Paper+4

Since digital technology has entered the realms of education, educators have argued the need and purpose of its use. Whether it was a phase, the learning or a tool to improve learning has been discussed in the halls of many schools. Technology has transformed the disciplines so that the knowledge-base teachers’ need has changed to include technology as part of the total package. Technology, pedagogy and content knowledge (TPACK) are the integration of all three forms of knowledge. The technology chosen should be a best fit for the pedagogy and content to be taught when developing and implementing curriculum. Technology should be incorporated into the pedagogy and content to help make meaning of the long-term understandings and transfer one’s learning to new situations. The __Understanding by Design__ (UbD) backward design approach, developed by Jay McTighe and Grant Wiggins (McTighe & Wiggins, 2006), is the framework I will use for developing and implementing a technology integrated curriculum.
 * Paper #4: As you consider developing and implementing a Technology Integrated Curriculum:**

Backward design consists of three stages: 1) identifying desired results, 2) determining assessment evidence and 3) planning learning activities and instruction. In the first stage, goal(s) are identified that target transferrable, abstract understanding, essential questions are developed to guide the students inquiry needed to uncover the understandings, and the knowledge and skills crucial to acquiring the desired results are decided upon. In the second stage, one determines the assessment evidence that is necessary to decide how well the students achieved the desired results. Performance tasks and other evidence such as rubrics, observations, quizzes and projects are considered. In the third stage, engaging and effective learning activities and instruction are planned based on the desired results reflected in the assessment evidence. Appropriate technological knowledge and skills conducive to the established goals and understanding will be incorporated into the learning activities and instruction.

The stage or component I am most comfortable with is stage three: learning activities and instruction. Before being introduced to backward design, my unit and lesson plans consisted of the following steps: 1) identifying behavioral objectives, 2) designing a motivation, 3) writing the procedures (to include instruction and activities) needed to achieve the objectives and 4) writing quizzes to help determine student achievement. The learning activities which ended in a finished project were the major focus that defined how students would acquire knowledge and skills. Therefore, I am much more practiced and familiar with stage three than with stages one and two. I have had more experience writing procedures and learning activities than I have had writing goals that target transferrable “big ideas”, arguable essential questions and performance tasks.

In addition, the foundation has already been laid by establishing goals and designing essential questions which target transferrable lasting understanding. The building process has begun by choosing performance tasks and other assessment evidence that demonstrate the desired transferrable knowledge. Much of the work is already accomplished. The learning plan builds upon and is based in this groundwork established by the first two stages. Therefore, the design and implementation of stage three can be carried out with ease and comfort.

Stage one, identifying desired results, is the step that I am least comfortable with. Establishing goals that target enduring understandings which are transferrable to new situations requires deeper critical thought than designing behavioral objectives. Ensuring that students make meaning of important ideas and processes that will transfer learning is more complex. It is the complexity and my desire to create truly transferrable and lasting understanding which makes me uncomfortable, yet intrigued and engaged. The desired results and transferrable deeper understanding are embedded throughout all three stages, but it is in stage one that these transferrable, enduring understandings are created. If stage one of backward design is not well thought out, it will establish poorer implications for success of knowledge transfer in the assessment evidence and learning plan.

It would be advantageous to use such an insightful, systematic approach to the development and implementation of a technology integrated curriculum. The detailed, perceptive steps ensure constructing meaning of important ideas and processes that can be transferred to new situations. Transfer of understanding is what learning is all about. It is a very thoughtful and organized curriculum design in which the integration of pedagogy and content are already evident. Technology that makes meaning of important ideas and supports the transfer of knowledge to new situations would fit and be incorporated with ease. The only disadvantage that I see to the development and implementation of backward design is that it could easily be more time consuming. Time is always essential, but the advantages of backward design out way the disadvantages.

**References** Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing tpck. AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), //The handbook of technological pedagogical content// //knowledge (tpck)// //for educators// (pp. 3-29). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

McTighe,J. & Wiggins, G. (2006). //Understanding by Design//. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum.