A Model of Successful Technology Integration in a School System:
Plano's Curriculum Integration Project 1
Yoram Eshet
Department of Education, Tel Hai College
Tel Hai, Israel
eshet@netvision.net.il
Joel Klemes
The Open University of Israel
Tel Aviv, Isarel 61392
joelkl@oumail.openu.ac.il
Lyn Henderson
School of Education, James Cook University
Townsville, Australia 4811
Lynette.Henderson@jcu.ac.au
Sara Jalali
Independent multimedia producer
Carolton, Texas, 75007
Jalali@mindspring.com
Abstract: The technology-based Curriculum Integration project in the Plano Independent School District is
presented as a model for a successful implementation of large-scale technology integration projects. The project
addressed relevant components: teachers, students, curriculum, learning theories and materials, technological
infrastructure, and school architecture. Certain components played a significant role: pedagogical curriculum
changes, the physical learning environment, the major involvement of Plano teachers as key participants in
planning, developing, and implementing the changes in collaboration with instructional designers and content
experts from an educational software company led to a large-scale systemic change in the learning culture in the
district among teachers and students.
Introduction
In the last decade, there has been an increasing number of publications reporting the minor impact that,
despite substantial investments, the integration of technology in schools has on the teaching culture, the school
environment, and the students' attitude to learning (Bryson & de Castell 911 8; Maddux, Johnson & Willis 1997).
In addition, teachers report dissatisfaction with the applicability of off-the-shelf multimedia products to their
curriculum. For example, in a survey conducted in United States in 1999, 59% of teachers who use software for
instruction report that is it “somewhat” or “very” difficult to find software to meet their classroom needs
(Resnick 1999). However, it is not only appropriate software that is the issue. Successful technology
implementation into schools requires a holistic approach that addresses all relevant issues, including design of
custom curricular materials, learning theory, pedagogy, staff development, technology infrastructure,
management, finance, and school architecture.
The technology-based Plano Independent School District (PISD) Curriculum Integration Project is an
excellent example of such holistic implementation. The large-scale systemic project was implemented in the
PISD between 1993-1998, involving approximately 40 elementary schools and 60,000 K-5 students. Two of its
unique features were that teachers played a leading role in collaboration with an education computer company to
design an interdisciplinary curriculum with custom learning materials based on a constructivist approach to
teaching and learning as well as recommend the classroom's architecture and technology infrastructure.
The paper reports the Plano Curriculum Integration Project to highlight necessary ingredients for a
successful wide-scale integration of technology in a school system.
Launching the Plano Project
In: T. Ottman & I. Tomek (eds.) (2000), Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, pp. 275280.
1
The decision to launch a systemic curricular change in 1993 was based on the recognition that the PISD
school system “suffered” from problems such as those listed in Table 1 as well as an understanding that
introducing technology without addressing other educational and architectural issues, would not be enough.
Therefore, the project was designed to address the factors in Table 1, that are subsequently discussed in the
paper. The PISD contracted Edunetics, a multimedia production company, to help it redesign its curriculum,
inservice the teachers in the area of computer technology, and develop educational computer software that would
serve as a crucial component of the new integrated curriculum. In addition, PISD established the Curriculum
Development Center in which a team of 30 to 40 selected K-5 teachers, supervised by PISD curriculum
coordinators, cooperatively developed the new thematic curriculum with the pedagogical, content, and
instructional technology design experts in Edunetics (Otto 1997).
Pre Technology-Based System
Traditional discipline-based curriculum
that adopted mostly behaviorist pedagogy
Technology-based System Changes
A conceptual redesign to a technology-based, thematically
integrated curriculum that adopted cognitive and
constructivist pedagogy
Teacher ownership in redesigning the curriculum and
developing the learning materials.
An appropriate technological infrastructure plan that
included 8 computers and a printer per classroom, ethernet
connectivity, and Internet access.
Custom learning material development, both computerbased and other types of materials.
Interior classroom and school redesign to promote an
open teaching style, use of technology, teamwork, and
group discussion.
Debenture Bonds
Infrequent and minimal involvement of
teachers in curriculum design
Limited use of technology in schools due
to scarcity of computers and an
inadequate technological infrastructure.
Very limited use of software, partly due
to its lack of suitability to the curriculum.
Classrooms were designed for traditional
chalk-and-talk style of teaching
Lack of finance
Table 1: Decision Factors Influencing Curriculum, Teacher Involvement, and Architectural Change
Curriculum redesign
Plano Independent School District’s pre-1993 segregated curriculum (Table 2) was designed to
follow the curriculum standards in the various disciplines (cf. Bybee & McInerney 1995; Texley & Wild
1996; Schneider, Adler, Beery, Ladson-Billings, Fernekes, Hartoonian, McFarland, Marker, Montgomery,
Nickell, & Tevis 1994). A major task of the project was to convert this curriculum into a thematic one (Table
3), without giving up the disciplinary depth of content. It was argued that thematic learning enables the
student to perceive curricular topics in a broader and more interconnected way (Jacobs 1989, 1997; Kovalik
& Olson 1994; Marzano 1992).
LIFE

SCIENCE 


Kindergarten
Looking at plants
Looking at animals
Homes for living things
My body grows
EARTH 
SCIENCE 


Exploring space
Exploring earth
Watching the weather
Weather changes








Grade 1
Animal body parts

Grouping plants

Where plants live
Living/ non-living things
My body grows
Staying healthy
Looking at the sky

Earth seen from space 


Grade 2
Grouping animals
Ancient living things
The sun
Fossils & Dinosaurs
Air and water
Looking at weather
Table 2: A section of the pre-Plano Curriculum Project K-2 discipline-segregated curriculum
In a thematic curriculum, the learning objectives are organized in themes, or “big ideas," and not
necessarily in segregated disciplines, as in most traditional curricula. Thus the first stage in designing the
new curriculum was to identify six major themes (Overarching Concepts) under which the entire new
curriculum was organized: Communication, Continuity and Change, Interactions, Diversity, Systems, and
Balance and Stability (Table 3). The thematic curriculum was designed as a matrix that matched a six-week
thematic learning unit, called Organizing Idea (OI) for each of the K-5 grade levels. Each OI belonged to a
specific theme. The OIs' design involved an effort to present the disciplinary content (Table 2) in a thematic
way, supplemented and reinforced with technology (Table 3). For example: Grade Two's science
disciplinary curriculum (Table 2) included topics such as grouping of animals and ancient living things in
Life Science, as well as fossils and dinosaurs in Earth Science. In the thematic curriculum, these topics were
clustered into the OI, “What Evidence Tells Us About Our World?” under the Overarching Concept (theme)
of "Communication". In this OI, the students use, among others, fossil evidence to communicate and draw
conclusions about the world. This approach to curriculum design is a modification of the original curriculum
integration model of Jacobs (1989) in the sense that it focuses on maintaining the disciplinary learning
objectives, but presenting them in a thematic manner. In this way, the teachers, supported by PISD’s
curriculum coordinators, designed an array of 36 OIs (Table 3).
Overarching Concepts: Each for a Six Week Period (not in teaching sequence)
Gd
K
Continuity &
Change
Change is All
Around Me
Changes
Around Us
1
Cycles
Events in My
World
2
What Impacts
Our World?
3
A Matter of
Time
The Way We
Live
4
Changes Over
Time
Systems
Interactions
All Aboard
for Systems
What’s the
Connection?
Grady's Weather
Window
It’s No
Mystery,
It’s a System
Calling All
Problem
Solvers!
How Do
Systems Help
Us Connect in
Our World?
Weather,
Climate &
You
Where Would
We Be
Without
Systems?
YourTown
One Affecting
the Other
Body Balance
Cause and Effect
Diversity
Communication
Balance &
Stability
Off to a “Beary”
Good Start!
What’s Alike?
What’s
Different?
Animals and
Their Homes
Why Classify?
Animals in
Their World
How Do I Learn
About My
World?
Making
Connections
Solid
Foundations
Fun With Maps
How Are
Communities
Interdependent in
Our World?
Get the Story!
How Are We
Alike and
Different in Our
World?
Many Places,
Friendly Faces
What Does
Evidence Tell
Us about Our
World?
Message in a
Fossil
Where is
Harmony in Our
World?
Seeking
Reasonable
Solutions
Animals in Our
World
Many Faces,
Many Places
Earth: Forces and
Formations
Proud to Be an
American
The Fine Arts of
Sharing
Adventures in
Problem
Solving
Clues That
Communicate
Sun, Earth,
Moon
Drawing Upon
Our Resources
State of
Diversity
Mankind and
Nature in
Harmony
Our
Environment
Map Room and Visual Planner (Tools) are used throughout the OIs from 1st through 5th grades.
Interactive Computer Lessons are utilized through Grades 1 -5.
Names of OIs are in normal text; names of custom educational software programs are in italics.
Table 3: Plano ISD Integrated Thematic Curriculum: Organizing Ideas and Custom Edunetics Software
Almost all of the OIs included custom multimedia learning products that were used as a crucial
component throughout the six-week learning period in the OI. The multimedia products were designed and
produced by Edunetics’ instructional design specialists, with the full involvement of, and guidance from,
Introductory unit:
What is
Evidence?
Interdisciplinary
unit:
What does
Evidence Tell Us of
the Past?
Interdisciplinary
unit:
Steps in Solving
Problems &
Mysteries
Culmination unit: Can Evidence Help Us Find Him?
Interdisciplinary
unit:
Evidence Helps Us
Solve Problems &
Mysteries
Computer Learning Environment: Message in a Fossil
ORGANIZING IDEA:
What Does Evidence Tell About Our World?
Computer "lessons" Hands-on and off-line activities
PISD teachers. All OIs were designed to follow a general basic structure exemplified by the Grade Two OI,
"What Does Evidence Tell Us about Our World?" (Figure 1) under the theme, "Communication": An
introductory 1-week unit, followed by 3-5 interdisciplinary-based units, and a 1-week culmination unit. The
culmination unit brought the thematic activities and understandings together through further synthesis,
analysis, and application, providing a "big picture" thematic overview. Plano's curriculum design process
was unique also in the sense that the teacher teams took the leading role in this design process thereby
ensuring that both the overall curriculum structure and the computerized and off-line learning materials
complied with the teachers’ and students’ curriculum needs.
Figure 1: Basic organization of a six-week thematic unit (OI), using a Grade Two OI as an exemplar.
Developing the learning materials: A unique teacher-multimedia producer interaction
The Plano Project included the production of mainly three types of learning materials:
1. Hundreds of offline written and hands-on-small-group activities developed by the teachers.
2. Approximately 200 short discipline-based interactive "computer lessons" that addressed major curricular
topics in Science, Language Arts, Math, and Social Studies. The computer lessons included simulations,
games, "lecture" presentations, simulated labs, and interactive tutorials.
3. 26 multimedia interactive learning environments (Table 3), mainly microworld simulations, databases,
and learning tools that served as crucial components of the OIs. In addition, PISD teachers incorporated
some off-the shelf computer products that were available on the market. However, according to the Science
Coordinator in PISD (Mainwairing 1999, personal communication), teachers found their use somewhat
limited because these products were not custom-designed for the project.
To ensure that the computerized learning materials dove-tailed with the pedagogical concepts and
the content requirements of the integrated curriculum, a special, interactive production process was
established. The process consisted of the following stages: preliminary ideas, product specification,
prototype alpha and beta versions, implementation, and evaluation. Review of the processes occurred
throughout production. Both the consumers (teachers) and the producers (Edunetics) were equally engaged
in this process. According to Hord (1992), long-term changes occur if teachers take part in corporately
contributing towards re-educating their own values and attitudes and changing the school's culture. This
includes collaborative in-situ identification of issues by the change agents; in our case, these were the
teachers, curriculum coordinators, and Edunetics pedagogical content and software producers. From the
PISD experience, such a process requires long-range planning and can be challenging to execute due to a
variety of difficulties. One of these is, not surprisingly given their differing professional backgrounds, the
different approach to planning and design brought by the teachers on the one hand, and the software
instructional designers, on the other. The successful implementation of the computer products in PISD
schools (Henderson, Klemes, & Eshet 2000) illustrates the value of producing custom-made products for
such technology integration projects.
Integrating the software into the curriculum
A major impact of computers and instructional software on the learning process of children is
achieved only when they are integrated into the curriculum as a vital element for instruction (Shade &
Watson, 1990). In the Plano project, the custom-developed educational software played a significant role in
the instruction within each OI (Table 3) in supplementing the disciplinary and interdisciplinary content,
encouraging students to engage in higher order thinking about the concepts, and in creating thematic
understanding. An example of this approach is seen with Message in a Fossil (MIF), one of the 26
multimedia products that were developed for the project (see Figure 1; Table 3). MIF is a microworld
simulation in which the student plays the role of a paleontologist who excavates in virtual dig-sites,
discovers plant and animal fossils, and reconstructs the prehistoric world by constructing a museum diorama.
According to a second grade teacher, MIF was "the thematic and content backbone of the Organizing Idea,
'What Evidence Tells Us About Our World'" (Henderson, Klemes, & Eshet 2000). The major theme of the
OI was gathering, interpreting, and communicating evidence to solve mysteries and problems, particularly
those that inform our understanding of the past. For approximately 45 minutes each day, the class worked in
stations where each small group activity integrated the OI and themes across curriculum areas. One of these
daily rotating activities was learning with MIF, that was also included into the time allocated for reading.
This meant that each student used the software each day at least for 20 minutes, for a period of 6 weeks.
Henderson et al. (2000) concluded that the length of time students accessed software was a significant factor
in student learning outcomes.
Each of the computer products was used in a similar way to MIF, although their role in the OI may
have varied from one OI to another. In the course of developing the project’s learning materials, it was found
that while it was relatively easy to incorporate the science and social studies topics in the thematic
curriculum, it was much harder to do so for topics in Arts and Language Arts. Therefore, these topics
continue to be taught separately, in a disciplinary manner, during part of the day.
Technology and class redesign
Papert (1993) advocated the incorporation of computers inside classrooms rather than in computer
labs in order to increase their impact on children’s learning and a reconceptualization of classroom layout to
enable thematic learning and group work (Jacobs 1989; Marzano 1992; Brooks & Brooks 1993). This
influenced the PISD project as it included a complete redesign of the architecture of the classrooms and the
each school's technological infrastructure. In order to enable an open and more flexible learning atmosphere,
the “frontal chalk-and-talk classrooms” were redesigned as spaces that allowed an easy access to the class
computers and promoted team work and group discussions. The large computer labs were dismantled and
replaced by networked computers in each classroom, at a ratio of three students per computer, and in the
library and administration areas. Accessory equipment such as a video player and a large TV monitor were
included as classroom equipment along with a printer between four classrooms. The networked computers
enabled student access to the available on-line learning environments and utility programs. This
combination, of new classroom architecture and new technology infrastructure design, have contributed to
the establishment of a new teaching and learning culture in the PISD participating schools (Henderson,
Eshet, & Klemes 1998; Kent & McNergney 1998; Provenzo, Brett, & McCloskey 1999).
Impact of the Plano Project
The Plano Curriculum Integration Project had a decided impact on the teaching, learning, and
management culture of the entire district, affecting the teachers, students, and district administration. (Eshet,
Klemes & Henderson 1999). One such impact is provided in a study of second grade children who
participated in the Plano Project (Henderson, Klemes, & Eshet 1998; Henderson, Klemes, & Eshet 2000). The
authors report several clear changes in the classroom culture. The new classroom architecture and the
introduction of computers into the classroom promoted team and small group work. This also affected the
teacher’s teaching culture that became more student-oriented and problem-solving based. The research
findings also indicate, in comparison with the way it was taught pre-MIF and the new thematic integrated
curriculum, an increase in students' engagement in the learning processes and an improvement in
transferring their learning into other domains (Henderson, Klemes, & Eshet 2000). A second impact allowed
students to take advantage of the network capabilities; for instance, they worked on their home computers
and sent files to their own school folders and/or to their teacher and visa versa. It expanded class work into
their homes. A third, and probably the biggest impact of the project, is best portrayed by the fact that today,
the 30 to 40 teachers who participated in designing the thematic curriculum, are engaged in training teachers
nationwide in developing similar curriculum integration projects. A final impact, the decision of PISD to
extend the Curriculum Integration Project into their middle schools, illustrates successful
implementation of systemic change in a school district.
Conclusions
The technology-based curriculum integration project in Plano provides a unique opportunity to identify
the ingredients of a successful technology integration project. The following are highlighted:
1. Introducing hardware and software is not enough; an educational technology-based project must involve
appropriate curricular considerations that might require the design of an entire new curriculum.
2. Learning materials should be developed especially to complement and be integral to the curriculum. This
applies particularly to computer-based learning materials.
3. Teachers should be involved in agenda-setting and decision-making, including those concerned with the
curricular approach and production of learning materials, both on-line and off line.
4. The introduction of technology into schools require consideration of classroom architecture, placement of
in-class computers, and technology infrastructure, not least their affect on the teaching-learning culture in
school and school-home interconnectivity.
References
Brooks, J.G. & Brooks, M.G. (1993). The case for constructivist classrooms. Washington: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Bryson, M., & de Castell, S. (1998). New technologies and the cultural ecology of primary schooling: Imagining
teachers as luddites in/deed. Educational Policy, 12 (5), 542-567.
Bybee, R. W., & McInerney, J. D., (Eds.) (1995). Redesigning the science curriculum: A report on the
implications of standards and benchmarks for science education., Colorado Springs: BSCS.
Education Week (1999). [Online] http://www.edweek.org/sreports/tc99/articles/survey.htm Accessed October 18, 1999.
Eshet, Y., Henderson, L., Klemes, Y.(1999 February). Breaking the mould in Plano: Technology and systemic
change. Association for Educational Communication and Technology (AECT) National Conference, Houston, Texas
Henderson, L., Klemes, Y., Eshet, Y. (1998). Educational multimedia implementation in schools: Producer-teacherstudent links. In T. Ottman & I. Tomek (Eds.) Educational multimedia and hypermedia (pp. 579-585). Charlottesville:
Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. pp. 579-585.
Henderson, L., Klemes, Y., Eshet, Y. (2000). Just playing a game? Educational simulation software and
cognitive outcomes. Journal of Educational Computing Research., 22 (1), 105-129.
Hord, S. (1992). Facilitative leadership: The imperative for change. Austin, Tx: Southwest Educational
Development Laboratory. Also [On-line] http://www.sedl.org/change/facilitate/welcome.html Accessed 2 October 1999.
Jacobs, H. H., (Ed.), (1989). Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation. Washington: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development
Jacobs, H. H. (1997). Mapping the big picture: Integrating curriculum and assessment K-12. Washington:
Association. for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational
Technology Research and Development, 39(3): 5-14.
Kent, T.W. & McNergney, R.F., (1998). Will technology really change education? Corwin Press Inc.
Kovalik, S. & Olsen, K. (1994). ITI: The model – Integrated thematic instruction. n.d.: Kovalik & Associates.
Maddux, C., Johnson, D., & Willis, J. (1997). Educational computing: Learning with tomorrow's technologies.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Marzano, R.J. (1992). A different kind of classroon – teaching with dimensions of learning. Washington: Association
of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Otto, D. (1997). Curriculum integration: We’re writing the book. [Unpublished Internal Document]. Plano: Plano
Independent School District.
Papert, S. (1993). The children machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. Basic Books: New York.
Provenzo, E.F., Brett, A., & McCloskey, O.S., (1999). Computer, curriculum and cultural change. London: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Resnick, R. M. (1999) National Survey of Teachers' Use of Digital Content. Education Week 19 (4) 7-39. Also
[On-line] http://www.edweek.org/sreports/tc99/articles/survey.htm Accessed 19 October 1999.
Schneider, D., Adler, S.A., Beery, R., Ladson-Billings, G., Fernekes, W.R., Hartoonian, H.M., McFarland, M.A.,
Marker, G., Montgomery, M.A., Nickell, P. & Tevis, C. (1994). Curriculum standards for social studies. Washington:
National Council for Social Studies.
Shade, D.D., and Watson, J.A. (1990) Computers in early education: Issues put to rest, theoretical links to sound
practice, and the potential contribution of microworlds. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 6, 375-392.
Texley, J., and Wild, A. (1996). NSTA pathways to science standards. Washington: National Science Teachers
Association.