Systematic Planning for ICT Integration in Topic
Learning
[/B]
Qiyun Wang and Huay Lit Woo[/B]
Learning Sciences and Technologies Academic Group,
National
Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological
University 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore
637616
Tel: +65 6790 3267 // Fax: +65 6896
8038
qywang@nie.edu.sg // hlwoo@nie.edu.sg
ABSTRACT[/B]
Integrating Information and Communication
Technology (ICT) into teaching and learning is a growing area that
has attracted many educators efforts in recent years. Based on the
scope of content covered, ICT integration can happen in three
different areas: curriculum, topic, and lesson. This paper
elaborates upon the concept of ICT integration, and presents a
systematic planning model for guiding ICT integration in the topic
area. A sample of an ICT integration plan is described in this
paper to demonstrate how this model can be applied in
practice.
Keywords[/B]
ICT, ICT integration, Systematic planning, Integration
plan
Introduction[/B]
The rapid development of Information and
Communication Technology (ICT) has made information ubiquitous and
computers cheaper and more powerful. Much evidence indicates that
technology has great potential to increase
learners’ motivation, link learners to various information
sources, support collaborative learning, and allow teachers more
time for facilitation in classrooms (Moallem, 2003; Roblyer,
Edwards, & Havriluk, 2004; Wilson & Lowry,2000).
Integrating ICT into teaching and learning has therefore become a
great concern for many educators. Depending on the scope of content
covered, ICT integration can happen in three areas: curriculum
(macro), topic (meso), and lesson (micro), as shown in Figure 1.
ICT integration into the area of a curriculum normally requires ICT
to support a more substantial amount of subject content, such as a
complete course containing a number of topics in a specific
discipline like science. Examples of such ICT integration are
multimedia curricula delivered in CD-ROMs (Wang, 2001) or web-based
courses. In the topic area, ICT can be used to cover certain topics
within a course. A topic usually involves a series of smaller
pockets of knowledge, such as DNA or cell division, which are
usually interrelated to elaborate concepts. At the micro level, ICT
is used to help explain specific knowledge units, such as DNA
within a single lesson.
Lesson Topic Macro Curriculum Meso
Micro
Figure 1[/I]: ICT integration areas Exploit ICT to support the
complete content and learning experience of a whole course Use ICT
in certain topics to supplement student learning. Apply ICT into
one or more lessons to help students better understand certain
concepts
This paper demonstrates how a systematic planning
model is used to guide teachers, who are called teacher-designers
in the paper, in designing their ICT integration plans for a
subject topic at the meso level. To help the teacher-designers
better understand how to apply this model, a sample of an ICT
integration plan that is built upon the systematic planning model
is also provided in this paper as an appendix.
The Concept of ICT Integration[/B]
Integrating ICT into teaching and learning is not
a new concept. It may be as old as other technologies such as
radios or televisions. However, with the rapid development of
emerging technology, such as web technology, ICT integration has
increasingly attracted the attention of educators. In this section,
we will elaborate on the terms of ICT and integration separately
before giving the definition of ICT integration.
ICT is basically a tool. It can be hardware (such
as computers, digital cameras), software (such as Excel, discussion
forums), or both. In the educational context, it mainly refers to
various resources and tools (software) presented on the computer.
ICT is not particularly reserved for education; it is not a panacea
for solving all educational problems either. However, it is
“certainly a useful tool that enables us to link
various learning communities together in new and different
ways” (Taylor, 2000, p. 4). Research has indicated that
the use of ICT can support new instructional approaches and make
hard-to-implement instructional methods such as simulation or
cooperative learning more feasible (Roblyer, Edwards, &
Havriluk, 2004). Moreover, educators commonly agree that ICT has
the potential to improve student learning outcomes and
effectiveness if it is used properly (cf. Wang, 2001).
Integration has a sense of completeness or
wholeness (Earle, 2002), by which all essential elements of a
system are seamlessly combined together to make a whole. In
education, simply handing out to students a collection of websites
or CD-ROM programs is certainly not ICT integration. In a properly
crafted ICT integrated lesson, ICT and other crucial educational
components such as content and pedagogy are molded into one entity.
As a result, the quality of the lesson would somehow be diminished
if the ICT ingredient were taken away from the ICT-integrated
lesson (Williams, 2003).
Putting these two words together, ICT integration
in this paper is broadly defined as a process of using any ICT
(including information resources on the web, multimedia programs in
CD-ROMs, learning objects, or other tools) to enhance student
learning (Williams, 2003). It is more of a process rather than a
product. A simple placement of hardware and/or software will not
make integration naturally follow (Earle, 2002). Numerous studies
comparing traditional classroom-based instruction with
technology-enhanced instruction have found insignificant
differences in student satisfaction, attitudes, and learning
outcomes (Johnson & Aragon, 2003). The primary factor that
influences the effectiveness of learning is not the availability of
technology, but the pedagogical design for effective use of ICT (
Mandell, Sorge & Russell, 2002). The computer should be fitted
into the curriculum, not the curriculum into the computer (Earle,
2002). Therefore, effective ICT integration should focus on
pedagogy design by justifying how the technology is used in such a
way and why.
Effective ICT integration into the learning
process has the potential to engage learners. For instance, using
multimedia to present authentic and ill-structured problems in
problem-based learning can motivate and challenge students and
hence develop their problem-solving skills (Boud & Felleti,
1991; Savery & Duffy, 1995). ICT can support various types of
interaction: learner-content, learner-learner, learner-teacher, and
learner-interface (Chou,2003; Moore, 1989). These types of
interaction make the learning process more interactive and learners
more active and engaged.
Research evidence has also confirmed that
effective ICT integration can promote student-engaged learning. For
example, in a research study on the uses and effects of mobile
computing devices in K–8 classrooms, Swan, Hooft, and Kratcoski (2005)
reported that the students’ motivation to learn and engagement in learning
processes were improved by the use of mobile computing. In another
study exploring the use of ICT tools to engage students in
higher-order thinking in a Singapore school, Lim and Tay (2003)
observed higher students engagement in higher order thinking by
using ICT tools.
The Systematic Planning Model for ICT
Integration[/B]
Many instructional design models are currently
available to help teacher-designers plan their ICT integration into
the curriculum. Some examples are the ASSURE (Analyze learners;
State the objective; Select method, media and materials; Require
learning participation; Evaluate and revise) model (Heinich,
Molenda, Russell, & Smaldino,2001), the WebQuests model (Dodge,
1997), and the ICARE (Introduction; Connect; Activity; Reflect;
Extend) model (Hoffman & Ritchie, 1998). These models show
guidelines for incorporating various resources and tools into
teaching and learning. However, they do not explicitly encourage
teacher-designers to think and justify why these resources and
tools are used the way they are.
Figure 2 presents a systematic model for designing
ICT-integration plans. It is systematic because it follows a
logical flow and has components organized in a rather linear
manner. Development of each component in the model depends very
much on the completion of its previous components. This model
essentially provides an easy-to-follow structure, where designers
move to the next component only after they have completed the
current component. Most importantly, this model requires
teacher-designers to explicitly justify why the technology is used
(the Rationale component), and how to effectively incorporate the
technology (the Strategies component). The key components of this
model are to be explained in detail below.
Figure 2[/I]: A systematic model for ICT
integration
Problem Statement
Learning Objectives
Assessment
Reflection
Technology Required
Rationale
Strategies
Problem Statement[/B]
This systematic model starts with a problem
statement, which describes the major problems or issues to be
addressed in a topic. For example, in the topic of
“Energy, shown in the Appendix, the major problem
is what can we do to prevent energy crises in Singapore in the
future? The problem statement serves as a starting point for the
ICT integration plan. The problem should be authentic,
ill-structured, and challenging (Boud & Felleti, 1991). Also,
the problem should be relevant to the intended target learners
rather than to the teacher-designers. It is too often that the
teacher-designers assume that students will understand and buy into
the relevance and value of the problem.
Unfortunately, the students do not simply take
ownership for the problem if it is irrelevant to them (Savery &
Duffy,1995).
Learning Objectives[/B]
Learning objectives specify the intended learning
outcomes at the end of the topic. Teacher-designers may write
learning objectives based on the ABCD model (Reiser & Dick,
1996), where A is Audience; B is Behavior; C is Condition; and D is
Degree. For instance, a complete description of a learning
objective following the ABCD model might be: At the end of the topic, the two secondary
students should be able to verbally describe the present energy
situation in Singapore on a mind map with 100%
accuracy[/I].
In this example, A is the secondary two students; B is verbally
described; C is on a mind map; and D is with 100% accuracy. It is
worth mentioning that the behavior in a learning-objective
statement should be observable and measurable. Vague verbs such as
under stand do or brainstorm, are unsuitable for learning-objective
statements. It is sometimes acceptable to omit or simplify one or
two of the requirements mentioned. For instance, the D part
(“with 100% accuracy”) in the above example may be omitted; the A part
can be simplified to students if the readers know who the intended audience
is.
Technology Required[/B]
In order to address the problem and achieve the
learning objectives, teacher-designers need to carefully compare
all possible technologies that can be used for learning this topic.
The technologies in this model may include software such as
multimedia courseware, web-based resources, communication tools
(such as voice chat, textual discussion forums, or video
conferencing), mind tools (such as concept mapping tools and
multimedia authoring tools), or any other possible ICT
tools.
Rationale for Using the Technology[/B]
Technology should be used not because it is
available or it has been shown effective in some cases. It should
be used to enable the process and enhance learning. Inappropriate
use of technology can lead to negative effects (Johnson &
Aragon, 2003; Russell, 1999). Teacher-designers need to choose
proper technology and justify i) why it is needed for the topic;
ii) what added values the technology can offer; and iii) how the
technology can support the instructional process. Moreover,
Roblyer, Edwards, and Havriluk (2004) suggest the following for
rationalizing the use of technology: i) high motivation; ii) unique
instructional capabilities such as helping students visualize
data/problems or tracking learning progress; iii) support for
innovative instructional approaches such as collaborative learning
and problem-based learning; and iv) increased teacher productivity
and student knowledge construction.
Strategies for Implementation[/B]
After determining what technology is needed and
why, teacher-designers must now decide how to effectively and
meaningfully incorporate the selected technology into the topic
learning. Since a topic is usually composed of several lessons,
details on ICT integration should be provided separately for each
lesson as well as for the entire topic. For each lesson, the
teacher-designers should clearly answer the following
questions:
What ICT-based resources such as web sites, CD-ROM
programs, or learning objects will be used?
How will the ICT-based resources be used in
various settings such as a full-lab, where each student uses a
computer, or half-lab environment, where two students share a
computer (Wong & Wettasinghe, 2003)?
Why should we use these resources this
way?
What tasks/activities will the students do during
the lesson?
Are any handouts or instructions
provided?
In addition, for the whole topic, the
teacher-designer needs to specify how one lesson connects to the
next lesson and the reason for doing so.
Furthermore, when designing an ICT-integration
plan, the teacher-designers also need to consider
whether:
The activities can promote
students’ critical thinking or other higher-order
thinking.
The students understand what they are supposed to
learn.
The expectations and assessment criteria, such as
rubrics, are stated clearly.
There are opportunities for students to take
control over content, pace, and sequence.
Student Assessment[/B]
Usually at the end of the topic, the students will
be assessed on how well they have mastered the topic. The
assessment often reflects both the process and the product
(Jonassen, 1991). The assessment on the process examines how the
students complete the learning activities or tasks, work together
to complete the final product, or construct knowledge
collaboratively by using the ICT. Methods used for the process
assessment include writing online reflection journals, peer
evaluation, or e-portfolios (Barret, 2006). The assessment on the
product aims at investigating the quality of the final outcome,
such as solutions to the problem, or software programs
developed.
Usually, there are two forms of assessment:
ICT-based and non-ICT based. The ICT-based assessment includes
computer-based testing, multimedia program development, PowerPoint
presentation, Weblog writing, or concept map construction. The non
ICT-based assessment involves writing a paper-based essay or a
reflection journal, or answering short questions on
paper.
Reflections and Further Suggestions[/B]
A plan is never good until it is executed and
proven right. In the planning process, very often teacher-designers
are faced with many constraints and restrictions that limit their
choices and strategies. After conducting the ICT integrated
lessons, the teacher-designers need to reflect upon their learning
experiences of the ICT integration. The reflections can focus on
the appropriateness of the technology used, strengths and
weaknesses of the technology, and possible improvement.
Additionally, the teacher-designers can also provide further
suggestions on how other teachers can use the lessons for different
target students in different contexts. These suggestions may
include alternative technology, instructional methods and
activities, assessment approaches, and ways to improve the
integration of ICT. Below are some points to help a
teacher-designer reflect upon an integration plan:
Are the major questions involved in the topic
answered?
Are the activities planned towards achieving the
learning objectives?
Does the technology support the instructional
process?
Is the rationale for using the technology
sound?
Can the implementation process be further
improved?
Are the methods for student assessment
valid?
How can we further improve the use of ICT in the
topic?
A Sample ICT Integration Plan[/B]
Based on this systematical planning model, a
sample of an ICT integration plan is designed as shown in the
Appendix. This topic is about energy in the subject of science for
the “secondary two” students in Singapore. It is to be completed over
two double periods and one online session. Each double period lasts
for seventy minutes, and the online session takes about three
days.
The main purpose of studying the topic is to make
the students realize the current energy situation in Singapore and
propose a solution for preventing any possible energy crises in the
future. It employs five ICT tools: Internet browser, PowerPoint,
Mind Manager, Discussion Forum, and Email system. The reasons for
choosing these tools are explained in the rationale section. For
instance, the Internet browser allows students to search for and
locate the most current information on the Internet; Mind Manager
is used to organize and present information.
The learning process is as follows: The students
carry out two tasks in the first double-period lesson. The first
task is to browse the given website, discuss it in groups, and
create a concept map using Mind Manager. The second task is to
search for information about possible energy crises for Singapore
in 20 years and discuss it in the same group.
After the first double-period lesson, an online
session is organized, during which the students share their
findings regarding both the current energy situation and future
energy crises. In addition to participating in the online
discussions, the students within a group can also make further
clarifications through emailing. In the second double-period
session, the students have a face-to-face debriefing on the online
discussions, and this is followed by an activity of preparing a
presentation on their energy crises prevention solution. Each group
gives a presentation during the following week. The detailed
description of the ICT-integration plan is attached in the
Appendix.
Conclusion[/B]
ICT integration is a comprehensive process of
applying technology to the curriculum to improve teaching and
learning. Its success depends not only on the availability of
technology, but also heavily on the pedagogical design.
Other factors such as leadership, professional
development, time, and evaluation also have a great impact on the
effectiveness of ICT integration (Honey, Culp, & Carrigg,
2000). The systematic planning model for ICT integration introduced
in this paper is developed to facilitate
teacher-designers’ producing effective-ICT integration plans for
topics in their teaching subjects, and provides rationales and
strategies applied in the plans. We hope this paper will inspire
some new thoughts into ICT integration for the curriculum of the
new era.
References[/B]
Barret, H. (2006). Using technology to support alternative assessment
and electronic portfolios[/I], retrieved December 11, 2006, from
http://electronicportfolios.org/portfolios.html.
Boud, D., & Felleti, G. (1991).
The challenge of problem-based
learning[/I], London: Kogan.
Chou, C. (2003). Interactivity and interactive
functions in web-based learning systems: A technical framework for
designers. British Journal of Educational Technology,
34[/I] (3), 265-279.
Dodge, B. (1997). Some thoughts about
WebQuests[/I], retrieved December 10, 2006, from
http://webquest.sdsu.edu/about_webquests.html.
Earle, R. S. (2002). The Integration of
instructional technology into public education: Promises and
challenges. Educational Technology, 42[/I] (1), 5-13.
Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J. D., &
Smaldino, S. E. (2001). Instructional media and technologies for
learning[/I] (7th Ed.), Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice
Hall.
Hoffman, B., & Ritchie, D. (1998). Teaching
and learning online: Tools, templates, and training.
Paper presented at SITE 98: Society for
Information Technology & Teacher Education International
Conference[/I], March 10-14, 1998,Washington, DC.
Honey, M., Culp, K. M., & Carrigg, F. (2000).
Perspectives on technology and education research: Lessons from the
past and present. Educational Computing
Research[/I], 23[/I] (1), 5-14.
Johnson, S. D., & Aragon, S. R. (2003). An
instructional strategy framework for online learning
environments. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education,
100[/I], 31-43.
Jonassen, D.H. (1991). Evaluating constructive
learning. Educational Technology, 31[/I] (9), 28-33.
Lim, C. P., & Tay, L. Y. (2003). Information
and communication technologies (ICT) in an elementary school:
Students’ engagement in higher-order thinking.
Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia,
12[/I] (4), 425-451.
Mandell, S, Sorge, D. H., & Russell, J. D.
(2002). Tips for technology integration. TechTrends, 46[/I] (5), 39-43.
Moallem, M. (2003). An interactive online course:
A collaborative design model. Educational Technology Research and Development,
51[/I] (4), 85-103.
Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of
interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education,
3[/I] (2), 1-6.
Reiser, R. A., & Dick, W. (1996).
Instructional planning: A guide for
teachers[/I] (2nd Ed.), Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Roblyer, M. D., Edwards, J., & Havriluk, M. A.
(2004). Integrating educational technology into
teaching[/I] (4th Ed.),Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Russell, T. L. (1999). The no significant difference
phenomenon[/I], Raleigh: North Carolina State
University.
Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem
based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist
framework. Educational Technology, 35[/I] (5), 31-38.
Swan, K., Hooft. M., & Kratcoski, A. (2005).
Uses and effects of mobile computing devices in k-8
classrooms.Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
38[/I] (1), 99-112.
Taylor, D. R. (2000). Developing powerful learning
communities using technology. AACTE Briefs, 21[/I] (14), 4-5.
Wang, Q. Y. (2001). Computer support for multimedia curriculum
design[/I], Doctorial dissertation. Enschede: University of
Twente.
Williams, M. D. (2003). Technology integration in
education. In S. C. Tan & F. L. Wong (Eds.),
Teaching and learning with technology: An
Asia-pacific perspective[/I], Singapore: Prentice Hall, 17-31.
Wilson, B., & Lowry, M. (2000). Constructivist
learning on the web. New Directions for Adults and Continuing
Education, 88[/I], 79-88
Wong, P., & Wettasinghe, M. (2003). Managing
IT-based learning environments. In S. C. Tan & F. L. Wong
(Eds.),Teaching and learning with technology: An
Asia-pacific perspective[/I], Singapore: Prentice Hall, 60-76.
Appendix: A sample of an ICT Integration
Plan[/B]
Subject[/B]: Science Student stream/level[/B]: Express/S2
Topic[/B]: Energy
Duration[/B]:
Two double periods of 70 minutes each and one
online activity outside class hours
Problem Statement[/B] The scarce energy resources we have in Singapore
have posed a threat to our long-term survival. What can we do to
prevent an energy crisis in the future?
Learning Objectives[/B] At the end of this topic, students should be able
to:
1. Visually describe the present energy situation
in Singapore on a mind map.
2. State the potential energy crises in Singapore
in 20 years.
3. Present in class, using PowerPoint, a solution
to prevent energy crises in Singapore.
Technology Level[/B] Intermediate
Technology Required[/B] 1. Internet browser for searching
information
2. Mind Manager for organizing ideas
3. Presentation tool: PowerPoint
4. Collaboration tool: Blackboard discussion
forum
5. Communication tools: Blackboard discussion
forum and Email
Rationale for Using[/B]
the Technology[/B]
The most current information on local energy
profiles can be found on the Internet.
Ideas can be better organized and presented using
Mind Manager.
Collaboration can be done through discussion
forums and email.
Ideas and concepts can be more effectively
illustrated by PowerPoint
Strategies for[/B]
Implementation[/B]
Lesson 1 (70 minutes): Knowing the Energy Sources
in Singapore[/B]
The lesson starts by asking individual students to
visit the website
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/singapor.html,
where they will find current information that describes the energy
situation together with information regarding the development
undertaken by both private and governmental agencies to address
energy issues in Singapore. Also, students are encouraged to search
for other supporting information on the
Internet about what will happen to our energy
supply 20 years down the road.
After searching for information, students are to
share and discuss in groups of four their findings about the
present energy conditions and any potential energy crises that can
happen in 20 years’ time. Following the discussion, each group creates
a mind map on the present energy conditions by using Mind Manager.
Students will discuss their findings on potential energy crises
online.
Post Lesson 1 Activity (online): Online
Discussions[/B]
After Lesson 1, students will take part in online
discussions in Blackboard. Each group will post their findings on
potential energy crises as a new thread and their mind map as an
attachment. Members from other groups are to comment and make
critical suggestions.
The online discussions will last three days. The
teacher will moderate the discussions and may clarify specific
issues or problems that individual students have via
email.
Lesson 2 (70 minutes): Presentation[/B]
In this lesson, students are to come up with a
solution for preventing the energy crises from happening in 20
years’ time. To connect the last lesson to this lesson,
the teacher first gives a debriefing on the
students’ online discussions and gets the students to
discuss their solutions among group members. The teacher will not
supply any solution but provide scaffolding instead. The solution
files will be showcased in the class “Home Site, which is a repository of
students’ past assignments. Students are to present their
solutions in PowerPoint the following week.
Student Assessment[/B] Students will be assessed on:
1. The mind map.
2. Content, the number of relevant connections,
the quality of explanations of their argument, and any examples
used to substantiate their ideas.
3. the online discussions
4. The quantity of postings, clarification,
creative thinking, and critical thinking.
5. The PowerPoint presentation.
6. The rationale, practicality, and effectiveness
of their solutions.
Reflections and[/B]
Further Suggestions[/B]
For classes which do not have a Home Site, the
plan may be modified to allow submission of PowerPoint presentation
via soft copy. The teacher may then showcase works that are of
exemplary nature in future classroom discussion.
主题学习中ICT整合的系统规划[/B]
王其云
Huay Lit Woo
学习科学与技术学术团队，国立教育学院，南洋理工大学
摘要[/B]
整合信息通信技术(ICT)到教学和学习是一个发展的领域，在最近几年吸引了大量教育工作者的努力。基于内容涵盖的范围，ICT整合可以发生在三个不同的领域：课程（全部课程）、主题和课（一堂课）。这篇文章详尽阐述了ICT整合的概念，并为ICT整合到主题领域呈现出一个系统化的规划模型。在论文中描述了一个ICT整合规划的实例，来证明这个模型是怎样在实践中应用的。
关键词[/B]
信息通信技术，信息通信技术整合，系统规划，整合规划
引言[/B]
信息和通信技术的迅速发展使得信息无处不在，也使计算机更加廉价和功能更加强大。许多证据显示
技术拥有增强学习者动机，将学习者连接到各种信息源，支持协作学习和允许教师有更多便利的时间在教室的巨大潜力（Moallem, 2003; Roblyer, Edwards, & Havriluk,
2004; Wilson & Lowry, 2000）。信息和通信技术整合到教学和学习因而受到越来越多的教育者的关注。
依据内容涵盖的范围，信息和通信技术整合可以发生在三个领域：课程（宏观）、主题（中观）和一堂课（微观），如图形1所示。ICT整合到课程层次通常需要ICT去支持一个大量而更实质性的主题内容，例如像科学那样在一个特定学科里一个完整的课程包含了若干话题。通过CD-ROMs(王，2001)或互联网课程传递多媒体课程就是这样的ICT整合的例子。在主题层次，ICT可以被用来包含一门课程的某些主题。一个主题通常涉及一系列小口袋性的知识，例如DNA或是细胞分裂，这些常常是相关概念的详细阐述。在微观层次，ICT常常被用来帮助解释特定的知识单元，例如在单一的一节课中讲述DNA。
这篇论文证明（演示）系统规划模型被用来指导教师（在本论文中称为教师设计者），如何为一个中观层次的主题设计ICT整合规划。帮助教师设计者更好的理解如何应用这个模型，本文以附录的形式提供了一个建立在系统规划模型基础上ICT整合规划实例。
信息通信技术（[/B]ICT[/B]）整合的概念[/B]
整合ICT到教学和学习并不是一个新的概念，它可能和其他的技术一样古老，如收音机或者是电视。然而，随着新兴技术的快速发展，如网络技术，ICT整合已经吸引了越来越多教育工作者的注意。在这部分，在给出ICT整合的概念之前，我们将分别详尽说明ICT和整合的概念或职权。
ICT从根本上说是一个工具。可以是硬件（如计算机，数码相机）软件（软设备）（如电子表格，论坛）以说是二者兼有。在教育环境下主要指呈现于计算机上的各种资源和工具（软设备）。ICT不是为教育而特别预留的；同样也不是解决所有教育问题的万能药。然而，它确是一个能把我们同各种学习社区以一种新的、不同的方式连接起来的有用工具(Taylor，2000,p. 4)。研究已经证实ICT的应用可以支持新的教学方法，同时可以使难以实现的教学方法如模拟仿真或合作学习更切实可行（Roblyer, Edwards, & Havriluk,
2004）。教育工作者普遍赞同（这种观点,就是）如果使用得当，ICT有提高学生学习效果和效率的潜力(cf,王，2001)。
整合有一种完整性和整体性的感觉，把系统的所有基本元素无缝的组合在一起，形成一个整体。在教育中，简单的把一批网站或是CD-ROM程序派发给学生显然不是ICT整合。在一个精心制作的综合课程中，ICT和一些其他的、至关重要的教育组件如教学内容和教学方法塑造成一个实体。因此，如果把ICT成分从ICT整合课程中分离，课的质量将会以某种方式削减（Williams,2003）。
将这两个词放在一起，本文中将ICT整合广泛的定义为使用任何ICT（包括网上的信息资源，多媒体程序光盘，学习元件或其他的工具）提高学生学习(能力)的过程(Williams,2003)。它更多的是一种过程而不是一种结果。硬件和/或软件的简单的放置不会使整合自然随之而来(Earle,2002)。大量研究比较传统的基于课堂的教学和技术增强的教学发现在学生满意度、态度和学习结果方面有细微的差别(Johnson & Aragon, 2003)。影响学习效果的主要因素不是技术的可用性，而是有效利用ICT进行教学设计(Mandell, Sorge & Russell,
2002)。计算机应当适应课程，而不是课程去适应计算机(Earle, 2002 )。因此，有效的ICT整合应关注教学设计，通过证明在这种方式下技术怎样应用和为什么这样应用。
有效的ICT整合学习过程有吸引学习者的潜能。例如，在基于问题的学习中使用多媒体呈现真实的、非良构的问题可以激励和挑战学生，从而培养(发展)学生解决问题的能力。(Boud & Felleti, 1991; Savery & Duffy,
1995)。ICT可以支持不同类型的交互：学习者与学习内容，学习者与学习者，学习者与教师和学习者与学习接口的交互(Chou,2003; Moore, 1989)。这些类型的交互使学习过程更加互动，学习者更积极更活跃的参与。
研究证据同样证实有效的ICT整合能促进学生参与学习。例如
Swan, Hooft,and Kratcoski (2005)在K-8教室一项移动计算设备的使用和效果的研究中报告学生学习和参与学习过程的动机提高了适用移动计算的应用。在新加坡学校Lim and Tay (2003)的另一项探究利用ICT工具参与学生高阶思维的研究中观察到高等学生通过ICT工具参与高阶思维。
ICT[/B]整合的系统规划模型[/B]
目前许多教学设计模型可以用来帮助教师设计师设计他们信息通信技术(ICT)整合进课程。这方面的例子有ASSURE(分析学习者特征；陈述目标；选择方法、媒体和材料；鼓励学习者参与到学习活动中；评价和修正)模型(Heinich, Molenda, Russell,&
Smaldino,2001 )和ICARE(引言；连接；活动；反省；扩展/延伸)模型(Hoffman & Ritchie, 1998)。这些模型为整合各种资源和工具到教学和学习中提供了指导方针。然而，他们没有明确激励教师设计师去想和证明为什么这些资源和工具要用这种方式使用。
图形2呈现了一个设计ICT整合计划的系统模型。说它是系统的是因为它遵循逻辑流，同时组件是按线性方式组合的。模型中每个组件的开发都很大程度上依赖于前一个组件的实现。这个模型基本上提供了一个简单易遵循的结构，设计师只有完成了当前的组件才能移动到下一个组件。最重要的是，这个模型需要教师设计师明确证明为什么使用这项技术（基本原理部分），如何有效的融合这项技术（策略部分）。这个模型的关键部分将在下面详细解释。
[tr]
| [td]
| 问题陈述
| 学习/教学目标
| 技术需求
| 原理阐释
| 策略设计
| 评价
| 反馈
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
问题陈述[/B]
这个系统模型开始于问题陈述，描述在某一主题中要被解决的最主要的问题。例如，主题“能量(Energy)”，在附录中呈现，最主要的问题是“防止未来新加坡出现能源危机，我们能做些什么？”。问题陈述作为ICT整合计划的起始点。问题应该是真实的，非良构的，并具有挑战性(Boud & Felleti, 1991)。同时，问题应该与预定目标的学习者相关而非教师设计师。教师经常假设学生能理解问题的相关性及其价值。不幸的是，如果与他们无关，学生不会简单的全心的投入问题(Savery & Duffy,1995)。
学习[/B]/[/B]教学目标[/B]
学习/教学目标指定主题结束时预期的学习结果。教师设计师可能基于ABCD模型(Reiser & Dick, 1996)编写学习目标。ABCD中A是对象；B是行为；C是条件；D是标准。例如，用ABCD模型完整的描述一个学习/教学目标：“这个主题结束时，高中生在思维导图上能口头的描述现阶段新加坡能源情况，准确率达到100%”。At the end of the topic, the secondary two
students should be able to verbally describe the present energy
situation in Singapore on a mind map with 100% accuracy.
在这个例子中，A是“
the secondary two students”；B是“
verbally describe”；C是“on a mind map”；D是“with 100% accuracy”。值得一提的是在教学目标陈述中行为应该是可观察和可测量的。模糊动词如“明白/理解”，“要求”或“头脑风暴”，不适合教学目标的陈述。有时候允许忽略或精简一个或两个提到的要求。比如，D部分在上面这个例子里可以忽略；如果读者知道预期的受众，那A部分可以简化为“students”。
技术需求[/B]
为了解决问题并完成教学目标，教师设计师需要仔细比较学习这个主题用到的所有可能技术。这个模型中的技术可能包括软件如多媒体课件，网络资源，交流工具(如语音聊天，文字论坛，或者是视频会议)，心智工具(如概念图工具和多媒体著作工具)，或其他可能的ICT工具。
应用技术的基本理论[/B]
技术的使用不应是因为它是可用的或在某些情况下显示出有效性。它应该用来使过程成为可能并能加强学习。使用技术不当可能导致负面影响(Johnson &Aragon,2003;
Russell,1999)。教师设计师需要选择合适的技术并证实：i)这个主题为什么需要它；ii)这项技术能增加什么价值，iii)这项技术怎样支持教学过程。此外，Roblyer, Edwards, and Havriluk
(2004)建议以下为合理化利用技术：i)高度动机；ii)独特的教学能力比如帮助学生可视化数据/问题或跟踪学习进度；iii)支持创新的教学方法如合作学习和基于问题的学习；iv)增加教师的生产率和学生的知识结构。
实施策略[/B]
在决定了需要怎么样的技术和原因后，教师设计师必须马上决定怎如何有效的、有意义的结合所选的技术应用到主题学习。因为一个主题常常有多个课组成，ICT整合的细节应该分别提供给每堂课及整个主题。对于每堂课，教师设计师应当清楚的回答以下问题：
Ø
基于ICT的资源如网站，光盘程序或学习元件会用到哪些？
Ø
如何将基于ICT的资源用于各种设置，如一个完整的实验室，在那里每个学生使用一台电脑，或半实验室环境中，两个学生共用一台电脑(Wong & Wettasinghe, 2003)？
Ø
我们为什么要使用这种方式利用资源？
Ø
课上学生将会做哪些任务或活动？
Ø
是否提供其他的讲义或说明书？
此外，整个主题，教师设计师应该指定如何将一堂课连接到下一堂课，并说明这样做的原因。
此外，在设计ICT整合计划时，教师设计师也要考虑：
Ø
活动能提高学生的批判性思维或其他高阶思维。
Ø
学生明白他们假定学什么。
Ø
期望和评价标准，如评价指标，表述明确。
Ø
学生控制内容、速度和序列的机会。
学生评价[/B]
通常在主题的结束，要评价学生对这个主题的掌握情况。评价往往能反映学习过程和结果(Jonassen, 1991)。过程的评价检查学生如何完成学习活动或任务，是一起合作完成最终的作品，还是通过利用ICT建构知识协作。过程评价使用的方法包括在线写作反思，同行评议、电子档案袋评价(Barret, 2006)。对结果/作品的评价旨在调查最后结果的质量，如问题解决方案、软件程序开发。通常有两种形式的评估：基于ICT的评价和非ICT的评价。基于ICT的评价包含基于计算机的测试，多媒体程序开发，PPT演示，博客写作或构建概念图。非基于ICT的评价包含写纸质论文或反思日志，或在纸上回答简短的问题。
反思和长远建议[/B]
一个计划在被执行并证明是正确之前是不完善的。在规划过程中，教师设计师常常遇到一些限制和约束，限制他们的选择和策略。指导ICT整合课程之后，教师设计师要反思ICT整合的学习经验。反思可以关注使用的合适的技术，技术的优势和缺陷以及是否可以提高。此外，教师设计师也可以就其他教师针对不同的学生，不同的内容使用课程提供一些更进一步的建议。这些建议可以包括可选择的(可替换的)技术，教学方法和教学活动，评价方法和提高ICT整合的方法。下面是帮助教师设计师反省整合计划的一些见解：
Ø
主题中最主要的问题是否已经回答？
Ø
计划的学习活动是否完成了学习目标?
Ø
技术是否支持教学过程？
Ø
实现过程是否可以进一步提升？
Ø
评价学生的方法是否有效？
Ø
主题学习中如何进一步提高ICT的应用？
ICT[/B]整合规划的实例[/B]
基于这个系统规划模型，设计了一个ICT整合的样本，在附录中呈现。这个是新加坡中二学生科学课程中关于“能量”的主题。主题完成的时间为两个周期和一个在线会议。每个周期持续70分钟，在线会议大约3天。
研究这个主题的主要目的是让学生意识到新加坡先进的能源情况，为防止未来可能的能源危机提出解决方案。主题采用了5项ICT工具：浏览器，PPT，Mind
Manager，论坛和电子邮件(追踪)系统。选择这些工具的原因在基本原理部分解释了。例如，浏览器可以让学生搜索和查找互联网上最新的信息；思维导图工具被用来组织和呈现信息。
学习过程如下：在第一个双周期学生完成两个任务。第一个任务是浏览给定的网站，以小组形式讨论，并用Mind
Manager创建一个概念图。第二个任务是在相同的组里，搜索新加坡在20年中可能出现的能源危机的信息。第一个双周结束后，将组织一个在线会议，在此期间学生将分享他们的关于现在能源的现状和未来的能源危机发现。除了参加在线讨论，同一组的学生可以使用邮件进行更进一步的阐明。在第二个双周，在线讨论中学生有一个面对面的任务报告，在此之前有一个描述关于能源危机解决方案的准备活动。在接下来的一周期间，每个组都要做一个陈述。ICT整合规划的详细描述附加在附录中。
结论[/B]
ICT整合是在课程中应用技术提高教学和学习的综合过程。它的成功不仅仅依赖于可利用的技术，而且很大程度上依赖教学设计。其他因素如领导，专业发展，时间爱你和评价都对ICT整合有很大的影响(Honey, Culp,& Carrigg,2000)。在论文中介绍的ICT整合的系统规划模型是促进教师设计师在他们教授的课程主题中开发有效的ICT整合计划，在计划中提供基础理论和策略的支持。我希望这篇论文可以激发一些新的想法到ICT整合课程这个新时代(新领域)。
附录：ICT整合规划的例子
[tr]
| [td]
| 科目：科学
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 学生流/水平：专业的/S2
| [/TD]
| [/TR]
| [tr]
| [td]
| 主题：能源
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 持续时间：两个双周，每个双周70分钟，在课程时间外有一个在线活动；
| [/TD]
| [/TR]
| [tr]
| [td]
| 问题陈述
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 新加坡有哪些紧缺的能源为长期我们生存造成威胁。为防止将来出现的能源危机我们能做什么？
| [/TD]
| [/TR]
| [tr]
| [td]
| 教学/学习目标
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 主题结束后，学生应该能：
| 1.
| 用思维导图可视化的描述新加坡现在的能源状况；
| 2.
| 陈述新加坡未来20年潜在的能源危机；
| 3.
| 在班里用PPT展示防止新加坡能源危机的解决方案。
| [/TD]
| [/TR]
| [tr]
| [td]
| 技术水平
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 中级
| [/TD]
| [/TR]
| [tr]
| [td]
| 技术需求
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 1.搜集信息的浏览器；
| 2.组织观点的思维导图工具Mind
| Manager；
| 3.演示工具：PPT；
| 4.协作工具：论坛平台；
| 5.交流工具：论坛和邮件。
| [/TD]
| [/TR]
| [tr]
| [td]
| 技术使用的基本理论
| [/TD]
| [td]
| l
| 在网上搜集本地能源配置文件的最新信息；
| l
| 使用Mind Manage能较好的组织、呈现观点；
| l
| 协作可以通过论坛和邮件实现；
| l
| PPT可以更有效地说明概念和观点。
| [/TD]
| [/TR]
| [tr]
| [td]
| 实施策略
| [/TD]
| [td]
|
| 第一堂课[/B](70[/B]分钟[/B])[/B]：了解新加坡的能源资源[/B]
| 课堂以询问个别学生访问网站开始，在网站上他们可以找到描述能源现状的信息，连同关于新加坡私人机构和政府解决能源问题承担的开发信息。同时，也鼓励学生在网上搜集在接下来20年间支持能源补给的信息。
| 搜集信息后，学生每四人一个小组分享和讨论他们在现在能源的状况和20年内潜在的能源危机的发现/调查结果。讨论过后，每个小组依照现在的能源条件，使用Mind
| Manager工具创建一个思维导图。学生们也将在线讨论他们在潜在能源危机的发现/调查结果。
|
| 活动[/B]1[/B]过后：在线讨论[/B]
| 第一堂课过后，学生将通过平台参加在线讨论。每个组将把他们在潜在能源危机的发现和他们的思维导图分别以新线程和附件的形式公布。其他小组的成员进行评论，并提出批判性的建议。在线讨论的时间为3天。教师要对讨论加以调控，也可以澄清个别学生通过邮件提出的具体的问题。
|
| 第二堂课[/B](70[/B]分钟[/B])[/B]：陈述[/B]/[/B]描述[/B]
| 这节课，学生要提出防止20年内发生能源危机的解决方案。为了与上一节课相衔接，教师要对学生在线讨论做一个总结并且让学生在小组内讨论他们的解决方案。教师不要提供解决方案，但可以提供一些代替性的脚手架。解决方案最后要在作为学生结束任务资源库的班级网站中展示。学生在随后一周用PPT呈现他们的解决方案。
| [/TD]
| [/TR]
| [tr]
| [td]
| 学生评价
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 学生将会被评估：
| 1.
| 思维导图；
| 2.
| 内容，相关连接数量，讨论解释的质量，加强他们观点的例子；
| 3.
| 在线讨论；
| 4.
| 发帖频率，解释度，创造性思维，批判性思维；
| 5.
| PPT呈现/描述；
| 6.
| 解决方案的基本原理，实用性和有效性。
| [/TD]
| [/TR]
| [tr]
| [td]
| 反思与长远建议
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 没有网站的班级，计划可以修改成通过提交PPT演示的复印件。教师可以在未来的课堂中展示自然典型的作品。
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
|
