by jennifer summerville and angelia reid-griffina systematic approach that blends the princi-ples of...

44 TechTrends • September/October 2008 Volume 52, Number 5 Volume 52, Number 5 TechTrends • September/October 2008 45

eaching pre-service and in-service teach-ers to use technologies in their classrooms begins with their training at the univer-

sity. Many teacher education programs require students to take a foundational level course in technology education. As these foundational courses are continually revamped to include technologies for various disciplines, teacher education programs find it difficult to establish a consistent platform for preparing students to incorporate instructional design principles with new instructional technology tools.

Instructional design is a widely-acknowledged system of planning, implementing, and evaluat-ing instruction (Gagne, Wager, Golas, & Keller, 2005; Reiser & Dick, 1996; Shelly, Cashman, Gunter, & Gunter, 2006). Historically, instruc-tional design was recognized for its use in the military, and now gradually has become more mainstream in teacher education programs. The premise of instructional design is to make learning more efficient. Reiser and Dick (1996), Morgan (1989), and Bowsher (1989) note that employing this organized approach in such di-verse settings as schools, developing countries, and business has lead to valuable methods of instruction. Snellbecker (1947) and Morrison, Ross, and Kemp (2007) proposed that this struc-tured systematic process establishes the link be-tween educational research and practical appli-cation.

There are instructional design models that incorporate technology integration. One notable

example is the U.S. Air Force model, which was the “pioneer” of instructional design models, according to Seels and Glasgow (1998). This model addressed the need for a systematic ap-proach to instruction for military courses that focused on technology integration (p. 172).

Other instructional design models incor-porating technology integration include the Reiser and Dick model; the ASSURE model; the Teacher Decision Making model, which gives explanation to the ADDIE process (Anal-ysis, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evalu-ate); and the Kemp model. We used each of the models in previous teaching practices and found the models did not entirely address the needs of our Instructional Technology course. Therefore, we chose to develop a model that would be a good fit with our own teaching pedagogy.

We were able to develop a platform, using a systematic approach that blends the princi-ples of instructional planning with technology integration. Instructors of our Instructional Technology course collaborated to develop modules aligned with principles of instruc-tional design. This seemed to be an ideal way to provide students additional opportunities to design instructional activities that incorporat-ed appropriate technology for their curriculum and grade levels. This marriage of technology integration and the use of technology as a tool through instructional design offers the popula-tion of students we serve numerous opportuni-ties to engage in lesson-building activities.

Technology Integration andInstructional DesignBy Jennifer Summerville and Angelia Reid-Griffin

T

“We required that students consider how they will usethe model to design, and plan their lessons to

best meet the needs of their learners andthe requirements of the state and NETS.”

46 TechTrends • September/October 2008 Volume 52, Number 5

Although research indicates the use of in-structional design models to deliver technol-ogy-enhanced instruction can lead to effective teaching, there are few models for developing design skills that integrate technology within the education curriculum. This article ad-dresses this research need by focusing on the instructional design model that we used to teach pre-service students to plan activities ef-fectively integrating technologies. Since most

of the students enrolled in the Instructional Technol-ogy courses have already taken the undergraduate-level course Instructional Design and Evaluation for Pre-service Teachers, we will focus the discus-sion on how the model was used with a module that specifically addressed instructional design prin-ciples, incorporating the integration of technology in lesson planning.

ContextThe course Instructional

Technology is required of all education majors at a four-year university in the southeastern region of the United States. We were

both instructors of Instructional Technology courses during the development and imple-mentation of the model described in this article. They also served as instructors of the universi-ty’s instructional design course for teacher edu-cation candidates.

The students enrolled in the Instructional Technology courses were teacher education candidates with novice-level computer skills. We categorized the students as traditional and non-traditional students. Traditional students were defined as undergraduates obtaining their first bachelor’s degree, immediately following high school; non-traditional students were de-fined as returning students who had a college degree or were returning to school after several years away from formal schooling. These stu-dents sought to teach at the Pre-K, elementary, middle, or secondary level with discipline in-terests varying from Language Arts, Math, Sci-ence, Social Studies, Physical Education, Music Education, and Special Education.

All sections of the course used “Integrating Technology and Digital Media into the Class-room” from the Shelly Cashman Series (Shelly

et al., 2006). The instructors sequenced the text into eight modules. Each of the eight modules was completed in approximately two weeks,, and this course lasted about 15 weeks. Students were required to read the chapter(s) for each module and prepare for discussions about relevant issues, usually in an online discussion forum or in class, on campus. At the end of each module, students completed a project based upon the content of the chapters and appropriate technology tools.

The course was presented to students in ei-ther an online or blended teaching platform, based on the instructor’s teaching preference. The online and blended platforms utilized web-based teaching tools such as Blackboard Campus Edition or Vista to present materials and interact with students. The blended courses offered some face-to-face meetings on campus as well as on-line meetings.

As instructors of the course, we generalized that the students’ technology experiences dif-fered greatly. Many of the traditional students had some experience using the technologies and software programs, while the non-traditional students had little or no experience using the tools. Depending on their levels of confidence using the tools, students chose to enroll in either the online or blended sections of the course.

Because many of the students enrolled in our courses may have had some experience with instructional design, we developed a module that specifically addressed using principles of in-structional design in the design and development of lesson plans using technology tools. In par-ticular, we used a product called TaskStream as a portfolio builder for students to use from their initial courses in education through completion of their degrees. Within TaskStream, students are able to choose from a selection of tools that allow multiple options for using their lesson plans in the future, including saving all of their materi-als onto the site for use in other classes. Students could also e-mail the plans to the instructors or peers. To provide reflective practice we required students in our courses to “publish” their lesson plans for review so that feedback could be given from a variety of sources.

The focus of the module, entitled “Using Technology to Enhance Instructional Design” is a lesson plan model that we use in our state. Within this module, students build a sample les-son using an online version of the Lesson Plan template from TaskStream (Shelly et al., 2006). Students are required to plan a simple lesson on a topic of their choice, given their major and subject area. The lesson must be based on state standards and the National Educational Tech-nology Standards for Teachers (NETS), which

“The eight modules of the Instructional Technology course

provide students with experiences to meet

some of the basic computer competencies

stated in ISTENational Educational

Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS-T)

and Students (NETS-S).”


they must include and cite in their lesson plan, and designed appropriately for their learners. Students must also cite any references used in de-veloping the lesson. The lesson plan template in TaskStream allows students to fill-in critical in-formation such as subject, topic, grade level and a summary of the lesson (see Appendix A). Using the template, students complete the lesson plan based on sound pedagogy. It is not sufficient for students to simply fill-in the blanks of the lesson template. We required that students consider how they will use the model to design, and plan their lessons to best meet the needs of their learners and the requirements of the state and NETS.

A model for instructional design forpre-service teachers

A model often comes from a theoretical perspective. As Seels and Glasgow (1998) note, many differences of opinion concerning instruc-tional design models have come from construc-tivists due to the cognitive principles expressed in many models (p. 183). Building on a construc-tivist framework, we prepared an instructional design model for how to apply the theory in practice. The model combines both theory and practice and eliminated some of the fixed steps from other traditional models. Some of these instructional models include Reiser and Dick, Teacher Decision Making model (ADDIE), and ASSURE. These models, used previously in our teaching practices, did not address the needs of the Instructional Technology course, which led to the analysis of these models along with Kemp’s Model for Instructional Design (see Figure 1) and later to the development of our own model.

We found that some of the models incorpo-rated methodical features for the incorporation of technology use in teaching, however the rather linear and inflexible designs of their approaches to planning and delivering instruction were too limiting to pedagogical practices. The Reiser and Dick (1996) seven series model proved to be problematic when students tried to incorporate a variety of approaches to using technology with their instructional plans. The model as noted by Shambaugh and Magliaro (2006) did not leave any room for the in-depth analysis of the cur-riculum that supports technology integration. The model seemed to maintain instruction at the “forefront” of the planning process (Shambaugh & Magliaro, 2006, p. 40).

Although Reiser and Dick (1996) indicated the importance of flexibility in planning instruc-tion, their plan was not as flexible as they sug-gested. They based their steps solely on teachers’ first stating instructional goals and then allowing the rest to follow along that statement (p. 6). The integration of technologies by users of this model

can be implemented in the choice of media step. Reiser and Dick (1996) describe this step as the “physical means by which instruction is delivered to students” (p. 68). We felt that be-cause preparing teachers to select the correct media for their curriculum served as the main goal of this course, this model’s approach was too restrictive. Therefore we decided against the use of the Reiser and Dick model with this course.

We also considered the more widely known ASSURE model in the field of instruc-tional technology (Heinich et al., 2002; Shelly et al., 2006). This model provides processes for implementing instruction that uses technology effectively. Shelly et al. indicated that “when us-ing technology, an instructional design model and planning take on a more important role” for the teacher (2006, p. 6.22). The six stages of the ASSURE model are analyze learner; state objectives; select methods, media, and materi-als; utilize media and materials; require learner participation; and evaluate and revise (Shelly et al., 2006). At first glance, this model seemed ideal for our course, however, in an effort to pro-vide students with instructional design process skills that were flexible and encompassed the principles of educational research and practice, this model seemed to fall short of our expecta-tions. It failed to support our practice of teach-ing students to develop instruction that focuses not only on the learners needs but also adheres to the requirements of the state and NETS.

This left us again searching for an instruc-tional design process that would meet our goals for the courses. In teaching our instructional design courses, we came across the Shambaugh

Figure 1: The Kemp Model of Instructional Design


and Magliaro (2006) Teacher Decision Mak-ing process which described many of the points found in ADDIE. ADDIE is one of the most widely used processes in instructional design but has come under scrutiny as to whether it is a model or process. As explained by Molenda (2003), the ADDIE model does not exist and is merely a “colloquial label for the systematic development process” (Morrison, Ross, Kemp, 2006, p. 13). The Teacher Decision Making pro-cess too failed to allow flexibility in it linear ar-rangement.

Jennifer Summerville had used the Kemp Model of Instructional Design previously in an instructional design course and thought that it may be a good design for this course. The Kemp model (Kemp & Smellie, 1994) has an elliptical nature in addressing the core processes for in-struction. We both found the unique design of the model to be a good fit with our own teaching pedagogy. However, we both felt that the model did not address how knowledge is transferred among the tiers. We felt it would not help our student effectively incorporate technology in planning their instructional tasks.

Jennifer Summerville, the author of the model shown in Figure 2, took a more circular, cyclical approach to the design of instruction and less of a linear approach. This circular model allowed incorporation of the different elements that are important to the overall design of instruction and supported design of instruction developed and implemented for preservice teachers in the undergraduate course.

The model’s outer layers of Learner Analysis,

Instructional Strategies and Task Analysis are the beginning steps in the process of instruction-al design. We addressed the first tier only briefly in this course because they are covered more thoroughly in the instructional design course. The focus of the instructional technology cours-es begins with the second tier where one finds Media (which includes both Design and Selec-tion), Content Analysis, Government Mandates and Lesson Planning. We continue through both Assessment and Evaluation and finally end with our most important goal, the Transfer of knowl-edge. This is not only a design model but also a teaching model. The circular nature of the new instructional design model allows for maximum flexibility in design. We view the use of this mod-el as stressing re-visitation of each section within each tier. One can begin with Government Man-dates, for example, and revisit them at any time.

However, movement from one tier to the next does not indicate that the previous tier should be forgotten. Therefore, we believe the review of the first tier is essential for students in this course. Each of the tiers does have its own importance and should be visited and somewhat completed in a sequential order. After all, one does not be-gin with the concept of Transfer. That is an end-state.

How the course modules fit the design modelThe eight modules of the Instructional Tech-

nology course provide students with experiences to meet some of the basic computer competen-cies stated in ISTE National Educational Tech-nology Standards for Teachers (NETS-T) and Students (NETS-S). Within each of the modules, students learn the mechanics of the technologies and demonstrate an understanding of how to in-tegrate them into the classroom.

Aligning with the model, the course goal is for “students to develop lessons that impact the learners’ cognition and academic achievement” (Anonymous, 2004). Each module supports this goal by providing instructional activities for stu-dents to obtain application skills as they interact with various media. During these interactions with different media, students learn to focus on applications relevant to their specific content as they develop their lesson.

Each module project is evaluated by a group of peers for adherence to required criteria. Stu-dents have an opportunity to review and discuss the projects prior to final review by the instructor. They also have an opportunity to review and eval-uate their own work in a final portfolio project in which they can make changes to all of the mod-ules to create the best body of work possible to represent their knowledge of a variety of media.

Figure 2: The Summerville Integrated Model.


Module one: In this first module, students are required to have an understanding of NETS (International Society for Technology in Educa-tion, 2000-2002) and apply that understanding of the standards to a project in which they are given a budget for purchasing technology and supportive equipment and materials. They write up the budget and rationale using a word pro-cessing program. Within the first module, stu-dents must take into account media, government mandates, content analysis, and planning. They also begin to touch on the inner circles of assess-ment, evaluation, and transfer.

Module two: Students select an educational website for evaluation. The website is of their choosing but must be educational in nature (as opposed to a website for business or training). The evaluation form focuses on critical evalua-tion of not only media attributes but what stu-dents learn from the site. In addition, we require students to explain how the website that they re-view may or may not meet NETS and how the site may or may not be appropriate in the class-room (as a part of both content analysis and les-son planning). The emphasis of this project is on the whole of the process—from media attributes to transfer.

Module three: Students use TaskStream to help them develop a lesson plan. Students must identify state standards and possibly NETS that apply to their lessons, they select media, meth-ods and materials to use in their classrooms, they analyze content for the lesson, and they plan the lesson, using the Six Point Lesson Plan template (see Appendix A). Students also plan for assess-ment and evaluation within their lesson plan. In addition, because this project is so comprehen-sive, the emphasis is on transfer of knowledge from one daily lesson to the next. Students not only learn how to encourage transfer within their own lessons but they, as students, are encouraged to transfer their own knowledge of lessons, me-dia and instructional design to other modules.

The key to this module is not the tool but the use of the tool in an appropriate manner. Some students initially fill in the blanks with minimal verbiage. We discourage surface thinking and encourage students to consider their actual class-rooms while they design their lessons. Since stu-dents have the ability to easily share their plans with others with the click of a button they can receive feedback on the quality of their lessons from multiple resources.

Module four: Students use PowerPoint for a part of the lesson that they have designed. They are to take state standards and NETS into ac-count when they create their PowerPoint lesson. They subscribe to good media design standards

as they create their PowerPoint so that they use the media to its best advantage (as opposed to creating something loud with clashing colors).

Students use the PowerPoint presenta-tion that they created for Module 4 as a part of an overall lesson plan and analyze the con-tent that they include in the presentation. The product should align with their lesson created in module three. In this module, the following standards are addressed: NETS-S 3A, 3B, 4A, and 6B (International Society for Technology in Edu-cation, 2000-2002). This module allows students to further analyze media and content relevant for de-veloping the activity. Stu-dents are required to plan for the assessment of the content that they present in their PowerPoint and should plan to have their media, methods, and ma-terials evaluated by peers and possibly their own students.

Module five: Students use the Microsoft Excel pro-gram to develop classroom record keeping skills by creating an electronic grade book. Student use the tools in Excel to calculate students’ grades and create graphs to compare students’ perfor-mances. In addition to creating a grade book, students produce a progress report they would distribute to parents. The assignment requires students to compare the scores of an individual student in their grade book with that of the entire class through the use of graphs. Students also are required to use the If-Then command and create their own quizzes using the instructions given. They are encouraged to share their If-Then quiz-zes with a peer to check for accuracy.

Module six: Students create a WebQuest for use in their classroom. The comprehensive na-ture of a WebQuest lends itself to the whole of the circular module. WebQuests can be a pow-erful tool for educators because they can be implemented at almost every grade level and with different subject matter. They also make good use of timely information gained from online resources, which may be updated more often than print-based materials (Summerville, 2000).The development of these tools further extends students’ exposure to lesson design by requiring analysis of appropriate media and awareness of government mandates in publish-ing items on-line.

“Each module project is evaluated by a group of peers for adherence to required criteria. Students have an opportunity to review and discuss the projects prior to final review by the instructor.”


Module seven: Students evaluate media by completing evaluation of one of the computer software programs available in the education computer lab. Kathy Shrock’s (2006) Website Evaluation Form and the Software Evaluation Rubric developed by Shelly et al. (2006) were used in this module. As with the web evalua-tion, students discussed the relevance of the program to their curriculum and grade level. The software evaluation tool allows students to develop skills using decision making rubrics as they learn to select appropriate materials for their learner’s needs. This module leads to com-petence in evaluating media that will empower learners to transfer knowledge learned into real classroom settings.

Module eight: Students create a PowerPoint presentation regarding the integration of emerg-ing technologies in their classrooms. It is a per-suasive presentation with a main objective of the assignment being that students are able to ad-dress objections about newer technologies and how those technologies can be used effectively and efficiently in the classroom. Once again, the presentations are peer reviewed, either in a face-to-face class setting or online.

The final evaluation tool for this course con-sists of an electronic portfolio in which students compile their products from the eight modules. The portfolio is developed on TaskStream and the required products are consistent for each section of the Instructional Technology course. The products are evaluated by peers and indi-vidual instructors of the Instructional Technol-ogy course. The portfolio provides evidence that students are competent in complying with the basic computer NETS and are able to transfer knowledge of computer integration into an ac-tual classroom.

All core education courses require the use of TaskStream to build a pre-admittance portfolio whereby assignments can be used in methods classes and reviewed by meth-ods faculty. The Instructional Technology fi-nal portfolio can be used as a stand-alone representation of the work completed in In-structional Technology and as a model for creating a portfolio product for other classes.

Use of the model in reflective practiceDue to the circular nature of the “Summerville Integrated Model”, students and practitioners are encouraged to explore each ring of the model, section by section, until one is satisfied that each section is completed in an appropriate and thorough manner. As in the real world of the professional instructional designer, sections may be revisited as

warranted by formative evaluation. If, for example, it is discovered that a NETS or state standard has been overlooked or shortchanged, the missing information can be included before it impacts transfer.

As one may note from both the model and the explanation of the modules within the un-dergraduate Instructional Technology course, we strive for students to understand that inte-grating technology into instruction is not a sim-ple matter of using the tools. It is also not a “use it and forget it” proposition. “Everything that we do…every tool that we select…every stan-dard to which we adhere…all the content that we design…every time we assess, evaluate and revise, we are working toward a common goal” (Summerville, 2006). That goal is the transfer of knowledge to other subjects.

To this end, the Summerville Integrated Model is a model of instructional design both for teachers as learners and for them to take with them into their own classrooms.

Summary and recommendationsWe have found that this model and ap-

proach to learning has worked well for teaching pre-service teachers and appears to be a positive learning experience for our students. Many of the methods faculty are pleased with the abili-ties of students to create lessons that are learner appropriate. Students feel more confident about designing lessons and using the toolsets present-ed in class as a part of their own classrooms.

Some of our colleague’s concerns include the amount of time needed to address the instruc-tional planning issue in the Instructional Tech-nology course. Many fear that too much time allocated in the course for instructional design may take away from the instructional time for teaching new technologies. Although we have not found this to be the case as yet, the increas-ing complexity of the tools may necessitate that the course be redesigned or even split into two separate courses (e.g., “Tools” and “Integra-tion”).

The model that we proposed allows for high-er-level thinking and reflection of teacher can-didates. It provides for the opportunity of peer and self-evaluation. The practical experiences that students are presented with during these courses lead to quality products that they can use in their own classrooms. Students are able to focus on the process of instructional design and technology integration, so the inevitable obsolescence of tools becomes less of an issue. Instead of a focus on cutting edge, changeable technology tools, our students focus on trans-fer…and that is our main goal.


Jennifer Summerville serves as the Associate Dean for Distance Learning and the Weekend College at Collin College and was previously an Associate Professor of Instructional Design at University of North Carolina at Wilmington and an Assistant Professor of Instructional Design and Technology at Emporia State University. Her research interests include learner-centered and policy issues in online and distance educa-tion and cognitive and personality issues in the design and development of instruction in both corporate and educational environments. She received her Ph.D. from University of Northern Colorado in Educational Technology, holds an

Taskstream Lesson Plan Template

Vital InformationAuthor:Title of Lesson:Subject(s):Topic or Unit of Study:Grade/Level:Summary:

Focus and Review (Establish Prior Knowledge)Statement (Inform) of ObjectivesTeacher Input (Present Tasks, Information, and

Guidance)Guided Practice (Elicit Performance)Independent Practice: Seatwork and Homework (Retain and Transfer)Closure (Plan for Maintenance)

StandardsNorth Carolina Standard Course of Study: NETS-Students: NETS-Teachers:

ReferencesCite Standards from lesson curriculum area and NETS (for students) and cite all references.

• Save copy of lesson on USB drive in “initials” folder.• Upload lesson on WEBCT and submit Desktop Project

Assignment.

M.S. in Computer Education and Cognitive Sys-tems from University of North Texas, and has a B.B.A in Marketing from Baylor University. [email protected]

Angelia Reid-Griffin is an Assistant Professor in the Instructional Technology, Foundations and Secondary Education Department at the Uni-versity of North Carolina Wilmington’s School of Education. Her teaching and research interests include using technology as an instructional and learning tool, motivating students to enter sci-ence, math, and technology careers and minority teacher shortage. [email protected]

ReferencesAnonymous. (2004). Instructional technology

education syllabus. UNC-Wilmington: Wat-son School of Education.

Bowsher, J. E. (1989). Educating America: Les-sons learned in the nation’s corporations. New York: Wiley.

Gagne, R., Wager, W., Golas, K., & Keller, J. (2005). Principles of instructional design (5th ed.) Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thom-son Learning.

Heinich, M., Molenda, M., Russell, J., & Smal-dino, S. (2002). Instructional media and technologies for learning (7th ed). Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall. (Shelly book).Interna-tional Society for Technology in Education. (2000-2002). National Educational Tech-nology Standards for Teachers (NETS-T). Retrieved November 1, 2006, from http://cnets.iste.org/teachers/t_profile-stu.html

Kemp, J. & Smellie, D. (1994). Planning, pro-ducing, and using instructional technologies (7th ed.). Harper Collins Publishers.

Morgan, R. M. (1989). Instructional systems development in third world countries. Edu-cational Technology Research & Develop-ment, 37, 47-56.

Morrison, G. R., S. M. Ross, et al. (2007). De-signing effective instruction. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Reiser, R. A., & W. Dick (1996). Instructional Planning: A guide for teachers. Boston, Al-lyn and Bacon.

Schrock, K. (2006). Critical evaluation of a web site: Websites for use by educators. Retrieved August 1, 2006, from http://discovery-school.com/schrockguide/

Seels, B., & Z. Glasgow (1998). Making in-structional design decisions. Upper Saddle River, Prentice Hall.

Shambaugh, N., & S. G. Magliaro (2006). In-structional Design: A systematic approach for reflective practice. Boston, Pearson A and B.

Shellbecker, G. (1974). Learning theory, in-structional theory, and psychoeducational design. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Shelly, G., Cashman, T. J., Gunter, G. A., & Gunter, R. E. (2006). Teachers discovering computers: Integrating technology and digi-tal media in the classroom (4th ed.). Boston: Thomson Course Technology.

Summerville, J. (2006). The Summerville Inte-grated Model of Instructional Design.

Summerville, J. (2000). “WebQuests as a part of technology integration: Training preser-vice teachers”. TechTrends, March/April.

TaskStream. (2002-2007). TaskStream Tools of Engagement. Retrieved May 8, 2004, from http://www.taskstream.com

Appendix A: Taskstream Lesson Plan Template

by jennifer summerville and angelia reid-griffina systematic approach that blends the princi-ples of...

Documents