives has given new meaning to Bloom's Taxonomy of cognitive objectives.  Andrew Churches (2008) discussed an interesting set of new digital verbs for each of the levels in the taxonomy, reflecting new objectives in the road to literacy.  He calls it Bloom's Digital Taxonomy Map, a must see.

Thus, by integrating technology into K-12 schools, we are assisting with the development of technologically literate citizens.  However, schools must also be aware of a conclusion reached by Ito and colleagues (2008): Given the diversity of digital media, "it is problematic to develop a standardized set of benchmarks to measure levels of new media and technical literacy" for our youth (p. 2).

 

Back to top

 

What do we mean by technology integration?

Technology integration, as defined by the National Forum on Education Statistics (2005), Forum Unified Education Technology Suite, "is the incorporation of technology resources and technology-based practices into the daily routines, work, and management of schools" (Part 8). Resources are computers and specialized software, network-based communication systems, and other equipment and infrastructure. Practices include collaborative work and communication, Internet-based research, remote access to instrumentation, network-based transmission and retrieval of data, and other methods.

According to the Software & Information Industry Association (2006), software for integration includes a wide variety of applications that:

• meet instructional, curriculum/content, assessment, classroom management, and enterprise level administrative tasks;
• are used in the classroom, school office, and potentially accessed offsite such as from home (student or educator) or from a mobile device;
• are installed on a computer or other device, installed on a school local network or wide area network, or hosted by a third party and accessed online via a web browser;
• include a wide variety of digital content ranging from an electronic version of a printed material (e.g., e-book or pdf file) to multi-media, interactive and adaptive courseware. (p. 3)

Key questions (National Forum of Education Statistics, 2005, adapted from Part 8) include:

• Are teachers and students proficient in using technology in the teaching/learning environment?
• To what extent (percentage) has technology been integrated in the teaching/learning environment?
• Do teaching and learning standards and student assessment include technology proficiencies and measures?
• Do administrative standards include technology proficiencies and measures?
• Are administrators and support personnel proficient in using technology for school management?
• Is technology incorporated into administrative processes?
• Is technology proficiency integrated into evaluation of instructional and support staff?

 

Buy additional resources via CT4ME.

The Amazon widget below shows books using the search phrase: technology integration.  You can also use the widget to search with other key words.  Suggestions include:

technology education assistive technology classroom

universal design learning technology inclusive classroom

game based learning simulation learning

 

 

Back to top

 

How should technology be used?

This question can be addressed from two perspectives--what we desire for all students, teachers, and providers of education in general and then specific to mathematics.

The General Perspective

In Maximizing the Impact: "The Pivotal Role of Technology in a 21st Century Education System" (2007), the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), The Partnership for 21st Century Skills, and the State Educational Technology Directors Association stated that technology can be used in nine key areas to assist with teaching and learning:

• Building conceptual understanding of core content;
• Addressing misconceptions;
• Fostering inquiry and investigation;
• Applying knowledge and skills to interdisciplinary challenges;
• Creating and transforming knowledge for meaningful purposes;
• Collaborating with others;
• Apprenticing with experts;
• Engaging and motivating students; and
• Differentiating instruction to meet individual needs. (pp. 9-10).

Technology can be used for "information, images, interactions, and inquiry" (Quirk, in Pollock, 2007, p. 102).  To this end, ISTE's (2007) release of National Educational Technology Standards for Students: The Next Generation indicates that to learn effectively and live productively in an increasingly digital world, students should know and be able to use technology for creativity and innovation; communication and collaboration; research and information fluency; critical thinking, problem solving, and decision making; digital citizenship; and technology operations and concepts.  Students should be able to:

• Create original works as a means of personal or group expression.
• Use models and simulations to explore complex systems and issues.
• Interact, collaborate, and publish with peers, experts or others employing a variety of digital environments and media, including globally.
• Locate, organize, analyze, evaluate, synthesize, and ethically use information from a variety of sources and media.
• Plan and conduct research, manage projects, solve problems and make informed decisions using appropriate digital tools and resources.
• Advocate and practice safe, legal, and responsible use of information and technology.
• Troubleshoot systems and applications.

 

 

Teachers and administrators also need to use technology.  In the series of Technology Briefs for NCLB Planners, the Northeast and the Islands Regional Technology Consortium (NEIRTEC, 2002) presented Strategies for Improving Academic Achievement and Teacher Effectiveness:

• Use technology linked to district and school initiatives to support learning in the content areas.
• Integrate technology into the curriculum, rather than making technology a separate subject area.
• Use technology to assist with data-driven decision making.
• Use technology to support different learning styles and to meet the needs of all learners, including those with disabilities.
• Use technology as a vehicle for professional development.

"Such technologies as videoconferencing, online learning, networking, and instant messaging can support professional development and professional learning communities.  Using technologies like these, educators can learn and collaborate with peers, mentors, experts and community members routinely. They can build ongoing professional relationships, develop capacity in teaching 21st century skills, benefit from just-in-time communications, and reduce the time and expense of travel" (Maximizing the Impact, 2007, p. 13).

"Technology can support administration in providing instructional leadership, managing learning environments and professional learning communities, and making decisions that support proficiency in 21st century skills. Networking technologies, for example, can support administrators in communicating with staff members, parents and community members. Data management systems enable states, districts and schools to make sense of the mountains of data they collect, monitor technology and other resources, and track trends in student achievement. In this sense, technology is a “data tool for education to better understand and inform educational and instructional decision making” (Maximizing the Impact, 2007, p. 13).

Teachers need more technological skills to be able to effectively integrate technology into classroom lessons, according to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO, 2008).  In order to form some consensus about those skills, many of which were noted above, and to determine a plan for their acquisition, UNESCO and colleagues Cisco, Intel, Microsoft, the International Society for Technology in Education and the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University set up the ICT Competency Standards for Teachers project.  The ICT Competency Standards for Teachers (UNESCO, 2008) includes three booklets: (1) a policy framework, (2) the standards in modular format with a skill set matrix, and (3) implementation guidelines.  The latter is actually a syllabus with detailed descriptions of the specific skills to be acquired by teachers within each skill set/module: policy, curriculum and assessment, pedagogy, the use of technology in the classroom, school organization and administration, and teacher professional development.  It can serve as a basis for developing professional development programs and teacher education, and as a checklist for skills acquired.

In Mathematics

Ted Hasselbring, Alan Lott, and Janet Zydney (2005) noted six purposes of technology use for supporting student mathematical learning and their development of declarative, procedural, and conceptual knowledge:

1. building computational fluency;
2. converting symbols, notations, and text;
3. building conceptual understanding;
4. making calculations and creating mathematical representations;
5. organizing ideas; and
6. building problem solving and reasoning. (p. 2).

Elaborating on those, The Partnership for 21st Century Skills (P21) (http://www.p21.org/) developed ICT Literacy Maps for core subject areas to illustrate how technology assists with attaining and utilizing 21st century skills.  Representative ways that technology can be used in mathematics at grades 4, 8, and 12 are included.  For example, thoughts derived from the Math ICT Literacy Map:

• Newspapers, books, spreadsheets, graphing programs, calculators, computers, Internet, films, TV programs, Websites, databases, internet and digital libraries can help students gain information and media literacy.  They are sources for the study of data analysis.

• Word processing programs, graphic programs, presentation software, desktop publishing programs can help students gain communication skills.  These are applicable for math projects.

• Word processing software, manipulatives, calculators, graphing calculators, spreadsheet software, probes, GPS, and geometry tool software are useful for developing critical thinking and systems thinking.  Use these tools when problem-solving, keeping journals of mathematical experiences, and creating graphical representations of data, for example.

• Manipulatives, calculators, graphing calculators, Smart Boards, and presentation software help students to develop problem identification, formulation, and solution skills.

• Digital cameras, laptop computers, multimedia presentation software, graphing calculators, probes/CBRs, Website development software can be used to enhance creativity and intellectual curiosity.  For example, students might take photos showing geometry representations in their surroundings and create a math slide show.

• Calculators, computers, newspapers, Internet, spreadsheet programs, presentation software, video equipment can help build interpersonal, self-direction, and collaborative skills.  Students might create portfolios with examples of problem-solving situations in real life, or reflections on their problem-solving and thinking, and their understanding and learning of math concepts.

• Internet, presentation software, word processing, desktop publishing can be used to communicate with students in other communities or countries, participate in national math competitions, or to discuss concepts with outside experts in online bulletin boards. These become tools for accountability and adaptability.

• Internet, presentation software, newspapers can be used for community service projects, and for collecting data to be analyzed with math tools and then making reports on local issues. Such use enhances and develops social responsibility.

P21 in collaboration with the Mathematical Association of America, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, and dozens of math educators also developed The Math Map (2012), which provides connections between the Common Core State Standards and 21st Century Skills.  Lesson plans, learning outcomes, and suggested tools for integrating the skills are provided with examples for grades 4, 8, and 12.

Visit Teaching NOW!, an online television and radio series that investigates the relationships between education and technology.  The series, funded in part by the U.S. Department of Education, explores issues, ideas, and strategies surrounding education and teaching.

 

 

Back to top

 

What are courseware and digital content types for mathematics?

In general, technology types used for learning might fall into nine categories, the selection of which would be determined by the content that is being taught, how it is taught, and a decision on what type of technology would best help in achieving instructional goals.  Types include:

• word processing
• organizing and brainstorming
• data collection and analysis
• communication and collaboration
• instructional media
• multimedia creation
• instructional interactives
• database and reference
• kinesthetic technology (Hubbell & Miller, 2013)

In addition, there are technologies specific for teaching mathematics, which can also enhance development of declarative, procedural, and conceptual knowledge.  Mark Schneiderman (2006) identified the following courseware and digital content types:

1. Tutorials: Programs are used to introduce math concepts and then to provide practice, assessing learners as they progress.  The primary focus is on identification of existing knowledge / formative assessment and acquisition of new information / development of new skill.  The secondary focus is on application of new information / practice of new skill and demonstration of mastery / summative assessment.

2. Skill-Building / Drill & Practice: Unlike tutorials, these programs assume learners have some prior knowledge.  The primary focus is on application of new information / practice of new skill.  The secondary focus is on acquisition of new information / development of new skill and demonstration of mastery / summative assessment.  There are levels of difficulty to meet learner needs, often with hints, explanations, and graphical representations.  Programs are often in game format.

3. Comprehensive Courseware: Programs provide a core curriculum with support for the learning process and might combine tutorials, practice, and assessment.  Skill mastery is tracked; a student data management and reporting system is often included to inform instruction.

4. Problem-Solving: Programs require learners to use specific math skills to solve challenges or puzzles. Focus is on application of new information / practice of new skill and refinement of meta-skills.  Problems presented might have one correct answer and/or one solution path or multiple correct answers and paths.

5. Test Prep: These programs assess knowledge, particularly for standardized test preparation.  The focus is on application of new information / practice of new skill and demonstration of mastery / summative assessment.

6. Simulations & Visualization: Multimedia simulations are often embedded in applications above, and can also be stand-alone.  They can be used to help learners visualize and interactively explore concepts, and apply new conceptual knowledge to real-world situations.  Some video-based simulations are less interactive.  Focus is on acquisition of new information / development of new skill and application of new information / practice of new skill.

7. Educational or Serious Games: Schneiderman (2006) said this "new category of courseware is emerging designed around more authentic gaming concepts. These applications provide more immediate and ongoing feedback, require more concentrated and lengthy attention, allow repeated practice, motivate increased time on task, and employ a very leveled and contextual approach to building skills and knowledge" (p. 11). The primary focus is on acquisition of new information / development of new skill and application of new information / practice of new skill.  Secondary focus on identification of existing knowledge / formative assessment, demonstration of mastery / summative assessment, and refinement of meta-skills.

 

Back to top/

 

What principles should guide your approach for integrating technology into instruction?

New media, such as virtual worlds, gaming environments, blogs, wikis, intelligent agents, iPods, and MP3 files and players, constantly spring up to tempt educators to use them in instruction.  According to Marc Prensky (2005), today's students (digital natives) have mastered a variety of tools and "[e]ducating or evaluating students without these tools makes no more sense to them than educating or evaluating a plumber without his or her wrench" (p. 12).  Prensky indicated that their system of communication involves instant messaging, sharing information through blogs, buying and selling on eBay, exchanging through peer-to-peer technology, creating with Flash, meeting in 3D worlds, collecting via downloading, coordinating and collaborating through wikis, searching with Google, reporting via their camera phones, programming, socializing in chat rooms, and let us not forget learning via Web surfing.  Their tools are just extensions of their brains.

The use of these new tools is among trends driving our global economy (Anderson, 2006). These tools "harness the wisdom of the crowd," enable "a shared culture of fandom, commentary, and camaraderie" to be developed, and ultimately are taking the Information Age to a new level, which Chris Anderson (2006) calls the "Age of Peer Production" (p. 132).  We digital immigrants have a long way to go to learn their language and master their media. Teachers know it's not the medium, but instructional methods that cause learning.  Consequently, according to David Roh (cited in O'Hanlon, 2009, p. 32), "There are hundreds of reasons why teachers don't want to use the [new]technology."

Resistance and what to do about it 

While exact figures of how many teachers are not using technology in instruction are unknown, Charlene O'Hanlon (2009) pointed out that "anecdotal evidence from vendors and school districts alike indicates resistance to technology adoption is still a problem among a significant portion of the teacher population" (p. 32). They will resist if they are not shown the value that a technology will bring to the classroom, and if they are told they must use it and are given a deadline for doing so.  Their resistance might also stem from a fear of students knowing more than they do about a particular technology, which might happen if they lack a firm grasp of the technology.

In any approach to integrating technology in instruction, O'Hanlon (2009) suggested that teachers need to be able to learn a technology gradually, and be given time to learn it. Comprehensive training from vendors with follow-up professional development and support within the district will help resolve the resistance issue, as will a peer-to-peer mentoring program.  If all else fails, districts might even consider financial incentives for learning and adopting the technology.  For some, all it might take to convince a teacher to give the technology a try is for them to see how using the technology impacts students, and to witness the excitement of the early adopters.

Key Questions to Answer

Technology should not be implemented just for the sake of adopting technology.  It must serve a role in learning.  Joel Smith and Susan Ambrose (2004, online pp. 1-2) of Carnegie Mellon University posed seven questions to help educators think in a systematic way about  how and when to incorporate any new pedagogical strategy, including media, into instruction. Their fundamental questions included:

1. What is the educational need, problem, or gap for which use of new media might potentially enhance learning?

2. Would the application of new media assess students' prior knowledge and either provide the instructor with relevant information about students' knowledge and skill level or provide help to students in acquiring the necessary prerequisite knowledge and skills if their prior knowledge is weak?
   
   Would the use of new media enhance students' organization of information given that organization determines retrieval and flexible use?

3. Would the use of new media actively engage students in purposeful practice that promotes deeper learning so that students focus on underlying principles, theories, models, and processes, and not the superficial features of problems?

4. Would the application of new media provide frequent, timely, and constructive feedback, given that learning requires accurate information on one's misconceptions, misunderstandings, and weaknesses?

5. Would the application of new media help learners develop the proficiency they need to acquire the skills of selective monitoring, evaluating, and adjusting their learning strategies?  Some call these metacognitive skills.

6. Would the use of new media adjust to students' individual differences given that students are increasingly diverse in their educational backgrounds and preferred methods of learning?

If you can answer "yes" to one or more of the above questions when considering using a particular strategy or a new media, then your selection has a chance of making a difference in learning.

Universal Design is Important.

However, principles of universal design should also be considered when selecting media for use in an instructional program.  Universal Design for Learning from the Center for Applied Technology calls for students to have multiple means of expression, representation, and engagement in their learning.  Materials provide those elements and have scaffolds built in (Deubel, 2003).

For students with disabilities (e.g., vision, hearing, learning), technology use may pose unintended barriers to learning.  Regular access to Closing the Gap, a Web site devoted to computer technology in special education and rehabilitation, will provide articles, product information, discussion forums, and other resources of value on accessibility.

 

Back to top

 

When can you expect technology to be effective?

As with any educational intervention, the effectiveness of technology depends upon the appropriate selection and implementation of that technology to meet teaching and learning goals.  Once selected, technology-use must be a regular, integral part of an instructional program and not viewed as an add-on in order to have a positive effect on achievement (Deubel, 2001). 

However, much thought goes into that selection and requires an understanding of the complex relationship among technology, pedagogy, and content.  A change in any one of those three affects the other two, according to Punya Mishra and Matthew Koehler (2006).  As such they indicated, "there is no single technological solution that applies for every teacher, every course, or every view of teaching" (p. 1029).  Further, technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK) is the basis of good teaching with technology.  In order to make a technology selection that has a chance at being effective, the teacher needs to consider those TPACK factors in relation to each other and should have acquired:

an understanding of the representation of concepts using technologies; pedagogical techniques that use technologies in constructive ways to teach content; knowledge of what makes concepts difficult or easy to learn and how technology can help redress some of the problems that students face; knowledge of students’ prior knowledge and theories of epistemology; and knowledge of how technologies can be used to build on existing knowledge and to develop new epistemologies or strengthen old ones. (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 1029)

Mark Schneiderman (2004), Director of Education Policy at the Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA), confirmed "education technology is neither inherently effective nor inherently ineffective; instead, its degree of effectiveness depends upon the congruence among the goals of instruction, characteristics of the learners, design of the software, and educator training and decision-making, among other factors" (p. 30).  "Proper planning, teacher training, school leadership, technical support, configured hardware, network infrastructure and Internet access, pedagogy and instructional use, intensity of software use" (SIIA, 2009, p. 2) all play a role in an effective implementation.

Project RED (2010), a national research initiative, also contributed nine key technology implementation factors leading to academic success, specifically in reducing dropout rates, increasing graduation rates, reducing disciplinary actions and improving high-stakes test scores.  Its survey involving 997 schools with varying levels of technology integration and diverse student populations revealed the following in rank order:

1. Intervention classes: Technology is integrated into every class.
2. Principal leads change management and gives teachers time for both Professional Learning and Collaboration. (This occurs at least monthly, according to Leslie Wilson (2010), co-author of Project RED).
3. Games/Simulations and Social Media: Students use technology daily.
4. Core subjects: Technology is integrated into daily curriculum.
5. Online Assessments: Both formative and summative is done frequently. (Additionally, Wilson (2010) noted that online formative assessments are done at least weekly.)
6. Student-Computer Ratio: Fewer students per computer improves outcomes.
7. Virtual field trips: With more frequent use, virtual trips are more powerful. (According to Wilson (2010), the best schools are doing these at least monthly.)
8. Search engines: Students use daily.
9. Principal is trained via short courses in teacher buy-in, best practices and technology-transformed learning. (Project RED, 2010, slide 6; Wilson, 2010)

Further, in terms of selection, Steven Ross and Deborah Lowther (2009) indicated that given that a major goal in today's education is preparing students for higher education and careers, three forms of technology applications, which show promise for using "technology reflectively and scientifically to make teachers and curricula more effective," include "as a tutor, as a teaching aide, and as a learning tool" (p. 21).  The first two of those help teachers to address individual needs, and the latter can help learners acquire 21st century skills such as "searching the Internet, creating graphs and illustrations, and communicating through multimedia presentations" (p. 21).  As a tutor, computer assisted instruction can provide students with extra practice on key skills and content, provide remediation instruction, provide enrichment activities, and provide alternative ways to teach material for deeper learning.  As a teaching aide, tools such as whiteboards enable teachers to better orchestrate their lessons; clicker response systems enable timely feedback to questions that teachers pose (pp. 20-21).

Vicki Hancock (1992) discussed the LOCATE Model (learners, outcomes, comparison, assembly, trial, and evaluation) for selecting and evaluating instructional media, which "is particularly helpful in considering electronic media, such as interactive laserdisc lessons, educational software, and CD-ROM applications" (para. 3).  She provided a series of questions to consider when assessing media.  According to this model, those who select media should consider the needs of the intended learners, and whether or not the outcomes of instruction require media.  Potential media should be compared for authenticity, suitability, organization, technical quality, and special features.  The assembly component requires gathering and ensuring that all components (e.g., hardware, software, room/environmental considerations, support staff/volunteers) are available so that the media will be totally usable by the learners.  Hancock suggested a trial period before purchase to test the product with learners for their reactions and to determine if the product includes subject matter as intended.  Evaluation should include "an appraisal of the materials themselves and of the methods used to integrate them into learning activities" (para. 9).

 

 

Back to top

 

What do you do, if you are not convinced you can integrate technology into your instruction?

The following activities should help convince you to give technology a try.

Watch online videos of preK-12 teachers applying the learning model "Technology as a Facilitator of Quality Education" at IN TIME (Integrating New Technologies Into the Methods of Education).  IN TIME's mission is to use the "latest research on the use of standards to improve learning as well as the most contemporary strategies available from cognitive psychology and learning research."  The project was funded by a grant from the U.S. Department of Education's PT3 (Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology) program.

See the Technology Integration Matrix (TIM) developed for K-12 teachers in Florida.  The TIM has 25 cells created by associating five levels of technology integration (entry, adoption, adaptation, infusion, and transformation) and five characteristics of meaningful learning environments (active, collaborative, constructive, authentic, and goal directed).  Each cell includes a link to one or more videos that show technology integration in classrooms where only a few computers are available and/or classrooms where every student has access to a computer.  Descriptions of projects learners did and technology requirements are provided so that others might use the same project in their classrooms.

Read the online book: Orey, M.(Ed.). (2001). Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/ This book is freely available online with articles, videos, animations, narrations, and images on learning and cognitive theories, instructional theories and models, inquiry and direct instruction strategies, and more.  It's continually updated.  You'll also find discussion on technology tools for teaching and learning.

 

 

Back to top

 

References

 

Back to top

See other Technology Integration pages:

Part 1:Technology Integration: Essential Questions: Page 1  |  2  |

Part 2: Technology Integration Resources  |  Part 3: Web Page Design  |  Part 4: Multimedia in Projects