PUTTS: A Technology Integration Plan for TeachersPresentation Transcript
PUTTS: A Technology Integration Plan for Teachers
Introduction The success of technology integration rests in the hands of teachers, but the control over the process thus far has not been given to them. This document is a conceptual, high level summary that outlines five principle components regarding how teachers can take responsibility for integrating technology into the classroom. The five components are: P rinciples, U nderstanding, T raining, T olerance and S uccess, also known as PUTTS. This document delineates the main areas of contention relative to each component of PUTTS. If adopted by teachers, the concepts of PUTTS arms teachers with a mindset to guide them through the lengthy and dynamic process of technology integration. It also provides them a means to clearly articulate their needs to the decision-makers that comprise the institution of education. It serves as a basis for teachers to further investigate a deeper understanding of their objectives for technology integration and to ultimately achieve success.
The Five Components of PUTTS:
Learn the P rinciples
Be U nderstood
Receive Proper T raining
Be T olerant
Achieve S uccess!
Learn the Principles
What are the Principles?
Teacher’s understanding of technology is not only about the acquisition of technical skills, but also about the incorporation of thinking skills.
Teachers must augment their understanding of pedagogy in line with social change, this includes the impact technology has had on society (Stein, McRobbie and Ginns, 1999).
There is an intrinsic relationship between technology and pedagogy today; technology is considered part of pedagogy (Okokie, Olinzock and Boulder. 1999).
Technology must be apart of the instruction and not merely an assistive tool for students in the classroom.
Teachers must connect instructional technology with their goals, methods, assessment and evaluation, as well as follow-up procedures (Okokie, Olinzock and Boulder. 1999).
The constructivist learning theory is important for teachers to understand; behavioristic learning styles can no longer dominate a teacher’s understanding of how a student learns with technology (Rakes, Flowers, Casey and Santana, 1999).
What to Understand?
Technology integration starts with understanding the teacher; his/her beliefs, concerns, knowledge and views (Ertmer, Ross, and Gopalakrishnan, 2000).
Technology integration is an individual process shaped by unique teaching styles, social constructs, subject-area content knowledge, and skill sets (Stein, McRobbie and Ginns, 1999).
Teachers are responsible for facilitating instruction, thus technology integration can only be achieved when teachers assist with the technology integration plan (Okokie, Olinzock and Boulder. 1999).
Understanding our teachers is essential in efforts to transcend the process of technology integration into a formal practice of teaching in the classroom (Ertmer, Ross, and Gopalakrishnan, 2000).
The Concerned-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) helps to develop an insightful view of learning about a new innovation or technological learning area. It is an important model for decision-makers to understand (Sweeny, 2003).
Receive Proper Training
What is the Proper Training?
Teachers develop a broader view of students and a deeper concept of learning in a technology context when training occurs via an active classroom. It allows them to be more critical of their training (Stein, McRobbie and Ginns, 1999).
For training taking place outside the classroom, it should take many forms and incorporate various instructional models to account for variance in learning styles (Hart, n.d.).
Training is better established when completed in the presence of a mentor. Mentors help teachers visualize results and understand the impact of technology (Hart, n.d.).
Time must be provided to teachers to collaborate with colleagues; to come together and exchange critical ideas and perceptions about technology (Stein, McRobbie and Ginns, 1999).
The Concerned-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) helps to explain the concepts of mentoring and collaboration and the importance for including them in the technological training process (Sweeny, 2003).
Why Tolerance is Needed?
Achieving successful integration of technology is a slow process that is influenced by many factors that are not readily identifiable (Ertmer, 2000).
A teacher’s experience with technology integration is an iterative and recursive process of theoretical, practical and reflective experiences (Stein, McRobbie and Ginns, 1999).
Developments in technology or any force of social change may influence educational concepts. Education is never static – there is not a definitive beginning and end to teaching methods (Stein, McRobbie and Ginns, 1999).
Technology instruction takes time, particularly while the conceptual knowledge is developing within the mind of the teacher. In time, teachers develop the connective thoughts necessary to design instruction in a technological context (Sweeny, 2003).
What are the Successes?
Technology changes the vision of teachers while maintaining a focus on learning and not on technology. It enables them to teach the way they always wanted to (Ertmer, 2000).
Technology creates learning that stimulates the most meaningful thinking; it creates a basis for utilizing the power of constructivist learning theory in the classroom (Rakes, Flowers, Casey and Santana, 1999).
Technology creates collaborative opportunities and increased communication among students, teachers and even parents.
Technology changes the classroom from teacher-centered to student-centered. It allows students to accept more responsibility for their learning, while teachers develop a more supportive role in the learning process (Ertmer, 2000).
Technology increases student achievement and offers critical cognitive and work-force skills necessary for his/her future.
References: Ertmer, A, Ross, E, and Gopalakrishnan, S. (2000). Technology-Using Teachers: How Powerful Visions and Student Centered Beliefs Fuel Exemplary Practice. Retrieved February 2, 2010, from http://www.edci.purdue.edu/ertmer/docs/SITE2_2000.pdf Hart, D. Technology Integration Support. Retrieved February 2, 2010, from http://chiron.valdosta.edu/are/vol3no1/pdf/dchart-article.pdf Stein, S., McRobbie, C., and Ginns, I. (1999, December 2). A Model for the Professional Development of Teachers in Design and Technology. Retrieved February 2, 2010, from http://www.aare.edu.au/99pap/ste99273.htm Okokie, M., Olinzock, A.,and Boulder, T. (1999, December). The Pedagogy of Technology Integration. The Journal of Technology Studies . 32 (2). Retrieved February 3, 2010, from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JOTS/v32/v32n2/pdf/okojie.pdf Rakes, G., Flowers, B., Casey, H., and Santana, R. (1999, December). An Analysis of Instructional Technology Use and Constructivist Behaviors in K-12 Teachers. International Journal of Educational Technology. 1( 2 ). Retrieved February 5, 2010, from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ijet/v1n2/rakes/index.html Sweeny, B. (2003). The CBAM: A Model of the People Development Process . Retrieved February 5, 2010, from http://www.mentoring-association.org/membersonly/CBAM.html