Essential Conditions for Curriculum Integration With Technology
The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) publishes two web sites that address the conditions necessary to integrate technology into the curriculum. One site addresses essential conditions for students http://cnets.iste.org/students/s_esscond.html, and the other addresses essential conditions for teachers http://cnets.iste.org/teachers/t_esscond.html. Both are similar in stating the conditions required to accomplish this. Conditions mentioned on both sites include a shared vision with support by administration; access to newest technology; knowledge of content standards and resources; technical support; teachers with technology skills; student-centered teaching; on-going assessment to determine if technology is making a difference in learning; support by community partners; and adequate, on-going funding. In addition, the teacher site lists professional development that supports technology integration.
I can’t argue with any of the conditions on this list. I believe they are all important. If we pick and choose the ones we are comfortable addressing, then we will probably not accomplish our goal of creating an effective learning environment that prepares students to face the challenges and decisions of the future. In the next sections, I will offer my opinion of where my district (the nation’s 5th largest) stands on each condition listed above, and where applicable, what should be done about it.
Shared Vision with Support by Administration
By reading the district’s mission statement, it is difficult to know whether its vision truly includes technology integration at the highest levels. The district’s vision/mission statement is “… students will have the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and ethics necessary to succeed academically and will practice responsible citizenship.” It doesn’t mention preparing students for the future, nor does it even mention technology. To “succeed academically” can be interpreted so many ways. Lately it seems to mean pass the test to achieve AYP. The mission statement should be rewritten to include mention of preparing students to live in a future that will be dominated by technology. Even the district’s technology vision statement is weak: “It is the vision of the … District that information and communication technologies are essential for improving student achievement.”
Access to Newest Technology
I feel that the district does do a good job of trying to provide access to new technology. It would be an impossible task (although a nice standard to aim for) to continually provide all students and teachers access to the newest technology. Equipment and infrastructures are extremely expensive and time-consuming to purchase, maintain, and train people to use. In order to afford a reasonable degree of high technology, balanced against the cost of new technology, the district sometimes keeps its equipment in use past the point where it might be considered technically obsolete. When schools are updated though, it is with equipment that is state of the art at the time it is purchased.
Knowledge of Content Standards and Resources
Many teachers have limited knowledge of technology content standards and resources. At one time, technology integration and meeting technology standards were stressed much more than they are today. Since the No Child Left Behind act was passed, administrators have been under intense pressure to meet test score standards for basic skills. This has left little time and energy to consider technology integration into the curriculum. It has also shifted the focus of technology use from research and self-directed learning to computer assisted drills and diagnostic-prescriptive testing. Until there is less pressure on administrators to deliver high test scores, the focus probably will not change.
Technical Support
The district does a good job of providing technical support, especially for such a large enterprise. There are several technical departments, including Technology Deployment Services, Networking Services, and User Support Services, all of which provide support either directly or indirectly to end users. In addition, almost all schools have access to an on-site educational computing strategist (ECS) who is usually able to provide timely support for common user errors and minor technical problems. In addition, the ECS is tasked with facilitating technology integration into instruction. Probably the biggest impact to facilitate integration of technology into the curriculum though, would be to give all schools a full time ECS. Presently ECS’s cover two to three schools each.
Teachers with Technology Skills
The collective degree of technology skills in the district is slowly increasing. Most of the improvement is not a result of staff development efforts. Rather, it is a result of older teachers retiring and younger, more tech-savvy teachers taking their places. Many young teachers use technology to accomplish their tasks without a second thought because they have been exposed to it since they were young. As the teaching force continues to turn over, teacher technology skills will not be as big an issue as it once was.
Student-Centered Teaching
From what I see in elementary schools, there is not much student-centered teaching occurring. There is a great deal of drill and diagnostic-prescriptive teaching of the skills that will be on the test. As mentioned above, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) can take credit for this situation. Also stated above, this probably will not change until the test score pressure is relieved.
Ongoing Assessment of Technology’s Effectiveness
It is not good style to sound like a broken record (nor to use such a cliché perhaps), but most teachers and administrators have been burdened with so many tests that measure whether students are meeting “key” academic standards, and with so much pressure to demonstrate achievement, that little is going on that measures the effectiveness of integrating technology. At the moment, there may be little point in such a measure. As explained above, a disproportionate amount of technology resources has been diverted from high-level learning to computer assisted instruction and diagnosis.
Support by Community Partners
Many schools have corporate partners that help fund projects and purchases. An outstanding example of a district-wide community partner is the foundation that helps fund and administer the district’s e-mail system. This affords all employees the ability to communicate electronically with anyone else, both within and outside the district. At the site level, probably the biggest community support schools receive is from parent-teacher organizations. These organizations hold fund raisers and attempt to help schools fund a variety of needs, including minor technology needs.
Adequate, On-going Funding
Schools in the district, with the exception of Title I schools, perhaps, rely mainly on district funding to provide upgrades and major equipment purchases. One could argue that the amount of funding will never be “adequate.” Schools supplement the software and hardware issued by the district with whatever funds they can scrape together. Schools work hard to find the money to buy the extras: digital cameras, printers, software, etc.
Professional Development that Supports Technology Integration
In the past, the district used to allow teachers to be released during the instructional day for training. Substitutes were provided to cover their classes. Because of funding problems and a substitute shortage, this arrangement is no longer allowed. Coupled with the pressures of NCLB mentioned above, little wide-spread attention has been given to professional development that supports technology integration. Most technology-related training that now occurs is concerned with productivity–for example, accessing test scores and using electronic grade books. Training times before school and during teacher preparation periods are now consumed with meetings and trainings that focus on how to improve test scores. Until the rules about teacher training during the instructional day are changed, it will continue to be difficult to find sufficient time blocks to do meaningful technology integration training.
Conclusion
The district does a few things on the list of conditions well, especially technical support and attempting to provide access to new technologies. However, there are so many conditions that are not mastered, I feel that we are not even close to truly achieving meaningful technology integration into the curriculum on a large scale. Thus, with a few exceptions we are far from creating an effective learning environment that prepares students to face the challenges and decisions of a future driven by technology.