The Pedagogy of Technology Integration
Mabel CPO Okojie, Anthony A. Olinzock, and Tinukwa C. Okojie-Boulder
Abstract
The problem of integrating
technology into teaching and learning process has become a perennial one.
Common excuses for the limited use of technology to support instruction include
shortage of computers, lack of computer skill and computer intimidation. While
these could affect the success of technology integration, it should be
acknowledged that the degree of success teachers have in using technology for
instruction could depend in part on their ability to explore the relationship
between pedagogy and technology. The article shows that technology integration is
narrowly perceived and that such a perception might hinder teachers’
understanding of the scope of technology in education. Technology integration
should be considered along with issues involved in teaching and learning. Such
issues include developing learning objectives, selecting methods of
instruction, feedback, and evaluation and assessment strategies including
follow-up activities. Technology used for teaching and learning should be
considered an integral part of instruction and not as an object exclusive to
itself. Viewing technology integration from a wide perspective will provide
teachers with the necessary foundation to implement technology into the
classroom more successfully.
Introduction
This article discusses the narrow
perception of the term “technology integration” and considers that such a
perception is likely to result in a poor use of technology for instructional
purposes. The scope of technology integration is examined with a view of
showing its relationship with pedagogy. It should be noted that technology,
which is used to facilitate learning, is part of the instructional process and
not an appendage to be attached at any convenient stage during the course of
instruction. Technology integration not only involves the inclusion of technical
artifacts per se, but also includes theories about technology integration and
the application of research findings to promote teaching/learning. It is not
restricted to the mechanical application of various new computer hardware and
software devices during the process of instruction. It should include the
strategies for selecting the desired technologies, skill to demonstrate how the
selected technologies will be used, skill to evaluate such technologies, as
well as the skill to customize the use of such technological skills in a way
that addresses instructional problems. The decision on the selection and use of
technology for instruction should be made at the onset – when the instruction
is being prepared, not in the middle or at the conclusion of the instruction.
The objective and method of instruction including technology and outcomes of
instruction should be specified at the planning stage. This point is
illustrated by Diaz & Bontembal (2000):
Using technology to enhance the
educational process involves more than just learning how to use specific piece
of hardware and software. It requires an understanding of pedagogical
principles that are specific to the use of technology in an instructional
settings…Pedagogy-based training begins by helping teachers understand the role
of learning theory in the design and function of class activities and in the
selection and use of instructional technologies. (pp. 2 and 6)
The relationship between
instructional technology and pedagogical concepts is considered with a view of
assisting teachers to recognize the impact of such a relationship in an
educational inquiry. Technology integration is complex and is made up of
processes of interconnected activities. The essence of this article is to
explore those processes and to encourage teachers and those connected with
technology integration to be reflective practitioners.
The
Scope of Instructional Technology
Technology in education is commonly
defined as a technical device or tool used to enhance instruction. According to
Lever-Duffy, McDonald, and Mizell (2005)
“educational technology might include media, models, projected and
non-projected visual, as well as audio, video and digital media.” These authors
claim that some “educators may take a narrower view” and are likely to “confine
educational technology primarily to computers, computer peripherals and related
software used for teaching and learning” (pp. 4, 5). This definition does not
take into consideration the pedagogical principles upon which the application
of various technologies into educational inquiry are based. Such a definition
is narrow because it isolates technology from pedagogical processes that it is
intended to support. It does not connect instructional technology with the
learning objectives, methods of instruction, learning style and pace of
learning, assessment and evaluation strategies, including follow-up procedures.
Specifically, technology integration should incorporate the technological skill
and ability to use pedagogical knowledge as a base for integrating technology
into teaching and learning. This implies that teachers should develop
strategies to motivate students to keep them focused as the instruction
progresses and to consider that different students prefer different learning
styles and that they learn at different rates.
It is important that teachers use a
variety of teaching methods, and students must be taught to use the newly
acquired knowledge and skill as well as to critically evaluate and modify such
knowledge. In other words, teachers should be able to engage students in an
exploratory learning experience which is designed to stimulate thinking.
According to Bruner (1966), the essence of teaching and learning is to help
learners acquire knowledge and use the knowledge they have acquired to create
other knowledge. Bruner eloquently states:
To instruct someone ... is not a
matter of getting him to commit results to mind. Rather, it is to teach him to
participate in the process that makes possible the establishment of knowledge.
We teach a subject not to produce little living libraries on that subject, but
rather to get a student to think mathematically for himself, to consider
matters as an historian does, to take part in the process of knowledge-getting.
Knowing is a process not a product. (p. 72)
This can imply that teaching
software skills without consideration to the basic foundation knowledge that
justifies their application is likely to result in rote memorization of
disjointed information on various technologies used. Ausubel (1978)
claims that this type of teaching method is likely to lead to forgetfulness.
In a broad sense, technology
integration can be described as a process of using existing tools, equipment
and materials, including the use of electronic media, for the purpose of
enhancing learning. It involves managing and coordinating available
instructional aids and resources in order to facilitate learning. It also
involves the selection of suitable technology based on the learning needs of
students as well as the ability of teachers to adapt such technology to fit
specific learning activities. It calls for teachers’ ability to select suitable
technology while planning instruction. It also requires teachers to use
appropriate technology to present and evaluate instruction as well as use
relevant technology for follow-up learning activities. Such a broad definition
of technology in education will help teachers develop a rational approach
toward technology integration.
Problems
of Technology Integration
The study of Leh (2005)
reveals that teachers admitted “they did not resist technology per se but
agreed that they could not fully integrate it into their own practices because
of the organizational, administrative, pedagogical, or personal constraints”
(p. 19). Leh claims that the teachers acknowledge, “technology was more of a
problem with multiple facets rather than a solution …” (p. 19). Defining
instructional technology in broad spectrum helps educators, especially
inexperienced teachers, understand the pedagogical issues to be considered when
using technology to enhance the process of teaching and learning. Leh also
calls for the “the national organizations involved in teacher standards to
recognize that teachers need to … develop a foundation upon which to build
their understanding of technology integration (p. 46). Bosch & Cardinale
(1993) maintain that while it is important for teachers to be provided with
technological skill, it is also important to educate them on how to use that
skill to support learning. Infusing technology into a curriculum is less likely
to make an impact on students’ learning if technology is not considered as a
component of instruction. Technology should not be treated as a separate entity
but should be considered as an integral part of instructional delivery. The
teacher should be able to assess the appropriateness of any technology used for
teaching and learning in relation to specific instruction. The teacher should
also consider how the technology selected fits into the objective of the
lesson, methods of instruction, evaluation, feedback and follow-up initiatives.
Such consideration will provide teachers the opportunity to reflect on their
practice and reduce the tendency to integrate technology into teaching and
learning in a mechanistic way. Fletcher (1996)
has provided an interesting scenario to show that technology integration should
be grounded in sound educational practices:
When you go to the hardware store to
buy a drill, you don’t actually want a drill, you want a hole, they don’t sell
holes at the hardware store, but they do sell drills, which are the technology
used to make holes. We must not lose sight that technology for the most part is
a tool and it should be used in applications which address educational
concerns. (p. 87)
In teaching and learning, technology
should be applied as a process rather than as a single, isolated and discrete
activity. The American Heritage Dictionary defines process as “a series of
actions, changes, functions bringing about a result.” Technology in education
is not a mere object to be introduced into teaching and learning activities at
will without considering basic principles of learning and sound teaching
methodology. Therefore, to assume that educational technology is an object that
can be used and detached at any time is a false assumption because educational
technology is not applied in a vacuum. It is guided by learning principles
about how individuals learn and how they retain the knowledge and skill they
have acquired. It is also based on the students’ expectations of the outcome of
learning and how the outcomes could be applied to enrich practical life
experiences. Therefore, technological application should be based on sound
teaching and learning principles to avoid teaching hardware and software
technologies in an isolated manner. Technologies used for instructional
delivery should form part of the cohesive components of instruction; they
should not be detachable objects.
An ongoing action research project
has shown that most in-service teachers have a narrow view of technology
integration. When they were asked to briefly state why they need to apply
technology in their teaching, most of the student teachers (70%) maintain that
it is a tool for instruction; they fail to relate it to pedagogy or identify
how it will help them to improve their teaching or facilitate learning. An
educator who does not understand the purpose of technology integration or how
it could be applied is less likely to achieve success in a technology-based
learning environment. Eby (1997)
warns that “technology could not support learning without teachers who know how
to use it and integrate it into subject-specific area.” Means (1994)
points out that technology training must go beyond focusing on the acquisition
of technical skills but attention should be given “to the instructional
strategies needed to infuse technological skills into the learning process”
(p.92). Yao and Quang (2000)
argue that technology training tends to focus on computer applications such as
word processing, spreadsheets and databases. Technology for teaching and
learning should be part of the instruction milieu and not be added as an
afterthought activity. Sprague et al. (1998)
argue that using technology for instruction should include mastery of the
techniques to apply it to teaching.
Relationship
between Technology in Education and Pedagogy
A major part of the problem related
to technology integration is that most educators have not addressed the
pedagogical principles that will guide their use of technology for teaching and
learning. The intricate relationship between technology and pedagogy has not
been adequately explored. As teachers explore the process of technology
integration and search for ways that it can be effectively accomplished, they
will develop the rationale to examine the appropriateness of the technologies
they are using and whether such technologies are compatible with their lesson plan
and learning outcomes. The process of exploring the relationship between
technology in education and pedagogy will encourage critical thinking on the
part of teachers as they practice technology integration. Mezirow (1990)
argues:
That thinking critically involves
our recognizing the assumption underlying our beliefs and behaviors. It can
give justifications for our ideas and actions. Most important, perhaps, it means
we try to judge the rationality of these justifications. (p. xvii)
The words of Alfred Kyle, a Dean of
Engineering, are very insightful in discussing critical and reflective teaching
(in Schon, 1987).
Dean Kyle maintains that “we know how to teach people to build ships but not
how to figure out what ships to build” (p.11). Accordingly Ripley (2001)
explains that what the Dean of Engineering is conveying is for “students to
learn how to determine which ships to build while they master shipbuilding
skills. He hopes that students will progress toward becoming reflective
practitioners who think and rethink their positions and assumptions …” (p. 19).
By the same token, it is hoped that instructors will develop similar awareness
by becoming critical thinkers and reflective teachers as they engage in
technology integration.
The authors of this paper have
observed that during the course of their teaching, education students were
asked to discuss why they would like to use technology for teaching and
learning. A great majority of them said that they use technology (more
specifically computers) for instruction because it helps teachers to teach and
students to learn. This response is too general and does not convey an in-depth
understanding of technology integration. These students fail to articulate in
any meaningful way how technology can be used to improve learning. Their
response does not capture the intricate relationship between pedagogy and
technological resources. Lack of appropriate guidelines limit teachers’ use of
technology for instruction, and limits their desire to explore the use of
technology beyond basic applications. Weizenbaum (1976)
argues that “computers can be a powerful metaphor for understanding many
aspects of the world.” However, he states “it enslaves the mind that has no
metaphors and few resources to call on—the mind that has been educated with
only facts and skills” (p. 51). It is important that practicing teachers and
in-service teachers recognize that technology in education is considered part
of pedagogy.
Bazeli (1997)
is critical of the way technology is used for instruction. She believes
implementing technology in the classroom is timeconsuming and teachers do not
have the time to involve students at the planning stage of technology
integration. Bazeli asserts that when students participate in the planning and
implementation stages of technology integration “the burden is lifted from the
teachers and the learning process becomes collaborative, with the teacher
assuming the role of facilitator rather than a disseminator of information.
Further, as students are actively involved in planning and implementing
technology production, they gain critical thinking and problem-solving skills
along with curricular learning.” She maintains that “unfortunately, the
computer is often perceived as a separate entity, not an integrated part of the
curricular areas of the school” (p. 201).
Technology should be implemented in
the classroom only if its role in a given instruction is determined along with
pedagogical issues related to a given instructional task. The role of
technology in education can only be determined if teachers who implement
technology at the classroom level are involved in technology decision- making
because teachers have the responsibility of facilitating instruction. Okojie et
al. (2005)
argue that school administrators make decisions about technology training
without consulting teachers who will integrate technology into instructional
process. Teachers who are in a better position to articulate their needs and
identify their weaknesses have minimal input in planning the technology
training they receive. Thus, technology integration training becomes a general
identification of various hardware and software technologies, which does not
address specific learning problems nor pinpoint the way technology can be used
to improve instruction (p. 5). Pierson (2001)
recognized that “society has embraced computer technology and allowed it to
reinvent the ways in which we create, find, exchange, and even think about
information. Unable to ignore such deeply permeating innovation, school
districts often bow to societal pressure to fund technology without having a
thoughtful plan for implementation” (p. 413). Gunter (2002)
argued that students learn computer skills in isolation of the curriculum
structure. Topper (2005)
believes that “for teachers to use technology in support of their teaching, and
to see it as a pedagogically useful tool, they must be confident and competent
with the technology they are planning to use (p. 304).
It is important that teachers
recognize that a relationship exists between technology in education and
pedagogical decision-making. According to Anderson and Borthwick (2002)
research evidence shows that “participants whose technology instruction was
integrated in their methods course reported more frequent use of technology for
both teacher productivity and student projects during both on-campus courses
and their first year of actual classroom teaching” (p. 5). There is no
blueprint for technology integration, however, it is suggested that effort be
made to link technology for instruction to all levels of pedagogical processes
and activities as described next.
·
Identifying learning objectives in a
technology-based instruction requires teachers to select and/or adapt
instructional technology to match the objectives based on the students’ needs.
·
Presenting instruction using
technology as part of the instructional process requires teachers to choose the
methods that are relevant to the objectives, the technology selected, learning
styles, modes and pace of learning.
·
Evaluating technology-based
instruction requires teachers to select appropriate evaluation techniques that are
relevant to the objectives, methods of instruction, and to technologies that
have been used.
·
Designing follow-up activities using
technology requires teachers to select appropriate follow-up materials that are
relevant to the objectives of the instruction and technologies that are
accessible to the students as well as easy to use.
·
Developing course enrichment
materials using technology requires teachers to provide opportunity for
students to explore issues related to the course materials and to provide them
with the opportunity to select and analyze course enrichment materials using
technology in ways that broaden their problem-solving skills.
·
Locating sources for additional
instructional materials using technology requires teachers to use the internet
and multimedia networks to develop additional learning materials and expand
instructional resources aimed at broadening the knowledge and the skill gained.
·
Designing a dynamic classroom using
technology requires teachers to provide a learning environment that is
colorful, engaging, exciting, interactive and energetic as a way of encouraging
students to venture into the world of technology and to discover knowledge for
themselves.
Conclusion
The essence of this article is to
provide insight on how teachers can improve their use of technology to support
instruction. It explores pedagogical issues that are relevant and need to be
considered in order to successfully apply technology into teaching and
learning. It is important that educators perceive technology in education as
part of the pedagogical process. This article also recognizes the relationship
between pedagogy and technology in education. It is necessary that teachers
understand the pedagogical principles that govern the application of technology
into teaching and learning. Suggestions are made on how to improve technology
integration. Educators are encouraged to view technology integration from a
wider perspective and be reflective in their teaching as they use technology to
support and facilitate instruction. Technology integration should be considered
as part of the process of instructional preparation. Instructional technology
should be identified at the planning stage just as the students’ readiness is
assessed, lesson objectives identified, methods of presenting are established,
and evaluation strategies are determined. Follow-up activities should also be
established at the planning stage. Poor implementation of technology
integration is likely to affect the desired outcome.
Dr. Mabel CPO Okojie is an assistant
professor in the Department of Instructional Systems, Leadership &
Workforce Development at Mississippi State University.
Dr. Anthony A. Olinzock is the Head
of the Department of Instructional Systems, Leader & Workforce Development
at Mississippi State University.
Tinukwa C. Okojie-Boulder is a
graduate assistant/doctoral student in the Department of Instructional
Technology, Leadership & Workforce Development at Mississippi State
University.
References
Anderson,
C. L. & Borthwick, A. (2002). Results of separate and integrated technology
instruction in pre-service training. ERIC Reproduction Document # IR021919,
p.14.
Ausubel,
D. P. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. (2nd ed.). New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston
Bazeli,
M, (1997). Visual productions and student learning. ERIC Reproduction. Fall
Bosch, K.A. & Cardinale, L. (1993). Preservice teacher’ perceptions of
computer use during a field experience. Journal of Computing in Teacher
Education, 10(1), pp. 23-27
Diaz, D. P.
& Bontenbal, K. F. (2000). Pedagogy-based technology training. In P.
Hoffman & D. Lemke (eds.), Teaching and Learning in a Network World, pp.
50-54. Amsterdam, Netherlands: 105 Press.
Fletcher,
G. (1996). Former director of the Division of Educational Technology, Texas
Education Agency, Executive Vice President of T.H.E. Institute quoted in T.H.E.
Journal, 24(4), p. 87.
Eby, J.
(1997). Reflective planning, teaching and evaluation, K-12. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall
Gess-Newsome,
J., Blocher, M., Clark, J., Menasco, J., & Willis, E. (2003). Technology
infused professional development: A framework for development and analysis.
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 3(3), pp. 324-340.
Jonassen,
D. H. (ed). (2004). Handbook of research on educational communications and
technology. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers: Mahwah, New Jersey
McGrail,
E. (2005). Teachers, Technology and change: English teachers perspectives.
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(13), pp. 5-23.
Leh, A. S.
(2005). Learned from service learning and reverse mentoring in faculty
development: A case study in technology training. Journal of Technology and
Teacher Education, 13(1), pp. 25-41.
Lever-Duffy,
J. McDonald, J. B. & Mizell Al P. (2005). Teaching and learning with
technology. San Francisco: Pearson
Mann, D.
(1999). Documenting the effects of instructional technology: A fly-over of
policy questions. http://www.ed.gov/Technology/TechCont/1999/whitepapers/paper6.html
Means, B.
(1994). Introduction: Using technology to advance educational goals. In B.
Means (Ed.), Technology and education reform: The reality behind the promise,
pp. 1-21. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Mezirow,
J. (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to
transformative and empanicipatory learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Okojie,
Mabel CPO, Olinzock, A. A. & Okojie-Boulder, T.C. (2005). Technology
Training Dilemma: A Diagnostic Approach, An unpublished manuscript.
Pierson,
M. (2001). Technology integration practice as a function of pedagogical
experts. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(5).
Ripley,
D. (2001). Using technology to foster critical thinking and reflection: The R9
process. International Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 9(2),
November.
Schon, D.
(1990). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New
York: Basic Books
Sprague,
D., Kopfman, K. & Dorsey, S. (1998). Faculty development in the integration
of technology in teacher education courses. Journal of Computing in Teacher
Education, 2(14), pp. 24-28. The American Heritage Dictionary of English
Language (3rd edition). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company
No comments:
Post a Comment