Blast from the past in the late 90’s and from my website in pre-blog days. Is naked no graphics etc. and I did not ask Zemanta for help. I do need to get back to those days…… and think more… but.
Teachers of the past never had a World Wide Web page, used a modem to
communicate, or used a graphics presentation system to accompany a
lecture. The most memorable teachers provided a personal element that
inspired and motivated students to pursue learning using the various tools
and resources available (Hinnant, Oliva)
The tools have changed but the message stays the same it is not simply the tool that is important, not simply the technology it is, however, the teacher that makes it work. The integration of technology into the classroom is no different; it is the teacher, in the end, that controls where, when and how this integration will occur. I feel it is important when examining the extent to which technology can be integrated into the curriculum to keep this completely in focus. Through an examination of past issues, involved with integrating technology into the curriculum, and current challenges one will have a better understanding of the, possibilities and limits, of such integration.
The Days Gone By
When one examines the history of educational computing one notices different phases in the use of technology in the classroom. D. Lamont Johnson identifies three different phases of educational computing. In his article “Integrating Technology into the Classroom the Time Has Come” he states that the use of educational computing has gone from familiarization to acquisition followed by integration. Based on my experience using technology at the Elementary, Middle and High School level I would agree with these basic phases. I would, however, add one phase that needs to take place before integration occurs; internalization.
Early on when technology was introduced in the schools the classroom teacher became aware of some of the possibilities of its educational use. The computer, however, was generally used in a laboratory setting without much impact on classroom instruction. Teachers were aware that the technology was in the building but use was generally relegated to the computer teacher and a programming course in Basic, Logo or Pascal. Teacher interaction with the technology extended to the odd staff inservice and perhaps dropping their class off at the lab for computer instruction. This resulted in a shallow familiarization process where the teacher had not examined the technology with the depth needed for classroom integration.
The next phase, acquisition, involved the mass purchase of the machinery needed to give teachers the resources to utilize the technology. During this phase educational, community and political leaders were convinced of the need to place more computers into schools. The reality of the situation was the computers were purchased and still placed into laboratory settings. Teachers still did not have the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the computer and were, therefore, still not prone to utilizing the computers within the classroom. During this phase of mass purchase of technology some interesting things were happening with software. More and more application programs came into being. Computer teachers began utilizing these different applications within in their elective program. No longer only teaching programming, computer applications such as the spread sheet, word processors, and the data base were taught. The tools the classroom teacher needed for classroom integration were developed and refined.
Currently, from the point of view of familiarization and acquisition, I believe many schools have been successful in the use of technology . In my my school district, for example, technology is in place both in the lab and the classroom . The technology, however, has not made a large impact when examining curriculum integration. It is at this point I would consider the role of internalization in the phases of educational computing. From the historical perspective the first two phases occurred but still the technology was used at the laboratory level and classroom integration was not common. This was, and is, true because teachers have not had the opportunity to move from familiarization with the technology to internalizing its use.
Today the opportunity for becoming familiar with technology is increasing. In 1993 according to Mike Grey the number of Internet sites was 130. In 1997 the estimated number of sites was up to 650, 000. If one examines the number of households that have purchased computers during the same approximate time frame you find a similar growth trend. It is reasonable to assume that many of these computer and Internet users are teachers. This trend of increasing numbers of home computers and computer users is bound to have the effect of increasing teacher familiarity with technology. As this familiarity increases, as the knowledge of using the technology as a tool and a resource increases, so to does the likelihood of the teacher internalizing the use of the technology . This, in turn, can lead to a situation in which integration can occur.
It is, of course, reasonable to conclude that many factors come into play when considering how we can facilitate teacher integration of technology. High quality inservice strategies that focus on different models of instruction using technology are needed (Wiburg). Increasing teacher access to the technology is also critical in this process. However, the explosion of the Internet and societies reaction to this explosion has been a major factor in refocusing teachers attention on technology. This refocus is resulting in greater familiarization with the technology and increased the likelihood of curriculum integration.
The Challenge
Based on an assumption of greater teacher access to technology, how difficult will it be to move from familiarization, to internalization and on to actual integration? Is it possible? Is it feasible? Does the classroom teacher have the time? Or are we once again setting ourselves up for failure? (Open Learning Technology Corporation) How realistic is it to expect results without a serious investment of time and money into teacher training. Furthermore, without such investments how can we expect widespread integration of technology into the curriculum.
When one examines the different skills needed for the teacher to be able to make integration a reality they seem unsurmountable. The teachers need to become familiar with, and internalize, the capabilities of the software. In addition, the teacher needs to have an understanding of the standards and curriculum. The teacher needs to combine both of these in order to facilitate student learning through the software. Furthermore, the teacher needs to continually reassess their knowledge level as the technology is ever changing. Is it surprising, as is stated in But He’s Wearing No Clothes “that the rhetoric about the potential of information technologies in education has seldom been realized”?
D. Lamont Johnson points to an Investor’s Business Daily article stating in 1995 “business spent well over $2 Billion in training their employees on the use of technology, but 90 % of the teachers in America reported that they were 100% self taught. The problem, today as in the past, is that the expectations placed on educators is not matched by the training given educators.” Teachers still are not given the time and training needed to fully understand the possibilities of the use of technology in the clasroom. (Wild Cradler ). As is identified in a survey, conducted by Kevin Green , “assisting faculty integrate technology into instruction” and “providing adequate user support” are the top two “single most important” information technology ” issues.
The learning process necessary for the teacher to be able to integrate technology into the classroom is ongoing and needs to be continually addressed. It is not enough to “dip” the teacher in the paint of technology and expect results. Opportunity has to be provided for an ongoing process where the teacher has access to ongoing support . From my experience, I think it is possible to accomplish this with a mentor colleague, who is given the sole task of being involved in a role of continual staff support. In this situation the mentor teacher’s knowledge of technology and learning coupled with the classroom teachers knowledge of the curriculum and learning would result in an integrated technology focused learning environment. (Learning With Software, Mckenzie)
From the past to the present the road to integrating technology into the classroom has been difficult. There are still many problems to face. We have moved from familiarization with technology through to acquisition of technology. Our resources now need to be allocated to the most important component, although not at first the most visible, staff development. With the Internet our attention has been refocused on the possibilities of the uses of technology. We need, however, to use this focus to give teachers the resources and time needed to internalize and integrate the technology into the classroom. Without this the wide spread integration of technology into the classroom becomes, at best, extremely difficult.
