Computer Technology in Special Education and Rehabilitation
Part III: A map of the technology integration process Note: This article first appeared in the February/March 1998 issue of Closing The Gap. By Dave L. Edyburn
erature generally overlooks an essential component of the integration process. Namely, what does technology integration look like or how is it achieved. Without models, principles, and strategies, the challenge of integrating technology into the curriculum can be an overwhelming task with unpredictable results. The goal of integrating technology into the curriculum is to link software, media, and technology tools with specific instructional objectives in ways that facilitate teaching and learning. This view is commonly referred to as “curriculum correspondence.” Utilization of the principle of curriculum correspondence results in technology use that is focused, purposeful, manageable, and enhances students’ abilities to master specific instructional objectives. A model of the integration process (see Figure 1) was developed by the author to (a) describe the various tasks involved in integrating software into the curriculum, (b) provide a planning guide for individuals interested in technology integration, (c) serve as a tool for discussing the process among the major stakeholders, and (d) assist in the identification of methods and resources for facilitating the process. The model is described briefly below. The process outlined in Figure 1 describes the major tasks involved in selecting, acquiring, implementing, and integrating instructional technologies into the curriculum. The process appears generic in the sense that the process is the same regardless of ability level, subject matter, or type of technology. The process is divided into four phases which are comprised of 3-4 tasks which must be completed in working through the ac-
tivities of a given phase. It is my impression that the process is recursive. That is, while phase one results in a comprehensive list of products which address a specific instructional objective, phases two, three, and four must be repeated with each new product. Thus, it becomes readily apparent that this process involves a significant commitment of time and effort. As a reasonable goal, it is suggested that special educators initially work through this process until they have found 3-10 products which will support the varied needs of their students.
Fax 507-248-3810
Note: This is the last in a three part series of articles by Dave L. Edyburn, an Associate Professor, Department of Exceptional Education, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI. While technology can be a valuable resource for improving instruction, the process of integrating technology into the curriculum is not easily or quickly accomplished. The difficulties that one will encounter are well documented: lack of teacher time; limited access to hardware, software, and support; insufficient leadership and lack of a common vision or rationale for technology use; limited training and support; and the impact of current assessment practices on defining what teachers must teach and what students must learn with technology may not be readily measured on standardized tests (U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 1995). Willis (1993) adds a number of other interesting dimensions of the problems educators will confront: curricular integration is a complex, difficultto-learn process; many educators feel isolated and alone; time to experiment, explore, and study innovations is essential but rare in schools; top down projects tend to fail over time; resentment and resistance destroys projects; ownership is critical to success; bottomup projects tend to fail over time; administrative support is critical; nonexistent, inadequate, or inconsistent support is a major reason for failure; and theories of change are useful planning guides for managing the change process. Despite the clearly stated commitment to technology integration and recognition of the common barriers, the lit-
Web site www.closingthegap.com
Check out the library: Copyright © Closing The Gap, Inc. All rights reserved.
E-mail
[email protected]
www.closingthegap.com/library
Address 526 Main St. P.O. Box 68 Henderson, MN 56044 Phone 507-248-3294
Selection Phase one, Selection, focuses on planning for the use of technology, media, and materials to enhance teaching and learning. These tasks can be completed cooperatively with other colleagues in the context of program planning or individually. Upon completion of phase one, educators will have a comprehensive, prioritized listing of products that support the teaching and learning of a specific instructional objective. Planning involves identification of instructional objectives and goals for using technology. The concept of “targets of difficulty” provides a way to think about where to start: what are those objectives that are consistently difficult for students to learn? There is no need to know whether there are products available to teach these topics, we simply create a list and prioritize it regarding the instructional needs of our students. Locating involves the search for appropriate technologies, media, and materials to support the specified objective. We conduct an exhaustive multifacet search to identify any products that
purportedly could be used to enhance instruction for the objective. We construct a comprehensive list so that we do not need to repeat the search after we begin to evaluate a few products. Reviewing involves ranking the lists of possibilities created in the locating task. This is accomplished by examining various reviews and consulting other evaluative tools to determine what others have found useful. The task of deciding involves determining what to do with the list of products that has been assembled (e.g., will you look at all the products?, the top five?, only the top one?). Given the limits of time and the amount of effort we wish to devote to the process, how many products will we examine?
Acquisition The tasks involved in the Acquisition phase focus on acquiring and personally reviewing products for the purpose of assessing whether or not a program will meet the needs and expectations of the teacher and students. Successful evaluation results in a decision to purchase a product. At the end of this phase, we will own a product that can be used to enhance teaching and learning. Previewing involves the administrative arrangements that are necessary to personally review a product. Often this means contacting a vendor to arrange for a free preview copy to be mailed to you for 30 days or downloading a demo copy from the web. It may also mean traveling to a site that serves as a preview center. The task of Evaluating involves assessing whether or not a program will meet the needs and expectations of the teacher and students. While evaluation forms may be helpful, a comparison of three or more similar products usually results in a decision about which product is most suitable for a given classroom. The cycle of previewing and evaluating may continue down the entire list generated in the locating task. Only after the evaluation results in a decision to purchase a product does the integration process move to the next task. Purchasing involves the administrative details involved with acquiring sufficient copies of a given product.
Implementation The Implementation phase refocuses our attention from the marketplace and our preoccupation with shopping by requiring us to examine the factors involved in “making it work.” At the end of this phase we will have assimilated a new product into our system and trained teachers and students to use it. Organizing involves inventorying and in-
Edyburn’s Model of the Technology Integration Process Phase 1 Selection
Phase 2 Acquisition
Phase 3 Implementation
Phase 4 Integration
Planning
Previewing
Organizing
Linking
Locating
Evaluating
Teacher Training
Managing
Reviewing
Purchasing
Student Training
Assessing
Deciding
Extending
Figure 1 stalling a newly purchased product. Decisions about whether to install a product on an individual machine or on a network will be made. The task of Teacher Training requires that teachers be provided with the necessary training to fully utilize a product. However, typically, training is simply “teach yourself ” since only a single copy of the product was purchased. Teachers need to acquire the skills and knowledge to operate the program, conduct basic troubleshooting, and be introduced to methods and ideas for using the product in the classroom. Student Training involves introducing the students to a program: how to access, why they would use it, and basic navigation. This task ensures that students are prepared to interact with the product when it is subsequently introduced in the curriculum.
Integration Only after teachers and students have moved into phase four can we begin to talk about the integration of technology into the curriculum. The tasks involved in this phase focus directly on using products in the classroom to enhance teaching and learning. Considerable time and effort has been expended to reach this phase. However, this is the phase we here we see the fruits of our labor. The task of Linking involves examining the curriculum and determining when should a product be used, how can the program be best used to facilitate learning, and what activities would be useful both prior and subsequent to a product’s use by students. Curriculum frameworks and calendars are important tools for this task. Managing involves providing time for students to use a product and ensuring that all students are successfully achieving the objectives. While access to a lab is useful, creative strategies must be used for managing the one-computer classroom. The task of assessing involves evaluating the results of instruction and determining whether
any changes should be made now or in the future. Often in special education, a program may be revisited during the school year to provide opportunities for maintenance of previously learned skills. Finally, the task of extending recognizes that unless we can create additional instructional applications for a new tool it will simply be returned to the shelf for storage until a future semester. If we are able to identify methods of extending the value of the product, we continue the process at the linking task in phase four rather than starting the entire process over again.
Putting the Model into Practice Readers are encouraged to explore ways in which the model may assist in evaluating their current technology integration efforts by identifying tasks that receive too much attention or tasks that have been overlooked. In addition, buildinglevel and district technology committees are encouraged to consider how they might develop strategies to facilitate movement through phases 1-3 and celebrate the evolving local knowledge base concerning the tasks in phase four. To help you get started in using the model: given the following initiatives, how would you describe the essential nature of the task in facilitating the technology integration process? • The district technology specialist distributes a magazine reprint that compares and contrasts five common word processors. (Reviewing) • Our building purchased a site license for a math manipulative software program, Blocks-inMotion, Don Johnston. (Purchasing) • During a regional inservice, a teacher shares examples of “quick-start” guides to help students remember keyboard shortcuts. (Student Training) • One teacher teaches a technology enhanced unit on rain forests while another teacher takes her class for a special math unit. (Managing) • The school library media specialist creates a database cataloging our software collection so
Computer Technology in Special Education and Rehabilitation
that staff can access the information by the computerized card catalog. (Organizing) • An assistive technology specialist determines that a student will need special screen reading software in order to be able to read information from the Internet as other students will do in an upcoming unit. (Planning) • The computer coordinator sends a “thought for the week” that includes ideas for using common programs like PrintShop, ClarisWorks, and HyperStudio. (Linking)
Summary Despite the clearly stated commitment to technology integration and recognition of the common barriers, little information is available about what technology integration looks like or how is it achieved. The brief descriptions of the technology integration model in this article are designed to serve as a map of the process and foster discussion among the stakeholders. Readers are encouraged to explore ways in which the model may assist in evaluating their current technology integration efforts by identifying tasks that receive too much or too little attention. Additional information about the model and strategies for preventing technology integration from becoming a “doit-yourself project” are available upon request. Contact Dave L. Edyburn, Ph.D., Dept. of Exceptional Education, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, PO Box 413, Milwaukee, WI 53201-0413; E-mail .
References U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1995). Teachers and technology: Making the connection. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Willis, J. (1993).“What conditions encourage technology use? It depends on the context.” Computers in Schools, 9(4), 13-32.
Computer Technology in Special Education and Rehabilitation
Computer Technology in Special Education and Rehabilitation
