(An excerpt from my Technology Integration and Student Motivation and Achievement
Research
Proposal: Submitted to Western Governors University, March 2004)
by Bryan Hatch
During this the information and digital age, few question the necessity of technology. The two driving questions are, how, and to what degree high school classrooms should integrate computer technology? Students at Washington High School are at-risk students. An at-risk student is operationally defined by Robertson as a student who will fail due to: attention problems, multiple retentions in grade, poor grades, absenteeism, lack of connection with school, lack of confidence, and failure for other reasons (as cited in Behnert, 2000). The variety of students and their individual needs, including a high lack of motivation, demands a continual evolving process of making better, more effective, more relevant, motivational, and satisfying instruction and learning experiences. Recently, Utah state government and educational institutions have implemented standards for including technology into the curriculum. With an unlimited budget, technology integration would be an easy process of trial and error. However, the recent downturn in the economy, and limited resources for education, have created the need to use funding for technology in the most effective way.
There are, on average, around 450 students attending Washington High School at one time. Washington High falls under the category of an alternative high school environment. At-risk students attend an alternative high school for various reasons. Many students are attending Washington High because of behavior or attendance issues. Many others are deficient in credits because of a deficiency in interest level, or educational ability (Behnert, 2000). There are many who simply choose a smaller, more personal approach that a school, like Washington High, can offer. Some students attend Washington to gain the skills necessary to attend a college or university, while other students attend, because they can access applied technology training. The students typically share many of the same characteristics that traditional high school students have. However, most students who attend Washington, do so, because they are different. For various reasons, they have not fit in well at a traditional school, and have not been successful with traditional teaching practices. The one characteristic that all Washington High students share is that all of these students have failed in a traditional high school setting.
High school students who will be attending either college, or an applied technology training school, or even for those students who desire to meet just the standards required for graduation, must fulfill certain standards mandated by the Utah State Office of Education (USOE). The USOE creates standards used to guide instruction, and assess the students’ mastery of required knowledge and skills upon graduation from high school. Computer Technology is a class that is required for all students to complete. The class represents one-half of a credit required for graduation. The USOE standards for this required class identify objectives that must be implemented not only into the Computer Technology course, but also mandate that a cross-curriculum project involving technology in another subject, history for example, be completed. This integration of technology is relevant to this research study. The USOE standard and objectives read as follows:
STANDARD 0000-06:
Students will access on-line information resources. Each student will be able to perform the following tasks:
Objective 1: Use the alphabetical browse and keyword search functions, including Boolean connectors [operators] (AND, OR), of a library on-line catalog to find author, title, and subject information.
Objective 2: Download Internet resources stored at World Wide Web sites.
Objective 3: Evaluate the quality of information on web sites (i.e. compare conflicting sites, assess the site’s legitimacy, identify, bias in a web site’s content.
STANDARD 0000-08
Students will create an electronic presentation. The presentation should include the following items:
Objective 1: A variety of slide layouts
Objective 2: Transition and automatic timing.
Objective 3: Graphics and text.
Objective 4: Proofread and correct language mechanics errors (grammar, spelling, punctuation, and word usage) in the presentation.
STANDARD 0000-09
With the cooperation of a teacher in a different content area, students will create and implement an integrated project.
Objective 1: Students will use any or all of the following in a project to be presented for grading to the Computer Technology teacher and a cross-curricular teacher: document processing, spreadsheet, electronic presentation.
( Utah State Office of Education, 2003)
It is not only important to integrate technology because of state standards, there is currently an intense public dialogue on the topic of student achievement, and standards, and the continuous desire for educators and students to be involved in motivating, relevant, confidence building, and successful learning experiences.
Jonassen et al. (2003) illustrates the importance of raising standards, and demonstrates the intense public dialogue, scrutiny, and awareness of this issue, by quoting President George W. Bush’s desire to use technology to raise standards in all academic areas. President Bush argued, “The Administration believes schools should use technology as a tool to improve academic achievement, and that using the latest technology in the classroom should not be an end unto itself (Jonassen et al., 2003).” This argument, and the continued push by President Bush to leave no child in education behind, through the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (as cited in Utah State Office of Education, 2003), demonstrates the strong rationale and justification for continued research in this area. The significance of technology integration is not only expressed by the education policy makers, but also teachers and students.
Teachers and students have a great desire to be successful in the learning experiences in which they participate. To achieve this true success, the mode of instruction must be in line with John Keller’s ARCS model. The ARCS model argues (as cited in Jonassen et al. 2001) that the motivation level of learners is the most important factor in successful instruction. The ARCS model is composed of four necessary components for success: learner attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction. For instruction to be successful, an educator must first, grasp the attention of the learner through important questions, or by using emotional or personal information, or mental challenges that spark attention. Next, an instructor must help a student recognize the relevance of the instruction to the learner’s life or present situation. Keller claims that relevance is important to sustain motivation throughout the instruction. An instructor might achieve relevance by helping the learner answer the question, “Why is this important to me?” In addition, the instructor must build confidence in the learner; they must feel confident in the fact that they are capable of completing the goals of the instruction. Finally, the instructor must help the learner recognize and gain a sense of satisfaction from accomplishing the goals of the instruction. Keller’s ARCS model (as cited in Jonassen et al., 2001) expresses the significance that student motivation plays in the success of instruction. It also demonstrates the importance of choosing effective methods of instruction.
Technology integration is significant not only because of the current national public dialogue on student achievement and standards, but also because the individual student success is the most important factor in deciding what method of instruction to use. The debates over methodology and theory are important, but the most important factor is that U.S. history students at Washington High School are motivated to learn, see a significant relevance of the topic to their lives, feel confident, and finally, that students are demonstrating high standards of achievement, success, and satisfaction.
Does using technology as a tool for instruction effect students? Perhaps the answer to this question seems obvious, but the more debated questions are: How should technology be employed as a tool for instruction? Which model of instruction produces the highest level of student motivation, relevance to the topic, confidence, and achievement and satisfaction? This literature review was conducted in order to outline the advancement and use of technology in the classroom, define the different modes of instruction, review their effectiveness, and discover the conclusions of high school teachers' practical experiences with integrating technology into their classrooms. The focus of the literature review is on the different modes of using technology as an instructional tool, and their impact on at-risk student motivation, relevance, confidence, and sense of achievement. The literature encompasses books and journal articles of authors, theorists, and teachers who have focused their study on the different modes of instruction, and the integration of technology into classroom instruction.
Advances in Technology
Employing technology as a tool or method for instruction is an age old, even ancient process of change and debate. Jonassen, Howland, Moore, and Marra (2003) discuss how technology has caused education to evolve over time, “Beginning with the hunting and gathering age, through the agrarian age, and then into the industrial age, expert elders taught and developed their apprentices using oral communication such as story-telling and recitation. With the invention of technologies like writing 5,000 years ago, and the printing press 500 years ago, these elders were able to use these technologies to collect and organize data, bits of their knowledge, and convert it into printed information, making it available to growing numbers of apprentices who were the emerging literate (Jonassen, Howland, Moore, and Marra, 2003)”
More recently in history, the debate over technology as an instructional tool came to the forefront in the early 1900s. Betrus and Molenda (2002) trace the changes from the 1920s to the early 2000s. Technology instruction in the 1920s, referred to as visual instruction, was primarily direct instruction of verbal information from teacher to student, and included the use of visual aides and visual media as tools to facilitate that instruction. Starnes referred to this era of the technology movement as the “pioneer stage” of visual instruction (as cited in Betrus, & Molenda). Starnes discovered that visual instruction courses for teachers, at this time in history, included the study of several different topics, including, “the history of visual education”, and the “psychological justification for the use of visual aids”, as well as many technology device-related topics including, “technique in using the stereoscope,” “technique in the use of motion pictures,” “technique in the use of lantern slides, film slides, and opaque projectors,” and “technique in the use of motion projectors and projection.” This 1920s instructional technology was primarily used by teachers in the classroom setting, rather than individual students. Starnes adds that students rarely used technology individually. When students did use technology, it included such things as, pupil-made glass slides, photography, and models (as cited in Betrus, & Molenda 2003).
Starnes continues to illustrate the evolution of technology from the 1930s into the 1980s. Now known as audio and visual media, new technologies in 1930 included audio recording and playback equipment. With the Soviet launch of the first satellite, Sputnik, the year 1957 marked a dramatic increase in technology advancement. The United States Congress passed the National Defense Education Act, spurring an increased drive to include technology in education (as cited in Betrus, & Molenda 2003).
Upon entering the 1980s, educators witnessed the advent of the “Information Age”. The 1980s and 1990s were named the Information Age because of the increase in technology which resulted in the widespread proliferation of information over the Internet, and the easy accessibility to personal computers. The first microcomputers became available to a select few in the early 1970s, but by 1985, reported Betrus and Molendat, there were at least one million microcomputers being used as instructional tools in elementary and secondary schools. Technology in the classroom was then referred to as “Digital Instruction Technology”, or the “Digital Revolution” (Betrus, & Molenda 2003).
Saettler reported that in 1985, “Computers are pervasive in school and higher education institutions. Virtually every student in formal education has access to a computer (as cited in Betrus, & Molenda).” This being the reality, the question educators must answer is no longer whether technology should be used, the questions and debates are over the appropriate use technology as an instructional tool, and in what instructional context technology should be used.
Instructional Theories
There are many instructional theories, and all of them have found some way to incorporate technology as an instructional tool. The scope of this study focuses on three modes of instructional theory and technology integration models. The first mode is the advocates for direct instruction, or teacher centered instruction, whose theorists are referred to as directed objectivists, or behaviorists. Second, the constructivist, or student centered mode of instruction. Finally, a mixed-method approach to instruction, combining the direct and constructivist models.
Direct Instruction Approach
Objectivism, behaviorism, or direct instruction, as it is more commonly know amongst educators was founded in “behaviorist learning theory and the information-processing branch of the cognitive learning theories (Roblyer, 2003).” This instructional theory echoes back to the days of pre-history, when data and information were passed down through oral tradition, from a wise elder, to a young immature, unknowing, apprentice. Roblyer (2003) describes the direct instruction model, explaining, “Knowledge has a separate, real existence of its own outside the human mind. Learning happens when this knowledge is transmitted to people and they store it in their minds.” This theory is, therefore, founded on the idea that information exists independently, and a student must gain access to that information through a mentor or teacher.
Many philosopher educators have contributed to the understanding of the direct instruction model. The modern direct instruction theory was built on the foundation of B.F. Skinner’s work, and the information processing model, or the mind as a computer model.
Skinner’s behaviorist theory, was modeled after the work of Ivan Pavlov, and his famous salivating dogs. The dogs would salivate, after being pre-conditioned, or trained to expect food when a bell rang. Much like Pavlov’s dogs, students in a direct instruction environment are praised for returning a correct answer to the teacher. The idea is that students would eventually be trained or conditioned to increase the frequency of correct responses, when given the desired stimuli. Direct instruction not only employs the concepts of the behaviorist theory, it also relies on the principles of the information processing, or mind as a computer theory (Roblyer, 2003).
When you think of the mind as a computer, you can imagine the mind sensing information, and either assigning importance to it and computing something, then saving that information in a long term memory, or recognizing the information as insignificant junk, and deleting it from the working memory. In the classroom, this type of learning would be characterized by an expert teacher deciding what is important, and enticing students with the data in the most interesting way. In this way, the students’ attention is peaked, and then assigning value to the information, they will recall it when needed, by committing it to their long term memories (Roblyer, 2003).
Many in education, and those who create educational policy, see some form of direct instruction as a way to insure students meet a certain standard of learning. They follow the behaviorist principle that knowledge is separate from the mind, and must be inserted in some way from one who knows and understands (the teacher), to one who does not (the student). Roblyer (2003) illustrates how this need for standards came to be.
Roblyer discusses how the education boom at the end of World War II mandated the need for a creation of standards. Education was a high priority. More people had access to education, and were straying in school longer than ever before. With the increased numbers of students came an increased strain on educators, and educational institutions’ resources. With this strain, came a need for institutions to insure that the graduating students learned the required information. To accomplish this, many of these institutions turned to standardized instruction to assist teachers. Roblyer argues, “By the 1970s, systems approaches”, based on Robert Gagnes’ systematic approach to designing instruction for students, which schools in the past often implemented incorrectly, (Roblyer, 2003), “were widely proposed as a way for teachers and others to design self-instructional packages for students to separate directed instruction from the need for the teacher to deliver it. Self-instruction was more efficient than trying to serve the pacing and content needs of each student. Standardization also ensured that instruction was replicable, that is, quality was uniform [standardized] from presentation to presentation. However, systems approaches also were seen as a way to design more effective teacher-delivered presentations (Roblyer, 2003).” No educator wants to argue that standards should not be raised, however, some educators and theorists believe that the direct instruction model is counterproductive to, and even denies the true learning process.
Many educators see the constant drilling and recitation of countless, teacher-centered, direct instructional facts as counterproductive to the learning process. Staley (2000) commented on one history teacher’s experience that exemplified this argument explaining,
I cannot help but feel this is what history education, as it has been traditionally practiced, must seem like to most students. They are asked to listen to a recitation on “facts” that seem to be . . . empty and meaningless. Like a computer that mimics human intelligence, many students mimic our tasks to our satisfaction, with little “understanding” of what they are being asked to do. In effect, we ask students to memorize abstract entities such as dates, names, events, and geographical locations, then to repeat these codes on a multiple-choice test. Answering all the questions correctly suggests “mastery of the material.” And when all is said and done, history education produces students who, if we are lucky, know the dates of the Thirty Year’s War, and might even remember a list of “causes” for the conflict, but who are at a loss to explain why understanding history is of any significance (Staley, 2000).
This illustration of the direct teaching model as a monotonous, teacher centered, irrelevant instruction is difficult for any student, but it is particularly difficult for at-risk, alternative students to endure. For this reason, many educators have employed the constructivist model as the foundation for their instruction.
Constructivist Approach
Sfard and Willis (as cited in Roblyer, 2003) characterized constructivist theory saying, “Humans construct all knowledge in their minds by participating in certain experiences; learning happens when one constructs both mechanisms for learning and his or her own unique version of the knowledge, colored by background, experiences, and aptitudes.”
The modern constructivist model is founded on the work of John Dewey, Lev Vygotsky, Jerome Bruner, Jean Piaget, Howard Gardner, and the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTGV). The constructivist model of instruction (as cited in Roblyer, 2003), challenges the traditional goals and methods of educational instruction.
Many history instructors recognize the need for students to learn history content, as well as important, practical, relevant, life-skills. Also, as alternative, and minority histories emerge, and history content becomes more and more subjective to the perspectives and biases of different cultures and people, the focus of history courses are moving from straight content, “fact” based instruction, to additional skills based instruction. Roblyer (2003) argues that the contructivist model calls for students to construct knowledge themselves rather than simply receiving it from the knowledgeable instructor. The goal is to avoid what the CTGV (as cited in Roblyer, 2003) calls inert knowledge. Inert knowledge can be defined as, “the student failure to transfer what is already known to the learning of other skills that require prior knowledge (as cited in Roblyer, 2003).” More simply put, the constructivist model avoids forcing students to memorize and recall non-motivational, irrelevant, tidbits of “factual” yet subjective information, which is assigned value by an outside source of instruction. From this discussion, it can be concluded that both a general knowledge and appreciation of historic content, and practical, relevant skills are an important part of instruction.
Constructivist Application Obstacles
Using technology within the context of the constructivist theory of instruction can be difficult, and requires practice, and the ability to experiment and make mistakes. Some instructors find direct instruction is not only required, but is best. Perry (2003), a teacher of high school English for twenty-four years, explained his experience with using technology and the constructivist model of instruction. The studies title itself is very telling: Tech Versus the Human Touch: Teacher Affect is More Effective. Perry argues, “I used to think that technology was a good way to improve student learning, but I wanted to know if it was the best way. . .I wanted to see if there was a better way than lecturing to teach my students – a way that would hold their attention and result in a greater understanding (Perry, 2003).” Perry’s action research study involved his two English classes as samples. Perry’s research concluded that students who were left to study using more independent methods from the constructivist model of instruction were not as successful as those who benefited from direct instruction. In the first experimental phase, Parry supposed that the failure of the students using the constructivist methods was to the “lack of maturity in managing their own learning (Parry, 2003).” Although Parry did not find significant support that a lack of maturity was the cause of his students’ failure, this is an argument that is shared by many instructors. Ultimately, Parry concluded that the constructivist model was not the best model for his students’ instruction, “Students need a teacher. We educators need not worry about replacement by some new technology; education is all about the human connection (Parry, 2003).”
There are several possible reasons why the technology used in the constructive model is difficult to apply in a classroom. As during the post World War II era (Roblyer, 2003), instructors and educational institutions are facing intense strain from the number of students, the lack of resources, and the compliance with mandated standards.
Lastly, Bitner and Bitner (2002) found that many instructors fail to benefit from using technology in the constructivist model for eight reasons: fear of change, lack of training, lack of personal use, lack of effective teaching models, lack of learning based impetus, an unforgiving climate for experimentation, lack of motivation, and support. Staley (2000) notes, in addition, that many teachers incorporate technology, but use it as medium to continue direct instruction. Therefore, when the same old direct instruction fails, instructors incorrectly believe they have failed at practicing the constructivist model. Staley argues, “In theory, a teacher could deploy nifty electronic gadgets to make acquiring this material more “interesting.” Rather than teachers lecturing to a class or students silently mining information from textbooks, the classroom could be given over to electronic tools that would “deliver the material” in a dazzling, attention-grabbing fashion. However, such a technological palliative does nothing to change the fact that rote memorization of decontextualized facts about the past – whether delivered by human teacher or electronic screen – is not history (Staley, 2000).” These reasons explain why many instructors fall back into the old direct teaching habits, which many believe are less productive.
Mixed-Method Approach
Some research argues that a mixed-method, meaning a mix of the constructivist and the direct instruction models, approach to using technology solves many of the obstacles mentioned, and is the most effective approach. Molenda (as cited in Roblyer, 2003), argues, “constructivism comes in different strengths. . .from weak to moderate to extreme (Roblyer, 2003).” Molenda further argues, “an either – or stance seems to gain us little. Rather, both sides need to find a way to merge the two approaches in a way that will benefit learners and teachers (Roblyer, 2003).” Perkins (as cited in Dalgarno, 2001) agrees that radical constructivism may not be the most effective model for instruction. He states, “More moderate constructivists claim that formal instruction is still appropriate, but that learners should then engage in thought oriented activities to allow them to apply and generalize the information and concepts provided in order to construct their own model of knowledge (as cited in Dalgarno, 2001).”
Conclusion
Education and technology continually change and evolve. Authors, theorists, and teachers continue to debate whether the direct teaching, the constructivist, or a mixed method of instruction is the most effective. The discussion and debate must never end. Technology and education will always change and evolve, therefore, we will never reach a definitive end of the story. The current focus is to discover what will meet the needs of the current students in the Washington High School history class. From the literature review, it is learned that many believe tradition and the desire to insure completion of standards call for the use of direct instruction. However, using the direct instruction model, students often struggle to answer the frequently echoed question of, “Why is this important?” Those teachers who venture out to try more of a constructivist approach to instruction, or even a mixed method approach to using technology in education often find many obstacles. One of the major obstacles discussed was the lack of motivation and maturity needed by high school students to complete a self-directed unit. Despite these obstacles, many students engaged in constructivist or mixed method instruction are able to demonstrate a significant difference in their level of motivation, relevance to the subject, and satisfaction in their achievement.
Ultimately, Staley (2000) in his review of significant literature on the topic, concludes, “technology alone is insufficient to ensure effective history education. In the end, the skills of teachers and the competencies and imaginations of students determines the success of the endeavor. If technology aids in the process, so much the better (Staley, 2000).”
References
Betrus, A. K., & Molenda, M. (2002). Historical evolution of instructional technology in teacher education programs. TechTrends, 46(5) 18-21. Retrieved January 11, 2004, from the ERIC database.
Behnert, L. S. (2000). A profile of at risk students who enroll at Washington High School. Unpublished manuscript. Weber State University. Ogden, Utah.
Bitner, N., & Bitner, J. (2002). Integrating technology into the classroom: Eight keys to success. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(1), 95-100 Retrieved January 11, 2004, form the ERIC database.
Dalgarno, B. (2001). Interpretations of constructivism and consequences of Computer Assisted Learning (CAL). British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(2), 183-194. Retrieved January 11, 2004, from the ERIC database.
Dick, W., Carey, L., Carey, J. O. (2001). The systematic design of instruction (5 th ed.). New York : Longman.
Jonassen, D. H., Howland, J. L., Moore, J. L., & Marra, R. M. (2003). Learning to solve problems with technology: A constructivist perspective (2 nd ed.) New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Perry, A. (2003). Tech versus the human touch: Teacher affect is more effective. Educational Horizons, 81 (4), 183-185. Retrieved January 11, 2003, from the ERIC database.
Roblyer, M.D. (2003) Part 1"Learning theories and integration models," Chapter 3, In Integrating educational Technology into Teaching, (3 rd ed.), (pp.51- 82). New Jersey: Merrill.
Staley, D. J. (2000). Technology, authentic, performance, and history. International Journal of Social Education, 15 (1),1-12. Retrieved January 11, 2004, from ERIC database.
Utah State Office of Education. (2003). No child left behind. Retrieved January 11, 2004, from Utah State Office of Education Web Site: http://www.usoe.k12.ut.us
Utah State Office of Education. (2003, October 30). Computer Technology Course Description, Standards, and Objectives. Retrieved January 15, 2004, from http://usoe.k12.ut.us/ate/Skills/bus/ComputerTechnology/CompTechStandards.pdf
Copyright by Bryan Hatch - March 2004 - Do not use without permission.