Abstract
Felt problem: Technology integration continues to be a challenge for health science faculty. While students expect emerging technologies to be used in the classroom, faculty members desire a strategic process to incorporate technology for the students’ benefit.
Our solution: We have developed a model that provides faculty a strategy for integrating emerging technologies into the classroom. The model is grounded in student learning and may be applied to any technology. We present the model alongside examples from faculty who have used it to incorporate technology into their health sciences classrooms.
Emerging technologies are more accessible, less expensive, and easier to learn than their predecessors. Nevertheless, incorporating them into education remains a challenge. Sometimes faculty members question the utility of new technologies and desire a strategic way to incorporate them into their classrooms that is effective, efficient, and worth their time and effort.
Technology integration is an issue at all levels of education, from one learning activity in one classroom to institution-wide programs Citation1. summarizes a number of technology integration models and compares them to the emerging Technology Integration Model for Education (eTIME) we have developed. The first three columns provide the name of the model, a brief description, and the source. The next column indicates the level of education (for example, individual lesson and curriculum) for which the model is suited. The next three columns indicate whether or not the model contains the learning problem, references learning theory and/or assists with technology selection. The last column indicates whether there appears to be a link between the previous three elements within the model. Several of the models do not address learning theory and an understanding of how people learn. In our view, this is a critical flaw of technology integration models when the end goal is student learning. Several other models lack a strong connection between the choice of a particular technology and learning outcomes. We believe faculty members will have more difficulty using these models to select a technology rationally.
Table 1. Comparison of technology integration models
In contrast, eTIME explicitly includes the triad of problem, technology, and learning theory. We believe that matching the technology to the learning theory and the learning problem/goal is the critical first step in a strategic implementation effort. We have used eTIME each year in our technology in education course and have iteratively improved it to encompass the critical facets needed to consider when implementing a technology ().
Figure 1. The eTIME model.
eTIME begins by creating a preliminary solution through consideration of technology, theory, and problem. Instructional design methods are then applied to arrive at the final implementation. Real-world examples from health science educators are used throughout the paper. At the end of the paper we present an easy to use ‘pocket guide’ for health professionals who wish to strategically incorporate technology into teaching.
1 To arrive at a preliminary solution, consider these steps
1.1 Define a teaching or learning goal or problem to solve
Each time you make a change to instruction, you either have an implicit goal you are trying to achieve or a problem to solve. Clearly state the goal or the problem for yourself before even considering the technology.
For example, one of our projects has the goal of providing nutrition education for elementary school children in an after-school program Citation8. The curriculum initially relied heavily on instructor involvement and was difficult to implement and sustain. The problem was that children did not want to participate in a written curriculum after school because it was not fun and instructors were not interested in formal teaching in an after-school setting. Our solution was to design an online game to teach children about nutrition, solving both problems by making the learning fun and not heavily reliant on an instructor. (Other facets of the problem description included the content to be learned and how it might be taught.) By stating the learning goal and/or the problem you can go forward with a clear focus, referring back to it during the many design and implementation decisions.
1.2 Consider learning theory
Every faculty member holds some concepts about how to create a productive classroom environment. Yet, many faculty members do not articulate their ideas or compare them to those of others. Perusing established learning theories will help faculty name the concepts they hold and point out other ideas that may be helpful. When considering how to incorporate a new technology into their classrooms, it is useful to review what constructs are successful in supporting student learning so that the best decisions can be made about adding a role for technology.
A dental hygienist taking our technology in education course used Bandura's social learning theory as a theoretical foundation for her emerging technology project Citation9. She used streaming video to model patient care behaviors. By designing the video with social learning theory in mind, she tailored her actions in the video to encourage her students to imitate her behaviors. Grounding your technology selection in a theoretical framework will help you capitalize on others’ best practices.
1.3 Match technology affordances to the problem
Affordance refers to the way a technology or software can be used and what it allows the user to do or not to do. All technologies have different affordances arising from their internal structure and functionalities. lists several more established technologies along with some examples of their uses in education. For example, if your goal is for students to collaboratively create content, you may consider using a wiki. A wiki has the ability for all students to upload and contribute content in a format that is integrated and easily searchable. A wiki allows students to collaboratively edit content, but it would be a poor choice for real-time communication, for example, which may be another facet of collaboration.
Table 2. Emerging Technologies Table
On the other hand, if your goal is that students reflect on a series of learning experiences, a blog may be a more appropriate tool. A blog affords the learner a way to post or ‘journal’ and allows others to comment on each entry. The posts are presented in reverse chronological order so students can collaboratively reflect on their most recent experiences or scroll down to go back in time for review.
To determine technology affordances, look at the technology's functionality. includes questions to think about related to both affordances and sustainability.
Table 3. Considerations around affordances and sustainability
There are several ways to lower entry and sustainability barriers. Working with a group of colleagues who are committed to trying a new technology can spread the workload and has the advantage of leveraging the skills within the group. Group strategies might include asking for help from someone who already successfully used a technology or adapting a technology that is already part of someone's personal life. Team-teaching presents special challenges and opportunities. If you team-teach with other faculty, their technology experience and comfort level are important and can be an asset or a barrier to successful implementation.
An example of a technology being implemented based on its affordances was demonstrated by a dental faculty member in our technology course who created and evaluated the use of Flickr to share educational dental images Citation10. The project capitalized on this system's affordances of sharing images and of tagging images with information. Tagging adds keywords to images that allow searching. He created a standardized system for tagging the images to be useful for dental educators and shared this with his colleagues so they could tag, contribute images, and use the resources for teaching.
In contrast, one of the nursing faculty in the course created a video to teach fundal height measurements and Leopold's maneuvers to nurses in the undergraduate program. While the video format allowed students to watch and listen to each step of this procedure, updating the video because of changing guidelines would be time-consuming and problematic, making sustainability fairly time- and cost-intensive. An alternative way to create the video would be to break it into short segments, thus allowing a single segment to be swapped out if needed. While initially more time-consuming to create and edit, it would have made the video easier to update in the future.
As new technologies become available, questions regarding affordances and sustainability may have to be revisited. The act of changing technologies is never completely seamless; the best we can do is to minimize the disruption by choosing technologies today with an eye toward updating in the future.
2 To arrive at the final implementation, also consider these steps
2.1 Formulate behavioral learning objectives
Explicitly stating your learning objectives will help frame the technology implementation and guide your evaluation. Learning objectives can fall in the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains Citation11Citation12Citation13. Stated course objectives are one source of learning goals. Other sources include program outcomes or certification/licensing guidelines. Often, interpersonal skills, such as team collaboration, are not explicitly stated as part of course objectives but are nonetheless valid and important goals to achieve. Once you have explicit learning goals, these can be referred back to on an ongoing basis during the design and implementation decisions. These objectives will be measured during evaluation of the project and student learning.
2.2 Determine learner characteristics
Taking the characteristics of your students into consideration is critical for the successful implementation of a new technology. There are a variety of factors that can have an impact on the success of your implementation, including students’ ability to access technologies, their comfort level with and preferences about technologies, and the classroom environment. Although the Pew Center for the Internet and American Life has many different questionnaires, no simple questionnaire applicable to the use of emerging technologies in education exists. An easy way to discover your students’ characteristics is to use a short survey, possibly hosted by one of the free survey websites. Important questions, along with age and gender, that we have used include the following:
What technology devices do you have access to? (Include technologies you are considering using, for example an MP3 player if you are considering podcasts)
Which technologies are you comfortable using? (Include technologies you are considering using, for example an MP3 player if you are considering podcasts)
Where do you learn the material? (Check all that apply) Home School Library Car Other
Do you have any barriers to using audio and video technology? Yes No If yes, please describe
3 After you've implemented, consider these steps
3.1 Evaluate the implementation
Evaluation is an integral part of incorporating anything into the classroom. Kirkpatrick Citation14 describes four sequential levels of evaluation, with information gained from each level informing the next level of evaluation. Level one focuses on participant reactions. Personal reflection, collegiate discussion, and perusal of students’ comments on course evaluations are other ways to gauge reaction. Valenza et al. Citation10 examined usage data and reactions from faculty participants. Level two assesses whether learning is different between two different conditions. For example, you might consider administering the same exam to a class using the technology and a class not using the technology and then compare exam performance. Orientale et al. Citation15 compared physical exam performance of first-year medical students who had access to videos of specific skills to the historical performance of previous medical school classes. Level three addresses whether the students can transfer the behavior, attitude, knowledge, and/or skills learned to a new situation. Level four addresses bottom line results. Level four outcomes might include performance on licensing exams, acceptance into residency programs, or publication of a peer-reviewed paper. Prokhorov et al. Citation16 examined the impact of A Smoking Prevention Interactive Experience (ASPIRE) on smoking initiation, among other outcomes. In general, the time and energy required of the faculty member involved in evaluation increases with each level. However, performing at least a level-one evaluation is critical to inform the next iteration of technology implementation.
Another component of technology evaluation is looking at usability. Sample questions that could be evaluated relate to use, success with technology, learning, learning efficiency, and learning enjoyment.
4 Applying eTIME to your teaching situation – the pocket guide
Many health science fields use concise pocket guides, or cards, to remind practitioners of the most important facts and considerations in a particular situation. In the same spirit, we have created a pocket guide to make applying eTIME easier. summarizes the parts of the model using action items. These are presented in a linear list with the understanding that technology implementation is an iterative process that can start at any step prior to evaluation.
Box 1. Pocket guide to implementing technologies.
5 Conclusion
The goal of this paper was to give health sciences instructors a review of topics to consider before implementing technology in their classrooms. Students in our technology course, many of whom are faculty themselves, were able to use these points in creating technology-based learning projects for their students.
In conclusion, we believe that learning needs to be at the center of any technology implementation. Using eTIME provides faculty with a strategic method for the successful implementation of new technologies into their classroom environment. It provides a framework for implementing and evaluating whatever technologies could emerge in the future.
6 Conflict of interest and funding
The authors have not received any funding or benefits from industry to conduct this study.
Acknowledgements
Robert Vogler helped develop and teach the first semester of the Emerging Technology course. We also want to acknowledge the students in the course.
References
- Liu L, Johnson L. A technology integration model and weak areas. Poster session presented at: Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on Education, HonoluluHI, 7–10 January 2003.
- Heinich R, Molenda M, Russell JD, Smaldino SE. Instructional media and technologies for learning7th ed. Prentice Hall. Englewood Cliffs NJ, 2001
- Hoffman B, Ritchie D. Teaching and learning online: tools, templates, and training. In: McNeil S, Price J, Boger-Mehall S, Bernard R, Willis J SITE 98: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education 9th International Conference. , Washington, DC, 10–14 March 1998. CharlottesvilleVA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education, 1998, pp. 113–7.
- Wang Q. A generic model for guiding the integration of ICT into teaching and learning. Innovat Educ Teach Int. 2008; 45: 411–19.
- Wang Q, Woo HL. Systematic planning for ICT integration in topic learning. Educ Technol Soc. 2007; 10: 148–56.
- Surry DW. A model for integrating instructional technology into higher education. Paper presented at: Validity and Value in Education Research, 2002 Annual Meeting: American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, 1–5 April 2002. Available from: http://iphase.org/papers/aera021.pdf (cited 24 February 2009).
- Bates AW, Poole G. Effective teaching with technology in higher education: foundations for success. Jossey-Bass. San Francisco CA, 2003
- Perry CL, Stone EJ, Parcel GS, Ellison RC, Nader PR, Webber LS, et al.. School-based cardiovascular health promotion: the Child and Adolescent Trial for Cardiovascular Health (CATCH). J Sch Health. 1990; 60: 406–13.
- Bandura A. Social learning theory. Prentice Hall. Englewood Cliffs NJ, 1977
- Valenza JA, Walji M. Creating a searchable digital dental radiography repository for patient care, teaching and research using an online photo management and sharing application. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2007: 1143.
- Bloom BS. Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals. Handbook 1, the cognitive domain. New York: David McKay, 1956.
- Krathwohl DR, Bloom BS, Masia BB. Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals. Handbook 2: affective domain. New York: David McKay, 1973.
- Simpson EJ. The classification of educational objectives in the psychomotor domain: the psychomotor domain. Gryphon House. Washington DC, 1972; 3
- Kirkpatrick DL. Evaluating training programs: the four levels. Berrett-Koehler. San Francisco CA, 1994
- Orientale Jr. E, Kosowicz L, Alerte A, Pfeiffer C, Harrington K, Palley J, et al.. Using web-based video to enhance physical exam skills in medical students. Fam Med. 2008; 40: 471–6.
- Prokhorov AV, Kelder SH, Shegog R, Murray N, Peters Jr. R, Agurcia-Parker C, et al.. Impact of A Smoking Prevention Interactive Experience (ASPIRE), an interactive, multimedia smoking prevention and cessation curriculum for culturally diverse high-school students. Nicotine Tob Res. 2008; 10: 1477–85.