Technology Integration and

Instructional Design
By Jennifer Summerville and Angelia Reid-Griffin

“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.”

T
eaching pre-service and in-service teach- example is the U.S. Air Force model, which was
ers to use technologies in their classrooms the “pioneer” of instructional design models,
begins with their training at the univer- according to Seels and Glasgow (1998). This
sity. Many teacher education programs require model addressed the need for a systematic ap-
students to take a foundational level course in proach to instruction for military courses that
technology education. As these foundational focused on technology integration (p. 172).
courses are continually revamped to include Other instructional design models incor-
technologies for various disciplines, teacher porating technology integration include the
education programs find it difficult to establish Reiser and Dick model; the ASSURE model;
a consistent platform for preparing students to the Teacher Decision Making model, which
incorporate instructional design principles with gives explanation to the ADDIE process (Anal-
new instructional technology tools. ysis, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evalu-
Instructional design is a widely-acknowledged ate); and the Kemp model. We used each of
system of planning, implementing, and evaluat- the models in previous teaching practices and
ing instruction (Gagne, Wager, Golas, & Keller, found the models did not entirely address the
2005; Reiser & Dick, 1996; Shelly, Cashman, needs of our Instructional Technology course.
Gunter, & Gunter, 2006). Historically, instruc- Therefore, we chose to develop a model that
tional design was recognized for its use in the would be a good fit with our own teaching
military, and now gradually has become more pedagogy.
mainstream in teacher education programs. We were able to develop a platform, using
The premise of instructional design is to make a systematic approach that blends the princi-
learning more efficient. Reiser and Dick (1996), ples of instructional planning with technology
Morgan (1989), and Bowsher (1989) note that integration. Instructors of our Instructional
employing this organized approach in such di- Technology course collaborated to develop
verse settings as schools, developing countries, modules aligned with principles of instruc-
and business has lead to valuable methods of tional design. This seemed to be an ideal way
instruction. Snellbecker (1947) and Morrison, to provide students additional opportunities to
Ross, and Kemp (2007) proposed that this struc- design instructional activities that incorporat-
tured systematic process establishes the link be- ed appropriate technology for their curriculum
tween educational research and practical appli- and grade levels. This marriage of technology
cation. integration and the use of technology as a tool
There are instructional design models that through instructional design offers the popula-
incorporate technology integration. One notable tion of students we serve numerous opportuni-
ties to engage in lesson-building activities.

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

 Although research indicates the use of in- et al., 2006). The instructors sequenced the text
structional design models to deliver technol- into eight modules. Each of the eight modules
ogy-enhanced instruction can lead to effective was completed in approximately two weeks,, and
teaching, there are few models for developing this course lasted about 15 weeks. Students were
design skills that integrate technology within required to read the chapter(s) for each module
the education curriculum. This article ad- and prepare for discussions about relevant issues,
dresses this research need by focusing on the usually in an online discussion forum or in class,
instructional design model that we used to on campus. At the end of each module, students
teach pre-service students to plan activities ef- completed a project based upon the content of
fectively integrating technologies. Since most the chapters and appropriate technology tools.
of the students enrolled in The course was presented to students in ei-
the Instructional Technol- ther an online or blended teaching platform,
“The eight modules ogy courses have already based on the instructor’s teaching preference.
of the Instructional taken the undergraduate-
level course Instructional
The online and blended platforms utilized web-
based teaching tools such as Blackboard Campus
Technology course Design and Evaluation Edition or Vista to present materials and interact
for Pre-service Teachers, with students. The blended courses offered some
provide students with we will focus the discus- face-to-face meetings on campus as well as on-
sion on how the model line meetings.
experiences to meet was used with a module As instructors of the course, we generalized
some of the basic that specifically addressed
instructional design prin-
that the students’ technology experiences dif-
fered greatly. Many of the traditional students
computer competencies ciples, incorporating the had some experience using the technologies and
integration of technology software programs, while the non-traditional
stated in ISTE in lesson planning. students had little or no experience using the
tools. Depending on their levels of confidence
National Educational Context using the tools, students chose to enroll in either
Technology Standards The course Instructional the online or blended sections of the course.
Because many of the students enrolled in
Technology is required of
for Teachers (NETS-T) all education majors at a our courses may have had some experience with
four-year university in the instructional design, we developed a module
and Students (NETS-S).” southeastern region of the that specifically addressed using principles of in-
United States. We were structional design in the design and development
both instructors of Instructional Technology of lesson plans using technology tools. In par-
courses during the development and imple- ticular, we used a product called TaskStream as
mentation of the model described in this article. a portfolio builder for students to use from their
They also served as instructors of the universi- initial courses in education through completion
ty’s instructional design course for teacher edu- of their degrees. Within TaskStream, students are
cation candidates. able to choose from a selection of tools that allow
The students enrolled in the Instructional multiple options for using their lesson plans in
Technology courses were teacher education the future, including saving all of their materi-
candidates with novice-level computer skills. als onto the site for use in other classes. Students
We categorized the students as traditional and could also e-mail the plans to the instructors or
non-traditional students. Traditional students peers. To provide reflective practice we required
were defined as undergraduates obtaining their students in our courses to “publish” their lesson
first bachelor’s degree, immediately following plans for review so that feedback could be given
high school; non-traditional students were de- from a variety of sources.
fined as returning students who had a college The focus of the module, entitled “Using
degree or were returning to school after several Technology to Enhance Instructional Design”
years away from formal schooling. These stu- is a lesson plan model that we use in our state.
dents sought to teach at the Pre-K, elementary, Within this module, students build a sample les-
middle, or secondary level with discipline in- son using an online version of the Lesson Plan
terests varying from Language Arts, Math, Sci- template from TaskStream (Shelly et al., 2006).
ence, Social Studies, Physical Education, Music Students are required to plan a simple lesson
Education, and Special Education. on a topic of their choice, given their major and
All sections of the course used “Integrating subject area. The lesson must be based on state
Technology and Digital Media into the Class- standards and the National Educational Tech-
room” from the Shelly Cashman Series (Shelly nology Standards for Teachers (NETS), which

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

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 for
pre-service teachers
A model often comes from a theoretical
perspective. As Seels and Glasgow (1998) note,
many differences of opinion concerning instruc- Figure 1: The Kemp Model of Instructional Design
tional design models have come from construc-
tivists due to the cognitive principles expressed can be implemented in the choice of media
in many models (p. 183). Building on a construc- step. Reiser and Dick (1996) describe this step
tivist framework, we prepared an instructional as the “physical means by which instruction is
design model for how to apply the theory in delivered to students” (p. 68). We felt that be-
practice. The model combines both theory and cause preparing teachers to select the correct
practice and eliminated some of the fixed steps media for their curriculum served as the main
from other traditional models. Some of these goal of this course, this model’s approach was
instructional models include Reiser and Dick, too restrictive. Therefore we decided against
Teacher Decision Making model (ADDIE), and the use of the Reiser and Dick model with this
ASSURE. These models, used previously in our course.
teaching practices, did not address the needs of We also considered the more widely
the Instructional Technology course, which led known ASSURE model in the field of instruc-
to the analysis of these models along with Kemp’s tional technology (Heinich et al., 2002; Shelly
Model for Instructional Design (see Figure 1) and et al., 2006). This model provides processes for
later to the development of our own model. implementing instruction that uses technology
We found that some of the models incorpo- effectively. Shelly et al. indicated that “when us-
rated methodical features for the incorporation ing technology, an instructional design model
of technology use in teaching, however the rather and planning take on a more important role”
linear and inflexible designs of their approaches for the teacher (2006, p. 6.22). The six stages
to planning and delivering instruction were too of the ASSURE model are analyze learner; state
limiting to pedagogical practices. The Reiser and objectives; select methods, media, and materi-
Dick (1996) seven series model proved to be als; utilize media and materials; require learner
problematic when students tried to incorporate participation; and evaluate and revise (Shelly
a variety of approaches to using technology with et al., 2006). At first glance, this model seemed
their instructional plans. The model as noted by ideal for our course, however, in an effort to pro-
Shambaugh and Magliaro (2006) did not leave vide students with instructional design process
any room for the in-depth analysis of the cur- skills that were flexible and encompassed the
riculum that supports technology integration. principles of educational research and practice,
The model seemed to maintain instruction at the this model seemed to fall short of our expecta-
“forefront” of the planning process (Shambaugh tions. It failed to support our practice of teach-
& Magliaro, 2006, p. 40). ing students to develop instruction that focuses
Although Reiser and Dick (1996) indicated not only on the learners needs but also adheres
the importance of flexibility in planning instruc- to the requirements of the state and NETS.
tion, their plan was not as flexible as they sug- This left us again searching for an instruc-
gested. They based their steps solely on teachers’ tional design process that would meet our goals
first stating instructional goals and then allowing for the courses. In teaching our instructional
the rest to follow along that statement (p. 6). The design courses, we came across the Shambaugh
integration of technologies by users of this model
Volume 52, Number 5 TechTrends • September/October 2008 47
 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
Figure 2: The Summerville Integrated Model.
forgotten. Therefore, we believe the review of the
first tier is essential for students in this course.
and Magliaro (2006) Teacher Decision Mak- Each of the tiers does have its own importance
ing process which described many of the points and should be visited and somewhat completed
found in ADDIE. ADDIE is one of the most in a sequential order. After all, one does not be-
widely used processes in instructional design gin with the concept of Transfer. That is an end-
but has come under scrutiny as to whether it is state.
a model or process. As explained by Molenda How the course modules fit the design model
(2003), the ADDIE model does not exist and
is merely a “colloquial label for the systematic The eight modules of the Instructional Tech-
development process” (Morrison, Ross, Kemp, nology course provide students with experiences
2006, p. 13). The Teacher Decision Making pro- to meet some of the basic computer competen-
cess too failed to allow flexibility in it linear ar- cies stated in ISTE National Educational Tech-
rangement. nology Standards for Teachers (NETS-T) and
Jennifer Summerville had used the Kemp Students (NETS-S). Within each of the modules,
Model of Instructional Design previously in an students learn the mechanics of the technologies
instructional design course and thought that it and demonstrate an understanding of how to in-
may be a good design for this course. The Kemp tegrate them into the classroom.
model (Kemp & Smellie, 1994) has an elliptical Aligning with the model, the course goal is
nature in addressing the core processes for in- for “students to develop lessons that impact the
struction. We both found the unique design of learners’ cognition and academic achievement”
the model to be a good fit with our own teaching (Anonymous, 2004). Each module supports this
pedagogy. However, we both felt that the model goal by providing instructional activities for stu-
did not address how knowledge is transferred dents to obtain application skills as they interact
among the tiers. We felt it would not help our with various media. During these interactions
student effectively incorporate technology in with different media, students learn to focus on
planning their instructional tasks. applications relevant to their specific content as
Jennifer Summerville, the author of the model they develop their lesson.
shown in Figure 2, took a more circular, cyclical Each module project is evaluated by a group
approach to the design of instruction and less of of peers for adherence to required criteria. Stu-
a linear approach. This circular model allowed dents have an opportunity to review and discuss
incorporation of the different elements that are the projects prior to final review by the instructor.
important to the overall design of instruction They also have an opportunity to review and eval-
and supported design of instruction developed uate their own work in a final portfolio project in
and implemented for preservice teachers in the which they can make changes to all of the mod-
undergraduate course. ules to create the best body of work possible to
The model’s outer layers of Learner Analysis, represent their knowledge of a variety of media.

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

 Module one: In this first module, students as they create their PowerPoint so that they use
are required to have an understanding of NETS the media to its best advantage (as opposed to
(International Society for Technology in Educa- creating something loud with clashing colors).
tion, 2000-2002) and apply that understanding Students use the PowerPoint presenta-
of the standards to a project in which they are tion that they created for Module 4 as a part
given a budget for purchasing technology and of an overall lesson plan and analyze the con-
supportive equipment and materials. They write tent that they include in the presentation. The
up the budget and rationale using a word pro- product should align with their lesson created
cessing program. Within the first module, stu- in module three. In this module, the following
dents must take into account media, government standards are addressed:
mandates, content analysis, and planning. They NETS-S 3A, 3B, 4A, and
also begin to touch on the inner circles of assess- 6B (International Society “Each module project
ment, evaluation, and transfer. for Technology in Edu-
Module two: Students select an educational cation, 2000-2002). This
is evaluated by a
website for evaluation. The website is of their
choosing but must be educational in nature (as
module allows students to group of peers for
further analyze media and
opposed to a website for business or training). content relevant for de- adherence to required
The evaluation form focuses on critical evalua- veloping the activity. Stu-
tion of not only media attributes but what stu- dents are required to plan criteria. Students
dents learn from the site. In addition, we require for the assessment of the
students to explain how the website that they re- content that they present
have an opportunity
view may or may not meet NETS and how the
site may or may not be appropriate in the class-
in their PowerPoint and to review and discuss
should plan to have their
room (as a part of both content analysis and les- media, methods, and ma- the projects prior to
son planning). The emphasis of this project is on terials evaluated by peers
the whole of the process—from media attributes and possibly their own final review by the
to transfer. students.
Module three: Students use TaskStream to Module five: Students
instructor.”
help them develop a lesson plan. Students must use the Microsoft Excel pro-
identify state standards and possibly NETS that gram to develop classroom record keeping skills
apply to their lessons, they select media, meth- by creating an electronic grade book. Student use
ods and materials to use in their classrooms, they the tools in Excel to calculate students’ grades
analyze content for the lesson, and they plan the and create graphs to compare students’ perfor-
lesson, using the Six Point Lesson Plan template mances. In addition to creating a grade book,
(see Appendix A). Students also plan for assess- students produce a progress report they would
ment and evaluation within their lesson plan. In distribute to parents. The assignment requires
addition, because this project is so comprehen- students to compare the scores of an individual
sive, the emphasis is on transfer of knowledge student in their grade book with that of the entire
from one daily lesson to the next. Students not class through the use of graphs. Students also are
only learn how to encourage transfer within their required to use the If-Then command and create
own lessons but they, as students, are encouraged their own quizzes using the instructions given.
to transfer their own knowledge of lessons, me- They are encouraged to share their If-Then quiz-
dia and instructional design to other modules. zes with a peer to check for accuracy.
The key to this module is not the tool but the Module six: Students create a WebQuest for
use of the tool in an appropriate manner. Some use in their classroom. The comprehensive na-
students initially fill in the blanks with minimal ture of a WebQuest lends itself to the whole of
verbiage. We discourage surface thinking and the circular module. WebQuests can be a pow-
encourage students to consider their actual class- erful tool for educators because they can be
rooms while they design their lessons. Since stu- implemented at almost every grade level and
dents have the ability to easily share their plans with different subject matter. They also make
with others with the click of a button they can good use of timely information gained from
receive feedback on the quality of their lessons online resources, which may be updated more
from multiple resources. often than print-based materials (Summerville,
Module four: Students use PowerPoint for a 2000).The development of these tools further
part of the lesson that they have designed. They extends students’ exposure to lesson design by
are to take state standards and NETS into ac- requiring analysis of appropriate media and
count when they create their PowerPoint lesson. awareness of government mandates in publish-
They subscribe to good media design standards ing items on-line.

Volume 52, Number 5 TechTrends • September/October 2008 49

 Module seven: Students evaluate media by warranted by formative evaluation. If,
completing evaluation of one of the computer for example, it is discovered that a NETS
software programs available in the education or state standard has been overlooked or
computer lab. Kathy Shrock’s (2006) Website shortchanged, the missing information can
Evaluation Form and the Software Evaluation be included before it impacts transfer.
Rubric developed by Shelly et al. (2006) were As one may note from both the model and
used in this module. As with the web evalua- the explanation of the modules within the un-
tion, students discussed the relevance of the dergraduate Instructional Technology course,
program to their curriculum and grade level. we strive for students to understand that inte-
The software evaluation tool allows students grating technology into instruction is not a sim-
to develop skills using decision making rubrics ple matter of using the tools. It is also not a “use
as they learn to select appropriate materials for it and forget it” proposition. “Everything that
their learner’s needs. This module leads to com- we do…every tool that we select…every stan-
petence in evaluating media that will empower dard to which we adhere…all the content that
learners to transfer knowledge learned into real we design…every time we assess, evaluate and
classroom settings. revise, we are working toward a common goal”
Module eight: Students create a PowerPoint (Summerville, 2006). That goal is the transfer of
presentation regarding the integration of emerg- knowledge to other subjects.
ing technologies in their classrooms. It is a per- To this end, the Summerville Integrated
suasive presentation with a main objective of the Model is a model of instructional design both
assignment being that students are able to ad- for teachers as learners and for them to take with
dress objections about newer technologies and them into their own classrooms.
how those technologies can be used effectively
and efficiently in the classroom. Once again, the Summary and recommendations
presentations are peer reviewed, either in a face- We have found that this model and ap-
to-face class setting or online. proach to learning has worked well for teaching
The final evaluation tool for this course con- pre-service teachers and appears to be a positive
sists of an electronic portfolio in which students learning experience for our students. Many of
compile their products from the eight modules. the methods faculty are pleased with the abili-
The portfolio is developed on TaskStream and ties of students to create lessons that are learner
the required products are consistent for each appropriate. Students feel more confident about
section of the Instructional Technology course. designing lessons and using the toolsets present-
The products are evaluated by peers and indi- ed in class as a part of their own classrooms.
vidual instructors of the Instructional Technol- Some of our colleague’s concerns include the
ogy course. The portfolio provides evidence that amount of time needed to address the instruc-
students are competent in complying with the tional planning issue in the Instructional Tech-
basic computer NETS and are able to transfer nology course. Many fear that too much time
knowledge of computer integration into an ac- allocated in the course for instructional design
tual classroom. may take away from the instructional time for
All core education courses require the teaching new technologies. Although we have
use of TaskStream to build a pre-admittance not found this to be the case as yet, the increas-
portfolio whereby assignments can be used ing complexity of the tools may necessitate that
in methods classes and reviewed by meth- the course be redesigned or even split into two
ods faculty. The Instructional Technology fi- separate courses (e.g., “Tools” and “Integra-
nal portfolio can be used as a stand-alone tion”).
representation of the work completed in In- The model that we proposed allows for high-
structional Technology and as a model for er-level thinking and reflection of teacher can-
creating a portfolio product for other classes. didates. It provides for the opportunity of peer
Use of the model in reflective practice and self-evaluation. The practical experiences
that students are presented with during these
Due to the circular nature of the “Summerville
courses lead to quality products that they can
Integrated Model”, students and practitioners
use in their own classrooms. Students are able
are encouraged to explore each ring of
to focus on the process of instructional design
the model, section by section, until one is
and technology integration, so the inevitable
satisfied that each section is completed in an
obsolescence of tools becomes less of an issue.
appropriate and thorough manner. As in the
Instead of a focus on cutting edge, changeable
real world of the professional instructional
technology tools, our students focus on trans-
designer, sections may be revisited as
fer…and that is our main goal.

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

 References
Taskstream Lesson Plan Template Anonymous. (2004). Instructional technology
education syllabus. UNC-Wilmington: Wat-
Vital Information son School of Education.
Author: Bowsher, J. E. (1989). Educating America: Les-
sons learned in the nation’s corporations.
Title of Lesson: New York: Wiley.
Subject(s): Gagne, R., Wager, W., Golas, K., & Keller, J.
(2005). Principles of instructional design
Topic or Unit of Study: (5th ed.) Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thom-
Grade/Level: son Learning.
Summary: Heinich, M., Molenda, M., Russell, J., & Smal-
dino, S. (2002). Instructional media and
Focus and Review (Establish Prior Knowledge) technologies for learning (7th ed). Columbus,
Statement (Inform) of Objectives OH: Prentice Hall. (Shelly book).Interna-
tional Society for Technology in Education.
Teacher Input (Present Tasks, Information, and (2000-2002). National Educational Tech-
Guidance) nology Standards for Teachers (NETS-T).
Guided Practice (Elicit Performance) Retrieved November 1, 2006, from http://
cnets.iste.org/teachers/t_profile-stu.html
Independent Practice: Seatwork and Homework Kemp, J. & Smellie, D. (1994). Planning, pro-
(Retain and Transfer) ducing, and using instructional technologies
(7th ed.). Harper Collins Publishers.
Closure (Plan for Maintenance) Morgan, R. M. (1989). Instructional systems
development in third world countries. Edu-
Standards cational Technology Research & Develop-
North Carolina Standard Course of Study: ment, 37, 47-56.
Morrison, G. R., S. M. Ross, et al. (2007). De-
NETS-Students: signing effective instruction. John Wiley &
NETS-Teachers: Sons, Inc.
Reiser, R. A., & W. Dick (1996). Instructional
References Planning: A guide for teachers. Boston, Al-
lyn and Bacon.
Cite Standards from lesson curriculum area and Schrock, K. (2006). Critical evaluation of a web
NETS (for students) and cite all references. site: Websites for use by educators. Retrieved
August 1, 2006, from http://discovery-
school.com/schrockguide/
• Save copy of lesson on USB drive in “initials” folder. Seels, B., & Z. Glasgow (1998). Making in-
• Upload lesson on WEBCT and submit Desktop Project structional design decisions. Upper Saddle
River, Prentice Hall.
Assignment. Shambaugh, N., & S. G. Magliaro (2006). In-
structional Design: A systematic approach
for reflective practice. Boston, Pearson A
and B.
Appendix A: Taskstream Lesson Plan Template Shellbecker, G. (1974). Learning theory, in-
structional theory, and psychoeducational
Jennifer Summerville serves as the Associate M.S. in Computer Education and Cognitive Sys- design. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Dean for Distance Learning and the Weekend tems from University of North Texas, and has Shelly, G., Cashman, T. J., Gunter, G. A., &
College at Collin College and was previously an a B.B.A in Marketing from Baylor University. Gunter, R. E. (2006). Teachers discovering
Associate Professor of Instructional Design at [email protected] computers: Integrating technology and digi-
University of North Carolina at Wilmington and tal media in the classroom (4th ed.). Boston:
Angelia Reid-Griffin is an Assistant Professor in
an Assistant Professor of Instructional Design Thomson Course Technology.
the Instructional Technology, Foundations and
and Technology at Emporia State University. Summerville, J. (2006). The Summerville Inte-
Secondary Education Department at the Uni-
Her research interests include learner-centered grated Model of Instructional Design.
versity of North Carolina Wilmington’s School of
and policy issues in online and distance educa- Summerville, J. (2000). “WebQuests as a part
Education. Her teaching and research interests
tion and cognitive and personality issues in the of technology integration: Training preser-
include using technology as an instructional and
design and development of instruction in both vice teachers”. TechTrends, March/April.
learning tool, motivating students to enter sci-
corporate and educational environments. She TaskStream. (2002-2007). TaskStream Tools of
ence, math, and technology careers and minority
received her Ph.D. from University of Northern Engagement. Retrieved May 8, 2004, from
teacher shortage. [email protected]
Colorado in Educational Technology, holds an http://www.taskstream.com

Volume 52, Number 5 TechTrends • September/October 2008 51