1
Thematic Learning, Curriculum Integration and Technology:
The Plano Project1
Yoram Eshet and Joel Klemes
The Open University of Israel, Raanana, Israel
Lyn Henderson
James Cook University, Queensland, Townsville, Australia
Address for correspondence:
Prof. Yoram Eshet
The Open University of Israel
108 Ravutski Street
P.O. Box 808
Raanana 43107
Israel
Tel: 972-9-7781471
e-mail: yorames@openu.ac.il
1
Submitted to Journal of Educational Change
2
3
ABSTRACT: Recent studies on technology integration in schools highlight the
complexity of this process and point to the limited impact of technology on educational
systems. This paper discusses the need for a significant change in the school's learning
culture in order to achieve effective technology integration. The concept design and
development processes of the 6-year, technology-based, curriculum integration Plano
Project are presented as an example of technology-integration project management that
served as a lever for a large-scale systemic change in a school district’s learning culture.
The uniqueness of the project, and the key to its success, lie in its holistic nature,
addressing all the relevant components of technology integration. These include the
implementation of relevant learning theories, involvement of teachers, role of students,
redesign of the curriculum, development of tailor-made learning materials, integration of
an appropriate technology infrastructure, and redesign of the classroom architecture. This
paper explores these aspects as well as long-term teacher and student evaluations of the
two-stage project, presenting it as a model of successful and meaningful integration of
technology in educational systems.
KEY WORDS: curriculum change, integrated curriculum, technology integration,
thematic learning, systemic change
4
Thematic Learning, Curriculum Integration, and Technology: The Plano Project
In the last decade, an increasing number of publications have reported that despite
substantial investment, the integration of technology in school systems failed to meet
expectations or had only a minor impact on the teaching culture, the school environment,
and the students' attitude to learning (e.g., Schofield, 1995; US Congress, 1995, Maddux
et al., 1997; Szabo & Schwarz, 1997; President's Committee, 1997; Bryson & de Castell,
1998; Tal, 1999; Robertson, 2003). Several studies (e.g., Brazee & Capelluti, 1995;
Sarason, 1996; Levande et al., 1998; Cuban et al., 2001; Pelgrum, 2001) suggested that in
order for technology to achieve systemic change in school systems, integration policies
should be directed by major pedagogical guidelines. These authors emphasized the
relationship between technology integration and pedagogical paradigms; the relationship
between learning materials and technology and, hence, the effect of technology on the
different levels of the school system and the kind of change that technology can bring to a
school system’s culture.
Two major approaches to technology integration, one conservative and one radical,
were identified. The traditional approach regards technology as a tool to improve and
deepen the learning of the conservative compartmentalized curriculum. It settles for a
curriculum that, in the best case, integrates technology-based learning modules into the
traditional curriculum or, what is generally the case, where teachers include technology
that is most often skill-and-drill behaviorist software for remediation and habituation
(Maddux, et al., 1997; Cuban et al., 2001; Pelgrum, 2001; Kovalik, 2003). The radical
approach regards technology as a lever to the creation of a large-scale systemic change in
the organization's learning culture (Cuban, 1988; Sarason, 1996). This requires holistic
5
reform in all school components, including curriculum, pedagogical philosophy, learning
materials, and classroom architecture.
The technology-based Plano (Texas) Independent School District (PISD)
Curriculum Integration Project adopted the radical-holistic approach in order to integrate
technology effectively into its school system. The present paper presents the Plano
Curriculum Integration Project as a critical instance, descriptive case study (Morra &
Friedlander, 1999) that highlights the necessary ingredients for successful large-scale
integration of technology into school systems. The paper follows case study
methodologies described by Yin (1989) and Stake (2000). Discussion draws on previous
research (Henderson et al., 2000a; Henderson et al., 2000b) and includes results from a
survey that was conducted five years after the project’s completion with teachers and
students, the majority of whom had been involved in the project since its implementation.
Launching the Plano Curriculum Integration Project
This large-scale systemic project was designed and implemented in the PISD
between 1993 and 1998, and involved approximately 60 elementary schools and 60,000
K-5 students. The project was characterized by a combination of two major components:

A participatory pedagogical component: Teachers played a leading role as
curriculum designers, working in collaboration with an education multimedia
company to design and develop a thematic, interdisciplinary curriculum utilizing
custom learning materials, based on a constructivist approach to teaching and
learning.
6

A technological-architectural component: In order to promote a change in the
schools' learning culture, the project involved a redesign of the entire technological
infrastructure and physical learning environment in the schools (Otto, 1997; Eshet
et al., 2000).
In 1993, the PISD decided to launch a systemic technological-curricular change,
based on the recognition that, despite the high achievements of its students on national
tests, their school system faced problems. These were identified as very little use of
technology in learning, minimal engagement of teachers in integrating technology into
their teaching, and low student motivation due to a stagnant and out-dated curriculum
(Otto, 1997; see Table 1). In order to promote systemic change, and in light of the
understanding that a radical-holistic approach should guide the technology integration
(Sarason, 1996; Otto, 1997), the PISD contracted Edunetics, an educational multimedia
company, to help it redesign its curriculum, provide inservice training to teachers in the
area of computer technology, and develop educational computer software that would
serve as the backbone of the new integrated curriculum. The major components of the
PISD educational system before and after the project are summarized in Table 1.
INSERT TABLE 1 HERE
The PISD simultaneously established the Curriculum Development Center that
consisted of a team of 30 to 40 K-5 teachers who were selected from among volunteers
by the PISD Board of Education. For the entire six-year period of the project, these
teachers were engaged in developing and launching the new thematic curriculum, under
the supervision of both the PISD curriculum coordinators and Edunetics, who provided
7
instructional technological design, pedagogy, and content experts. The project was
funded by a combination of funds allocated by PISD from its State budget, and by bonds
issued by the PISD Board of Education. The entire budget exceeded 100 million US
dollars, including about 10 million dollars for software development (Otto, 1997).
Aspects of curriculum redesign
INSERT TABLE 2 HERE
The PISD’s pre-1993 segregated curriculum (Table 2) was designed to follow the
curriculum standards in the various disciplines (cf., Schneider et al., 1994; Bybee &
McInerney, 1995; Texley & Wild, 1996). After considering reports on the value of
thematic learning and curriculum integration in improving learning (Jacobs, 1989, 1997;
Marzano, 1992; Kovalik & Olsen, 1994), a decision was made to convert the traditional
discipline-based curriculum into a thematic, integrated, technology-based curriculum,
without sacrificing disciplinary depth of content (Table 3). This decision is supported by
current research findings that demonstrate how thematic learning promotes authentic,
deeper, broader and more meaningful understanding of curricular topics (Hargreaves &
Moore, 2000; Vars, 2001).
INSERT TABLE 3 HERE
In a thematic curriculum, the learning objectives are organized in themes, or “big
ideas," and not necessarily compartmentalized into segregated disciplines as occurs in
most traditional curricula. Thus the first stage in designing the new curriculum was to
identify six major themes, called “Overarching Concepts”, under which the entire
curriculum was to be reorganized. These themes were Communication, Continuity and
8
Change, Interactions, Diversity, Systems, and Balance and Stability. The thematic
curriculum was designed as a matrix, into which 36 six-week thematic learning units,
called “organizing ideas”, were designed for each of the K-5 grade levels (see Table 3).
In this matrix, each organizing idea belonged to a specific theme. The design of the
organizing ideas involved an effort to present the disciplinary content (Table 2) in a
spiral-thematic manner, supplemented and reinforced by an assortment of tailor-made
computer-based learning environments that were developed in collaboration between
Plano teachers and Edunetics instructional designers. The learning environments included
multimedia databases, microworld simulations, interactive tutorials, computer games, and
productivity tools, such as concept-mapping and map-investigation tools (Table 3).
An example of issues that involved the conversion of the traditional curriculum into
a thematic one is illustrated in the traditional-disciplinary science curriculum for Grade
Two (Table 2), which included topics such as grouping of animals and ancient living
things in Life Science, and fossils and dinosaurs in Earth Science. In the thematic
curriculum, these topics were clustered into one organizing idea: What Does Evidence
Tell Us About Our World?, under the overarching concept (theme) of Communication
(see Table 3). In this organizing idea, students used the microworld simulation, Message
in a Fossil, in which students work as paleontologists in a virtual environment, collecting
fossil evidence in order to draw inferences about, and reconstruct, the ancient world
(Henderson et al., 2000a). This PISD approach to curriculum design was a modification
of the original curriculum integration model (Jacobs, 1989), in the sense that it focused
on maintaining the disciplinary learning objectives while presenting them in a thematic
manner. The significant impact of the thematic curriculum on learning was reported by
9
Henderson et al. (2000b), who studied factors that affect learning in computer-integrated
classrooms, and reported on instances that exemplified the value of the thematic
curriculum in promoting higher-order thinking as well as the engagement of students and
teachers.
Almost all of the organizing ideas included custom multimedia learning
environments that were crucial components of learning throughout the six-week learning
period of each organizing idea. The multimedia products were designed and produced by
Edunetics’ instructional design specialists, with the full involvement and guidance of
PISD teachers. All organizing ideas were designed to follow a basic structure as
exemplified in Figure 1.
INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE
The Grade 2 organizing idea, What Does Evidence Tell Us About Our World?,
under the theme "Communication", included a one-week introductory unit, followed by
three 3-5-week interdisciplinary units, and a 1-week culmination unit. The culmination
unit brought the thematic activities and understandings together through synthesis,
analysis, and application, providing a "big picture" thematic overview. Plano's curriculum
design process was unique in the sense that the teaching teams took a leading role in the
process, thereby ensuring that both the overall curriculum structure and the computerized
and off-line learning materials complied with the teachers’ and students’ curricular needs.
The effect of the special organizing-idea structure on learning was investigated by
Henderson et al. (2000a; 2000b) who found that it was especially effective in helping
students construct higher-order knowledge from the independent pieces of information
they gathered. Henderson et al. (2000b) found that the computer materials served as a
10
gravitational center for the entire learning process and contributed dramatically to the
"thematic bond" around the "converging" nature of the organizing-idea structure beginning with disciplinary-oriented learning and ending with a culminating unit, in
which thematic knowledge was constructed. This was found to have considerable impact
on the thematic understanding of students.
Developing the learning materials: Unique teacher-multimedia producer interaction
The Plano Project included the large-scale production of learning materials, mainly
of three types:
1.
Hundreds of written and hands-on small-group activities developed by the
teachers.
2.
Approximately 200 short, discipline-based, interactive computer learning modules
addressing major curricular topics in Science, Language Arts, Math, and Social
Studies. The computer modules were developed especially for the Plano Project,
and included simulations, games, interactive lecture presentations, simulated labs,
and interactive tutorials.
3.
Twenty-six interactive multimedia learning environments (see Table 3), mainly
microworld simulations, databases, and learning tools that served as crucial
components of the organizing ideas. In addition, PISD teachers incorporated a
number of commercial computer products that were available on the market.
However, according to the PISD Science Coordinator (Mainwaring, personal
communication), teachers found their use somewhat limited because they were not
custom-designed for the project. This experience is supported by survey findings
11
on dissatisfaction among educators with off-the-shelf software, in terms of its
pedagogical value (Resnick, 1999).
To ensure that the computer-based learning materials dove-tailed with the
pedagogical concepts, content requirements, and learning outcomes of the integrated
curriculum, a user-centered iterative production process was established, based on an
adaptation of conventional user-centered production models (Moonen, 2002). In this
adaptation, the key to success lay in the equal engagement of teachers and of curriculum
and software developers in the project. It confirms the positions and research findings of
Hord (1992), Schofield (1995), Sarason (1996) and Tal (1999). From the PISD
experience, such a process requires long-range planning and its execution may be
challenging due to the complexity of factors and the variety of difficulties involved. One
of these difficulties was the diverse approach to planning and design brought by teachers
on one hand, and software instructional designers, on the other. This was not surprising,
given their different professional backgrounds.
In the Plano project, both the producer (the Edunetics instructional design team)
and the consumer (PISD’s pedagogical staff were collaboratively engaged as equal
partners in the production process). This process consisted of the customary stages of the
Instructional System Design Model (Seels & Glasgow, 1998); that is, Analysis, Design,
Development, Implementation, and Evaluation, as described below:

Analysis: In this stage, the entire PISD was analyzed through an iterative process
carried out by Plano’s staff and Edunetic’s instructional and pedagogical teams, in
order to identify the main foci, goals and directions that the project should take. It
consisted of the following sub stages:
12
o
Needs Analysis: Identifying the major pedagogical needs of PISD, in order to
enable identification of the thematic topics and learning units to be developed.
Needs analysis was carried out by: (a) conducting extensive focus group
interviews with the teachers and administrators of the Curriculum Development
Center, (b) by distributing questionnaires among the five thousand teachers of
the PISD and (c) individually interviewing about one hundred selected K-5
teachers in PISD schools who volunteered to participate.
o
Task Analysis: Analyzing the content and identifying the pedagogical and
technological issues that would be involved in such a large-scale pedagogicaltechnological project.
o
Instruction Analysis: Identifying the instructional needs, defining the thematic
curriculum (the overarching concepts and the thematic learning units – the
organizing ideas). At this analysis stage, the decision was made on computer
learning environments that would be developed to support the thematic
curriculum (see Table 3).

Design: In the design stage, the learning environments, both computer-based and
non-computer-based, were designed in a systematic iterative process, in which
Edunetics instructional designers and the Plano pedagogical staff were equally
engaged.

Production: The production stage consisted of a discrete series of stages
determined to ensure that the final computer-based learning environments suited the
Plano teachers’ needs and were error-free, age-appropriate, and suitable for the
thematic curriculum. The production process consisted of the following sub stages:
13
o
Prototyping: For each learning environment, a prototype was developed and
approved by the PISD staff. It was designed to ensure the appropriateness of the
graphic, the content level, and the type of student interactivity with the learning
environment.
o
Alpha and Beta versions: In these two stages, the final computer-based
learning environment was installed and tested, first in one class (alpha version),
and then, district-wide (beta version).

Implementation: Feedback from the field was used to refine the learning materials
and then install the final software district-wide.

Evaluation: Internal evaluation reports were made by Plano’s pedagogical
management during the first two years of the project. In addition, several studies
focused on the implementation of the thematic curriculum and the integration of
technology into the curriculum (Eshet et al., 2000). The present paper includes a
preliminary evaluation of some long-range outcomes of the project.
In contrast to the general notion discussed above regarding the dissatisfaction of
learners and educators with commercial computer-based learning materials, the
meticulous and user-centered design and development process employed in the Plano
project led to the creation of computer-based learning environments (Table 3) that suited
the thematic curriculum, the teachers’ needs, and the cognitive capabilities of the
students. Henderson et al. (2000a; 2000b) found that the use of these learning
environments led to considerable improvement in the internalization and retention of
14
knowledge, content, and in a variety of cognitive skills such as transfer of learning,
logical sequencing, scientific reasoning, and classification.
Integrating the software into the curriculum
According to most research findings, computers and instructional software have a
major impact on children’s learning process only when they are integrated into the
curriculum as a vital element of instruction (e.g., Shade & Watson, 1990; Tal, 1999;
Cuban et al., 2001), and when teachers are involved in the software design process
(Pelgrum, 2001; Kovalik, 2003). In the Plano project, the custom-developed educational
software played a central role in the teaching of each organizing idea, helped to
supplement the disciplinary and interdisciplinary content, encouraged students to engage
in higher-order thinking about concepts, and promoted thematic understanding. An
example of this approach can be found in the way the microworld simulation, Message in
a Fossil, one of 26 interactive multimedia products developed for the project (see Table
3), was integrated into a thematic learning unit (see Figure 1). Message in a Fossil served
as the thematic and content backbone of the organizing idea, What Does Evidence Tell Us
About Our World? (Henderson et al., 2000a). The major theme of the organizing idea was
gathering, interpreting, and communicating evidence to solve mysteries and problems,
particularly those that inform our understanding of the past. Similarly, the multimedia
database, Our Environment, served as the backbone of the organizing idea, Mankind in
Harmony with Nature, in which 4th grade students investigated interrelationships in their
natural environment, and used the database to collect and categorize information, form
concepts and ideas, and solve problems. The use of these computer-based learning
15
environments was complemented by a wide variety of related activities that helped the
students construct thematic understanding, as well as broaden and deepen their perception
of the relevant topics. Henderson et al. (2000b) described activities such as digging for
fossils and meeting with a detective as complementary to the thematic learning in the
organizing idea, What Does Evidence Tell Us About Our World?.
Integrated thematic learning was conducted in specially-allocated class-periods,
during which the thematic curriculum was taught: For approximately 45 minutes each
day, the students worked in stations where each small-group activity integrated the
organizing ideas and themes across curriculum areas. This meant that each student used
the software each day for at least 20 minutes, over a period of six weeks for each
organizing idea. Henderson et al. (2000a; 2000b) concluded that the length of time during
which students worked with the educational software was a significant factor in learning
outcomes. Each of the computer products was used in a similar way, although their role
in the organizing idea may have varied. 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 into the thematic curriculum, it was much more difficult to do so for
topics in the Arts and Language Arts. Therefore, these topics, and others that did not fit
naturally into the thematic curriculum, continued to be taught separately, in a disciplinary
manner, during part of the day. Even so, some teachers, like the one in Henderson et al.’s
(2000a) research, also regarded the reading and multi-literacy (Eshet, 2004) tasks
involved in learning with the microworld software as part of the Language Arts
curriculum.
16
Technology and class redesign
Studies on effective integration of technology in the classroom (e.g., Jacobs, 1989;
Marzano, 1992; Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Papert, 1993; Drake, 1998; Kent & McNergney,
1998; Provenzo et al., 1999) advocated the placement of computers in the classroom
rather than in computer labs, in order to increase their impact on learning and,
consequently, a reconceptualization of classroom layout to enable thematic learning and
group work. This approach is still dominant among educators who emphasize the need to
design classrooms in the modern era as learner-centered, technology-based environments
(e.g., Hawley-Orrill, 2001). These approaches influenced the PISD project which
included a complete redesign of the architecture of the classrooms and of 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 easy access to 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 two 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 standard classroom equipment along with a printer for every four
classrooms. The networked computers enabled students to access the available on-line
learning environments and utility programs.
This combination of new classroom architecture and new technology infrastructure
design contributed to the establishment of a new teaching and learning culture in the
PISD participating schools (Henderson et al., 1998). Research findings relating to this
change were reported by Henderson et al. (2000a; 2000b), who cited teachers describing
17
the new dimensions of teaching that were opened to them with the computer-integrated
classrooms and students who described the more open and engaging learning that the
project afforded.
Impact of the Plano Project
An evaluation study of the Plano Curriculum Integration Project was conducted
during the last year of the project, that is, before it became an integral part of the Plano
educational system (Henderson et al., 1998, 2000a, 2000b; Eshet et al., 1999). Results
indicated that the project had four major impacts. The first was a systemic change in the
PISD school system that had a large-scale effect on the school's culture, involving all
levels of the system: teachers, students, and district management (Eshet et al., 1999).
Henderson et al. (1998, 2000a, 2000b) investigated the second impact of the project.
They reported on significant changes in classroom culture that resulted from the new
classroom architecture, the team and small-group work, and the introduction of
computers into the classroom. The teaching culture became more student-oriented and
problem-solving based. The research findings also indicated an increase in students'
engagement in the learning process and an improvement in the transfer of learning to
other domains (Henderson et al., 2000a). A third impact reported was the extension of
learning from school to home, due to the network capabilities that enabled students to
work on their home computers and send files to their own school folders and/or to their
teacher and vice versa. The fourth, and perhaps most significant, impact of the project
reported was the improvement in the self-efficacy of the participating teachers, and the
fact that many of them have become instructional designers and technology integration
18
experts. This change is best portrayed by the fact that today, many of the 30 to 40
teachers who participated in designing the thematic curriculum are engaged in training
teachers nationwide in developing similar curriculum integration projects (Mainwaring,
personal communication).
Post-project evaluation survey: Teachers’ view
In order to gauge some elements of the long-term impact of the Plano project, a
post-project attitude survey was conducted among a sample of participating teachers in an
effort to identify possible attitudinal patterns of change that resulted from the project. The
survey was conducted about 5 years after the project's completion, and was managed as a
small N-case study (Stake, 2000). The survey was based on a 15-30 minute open-ended
interview with six of the 30-40 teachers (three K-2 and three 3rd-5th grade teachers) who
participated in the project with their classes, and who also served as members of the
Curriculum Development Center. The interviews aimed to identify points of view and
attitudes towards the major aspects of the project. Each participant was asked to relate to
the following topics:

Teachers’ role and function: Changes in teachers’ role and function as a result of
the project

Student involvement: Changes in students’ involvement in the learning process as a
result of the project

Technology integration and use: The effect of the integration of technology on
teaching and learning

Classroom architecture: The effect of the classroom’s redesign on learning
19
A total of 162 statements were made by the participants about these topics. They
were transcribed and classified as "positive" or "negative", according to the attitudes they
expressed. Positive statements referred, for example, to improvement in teaching quality
in the thematic curriculum. Negative statements referred, for example, to problems that
teachers faced when teaching with technology. Findings of the post-project evaluation
shed light on some long-term learning outcomes of this project for the teachers
community. Although preliminary, these findings indicate some clear trends that are
summarized below:

Thematic curriculum (37 statements): The results indicate general satisfaction
among teachers with the thematic curriculum, as shown in the very high proportion
of positive statements (93%) given by the three k-2 teachers, and the much lower
proportion (67%) of positive statements by the three 4th-5th grade teachers. In their
statements, most teachers described how the thematic curriculum made learning
more significant and engaging, both for them and for their students. Some of them
related to it as a life-long thinking tool that they continue to use as a guideline in
their work. Most of the negative statements focused on the longer preparation time
teachers need to invest in the thematic curriculum. Some teachers expressed fear
that some of the disciplinary depth was lost in the thematic learning.

Teachers' role & function (30 statements): In general, results suggest that most
participants thought that the role of the teachers, and their functioning as teachers in
the classroom improved as a result of thematic learning. The research findings point
to a high degree of satisfaction among K-2 teachers (96%) and among 4th-5th grade
teachers (81%). Most teachers described a substantial change in the way they
20
perceived their role in the classroom, from information providers to learning tutors
and coordinators. On the other hand, some of the teachers reported on students’
behavior and discipline problems they faced because of the open and friendly
atmosphere that characterized the learning.

Student involvement (33 statements): The responses indicate that these teachers,
who were also members of the Curriculum Development Center and who,
therefore, had access to the wider PISD school results, asserted that student
involvement and engagement in the learning process were much more extensive
and more significant in the thematic learning environment than in the traditional
learning environment. Among the K-2 teachers, 92% of the statements were
positive, and among the 4th-5th grade teachers, 94%. In their statements, the
teachers emphasized the students’ feeling of ownership and partnership that
characterized learning in the project. On the other hand, some of them mentioned
problems in students' ability to work in teams effectively.

Technology integration and use (29 statements): There was agreement that the
integration of technology and software made a major contribution to the quality of
learning in general and to the thematic understanding of curricular topics in
particular. A majority of the statements (82% and 81% for K-2 and 4th-5th grade
teachers' statements, respectively) described this very positively. Not surprisingly,
teachers’ reports focused on the custom-made nature of the software and the extent
to which it suited their needs and the curriculum. On the other hand, some
statements described concerns that the thematic learning could cause a decrease in
the level of disciplinary understanding.
21

Classroom redesign (33 statements): As mentioned above, the project involved
the redesign of the classroom from “frontal architecture” (tables aligned in rows) to
a “peripheral classroom” (groups of tables positioned around the room, with every
pair of students sharing one computer (computers positioned along one or two
walls). Most of the teachers interviewed reacted favorably to the classroom
redesign but ranked it lower in significance than the other categories (62% and 75%
of the K-2 and 4th-5th grade teachers' statements, respectively). These teachers said
that the architectural changes to the classrooms had positive consequences on
learning and played a major role in the pedagogical success of the technology-based
thematic learning. Most emphasized the major role of peripheral classroom design
in promoting free teacher-student interaction and communication, enabling openended discussions, and student engagement in the learning. In the negative
statements, teachers expressed concerns that the peripheral arrangement of tables
was problematic for some students – those who preferred to work alone. Others
described as inconvenient the more open learning atmosphere that was dictated by
the peripheral design.
Post-project evaluation - students' view
A similar survey, focusing on the same five major topics as the teachers' survey,
was conducted among a small group of students (N=5), who had participated in the
project six years earlier. Naturally, because of the small number of participants, definitive
conclusions are impossible. However, the fact that the attitude of all participating
22
students toward the outcomes of the project was very positive may suggest a similar trend
among the rest of the students. It also indicates that further research is warranted.
Altogether, the five participating students made 107 statements that were
categorized as positive or negative, utilizing the same coding criteria as the teachers'
interviews. Regarding the thematic curriculum (18 statements), 69% of the statements
made by K-2 students and 84% of the statements made by 4th-5th grade students
expressed the effectiveness and engaging nature of the thematic curriculum. Among the
reasons for the effectiveness of the thematic learning, the students said that it was fun,
helped them to understand processes and phenomena, and that it gave them the ability to
perceive learning in a more holistic way. Three of them said that today, when they
approach a new topic, they look at it in a more general-thematic manner before they
"dive" into the details. Two students mentioned that during the project they faced
problems in the daily shifts between the thematic and the traditional curriculum learning
that took place. Among the reasons given for the problematic nature of the thematic
curriculum, two students suggested that sometimes it was hard to transfer to the real
world, and that sometimes they found it difficult to see the "big picture".
The research findings about the teachers' role and function (24 statements) point to
a higher degree of satisfaction among the K-2 population (94% of the statements)
compared to the 4th-5th grade population (62%). This large difference may be a result of
differences in the quality of the teachers, but more research is required to understand it.
Students who reported on improvement described teachers as becoming friendlier and
less formal in the course of thematic learning. Of special interest is the general notion that
appeared in all 24 statements, that friendliness and open-ended learning did not reduce
23
the teachers’ authority. Most students reported that teachers gained more respect and
more authority as a result of the warm, friendly and open learning atmosphere that
characterized learning in the project.
Seventy-five percent of the statements made by the K-2 students, and 84% by 4th5th graders indicated an improvement in their engagement in the learning process, due to
the thematic pedagogy (22 statements). Four of the students indicated the computer-based
learning environments kept them involved and wanting to learn. All five participants
mentioned that the thematic learning improved their ability to cooperate with others. One
student said that she felt unable to learn well in groups and when required to share with
others.
There was general agreement that technology integration and use (21 statements)
contributed to the quality of learning, although 4th-5th grade students (95% of the
statements) were more positive compared with the K-2 grade students (79%). This
difference may be due to differences in digital literacy (Eshet, 2004) between the two age
groups, as exemplified by the fact that 45% of the statements made by the K-2 students
expressed fear of the use of computers for learning, whereas 90% of the statements made
by the 4th-5th grade students described the fun and excitement they felt when working
with computers. Among other positive statements, four students mentioned that the use of
technology in school made them feel that school is a "cool place" that fit better with their
needs. Among other negative statements, two students said they had problems sharing a
computer with a friend, describing arguments on who would control the mouse while
working.
24
Regarding classroom redesign (22 statements), more than 90% of the statements
made by the participants (94% of the K-2 and 96% of the 4th-5th grade students) favored
the classroom redesign, and said that it improved their learning. Most of the positive
statements described how the peripheral design supported class discussion, improved
access to the teacher, and created an atmosphere of a learning community. Two students
said they could not concentrate well in the peripheral classroom, that allowed everyone to
see what they were doing.
Conclusions and implications
Experience gained from several decades of technology integration into school
systems indicates the complexity and fragility of the process. As indicated by recent
studies (e.g., Sarason, 1996; Cuban et al., 2001; Pelgrum, 2001), using computers mainly
to reinforce traditional learning is not effective enough to justify the large investment
involved. These studies suggested that in order to create a systemic change, a holistic
approach that involves all components of the system should be adopted. These
components include the curriculum, the leading pedagogical paradigms, the learning
community (coordinators, teachers, and students), the teaching and learning materials, the
classroom design, and the technology infrastructure. The evaluated outcomes of the Plano
project described here emphasize that only appropriate consideration of the way all these
components are interwoven and act harmoniously together, can result in successful and
meaningful integration (see also Sarason, 1996; Bottino et al., 1998; Bitner & Bitner,
2002) and lead to a systemic change in a school's and school district’s learning culture.
25
The technology-based curriculum integration project in Plano provides a unique
model for large-scale integration projects that aim to introduce systemic change into
educational systems. The overall positive results may suggest that successful technology
integration should engage the entire community in redesigning their learning
environment: both the pedagogical and the physical aspects.
Results of past and present research suggest that the involvement of teachers in the
project design improved their self-efficacy and performance. It is also evident that the
design of custom-made learning materials and the integration of technology into a
thematic curriculum improved learning as well as the attitudes of students towards
learning in general, and toward school in particular. Of special interest is the notion,
shared by both students and teachers, regarding the change in the teaching and learning
cultures brought about by the redesign of the physical teaching and learning classroom
environment from frontal and teacher-centered to a peripheral, student-centered
arrangement that enabled better team work, more open learning, and better interaction
between students and teachers.
Based on the project, the following conclusions and recommendations can be made:
1. Introducing hardware and software into an educational system is not sufficient;
an
educational
technology-based
project
must
involve
appropriate
curricular
considerations that may require the development of an entire new curriculum.
2. Learning materials should be specially developed so as 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
the curricular approach and production of learning materials, both on- and off line.
26
4. The introduction of technology into schools requires planning the classroom
architecture, providing in-class computers and printers and linking this to the school’s
technology infrastructure, and considering the affect of these changes on the teachinglearning culture in school and on school-home interconnectivity.
27
References
Bitner, N. & Bitner, J. (2002). Integrating technology into the classroom: Eight keys to
success. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 10(1), 95-100.
Bottino, R.M., Forcheri, P., & Molfino, M.T. (1998). Technology transfer in schools:
From research to innovation. British Journal of Educational Technology 29(2), 163172.
Brazee, E.N. & Capelluti, J. (1995). Dissolving Boundaries: Toward an Integrative
Curriculum. National Middle School Association, Columbus, OH.
Brooks, J.G. & Brooks, M.G. (1993). The Case for Constructivist Classrooms.
Washington, DC: 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, CO: BSCS.
Cuban, L. (1988). A fundamental puzzle of school reform. Phi Delta Kappan 69(5), 340344.
Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies
in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational
Research Journal 38(4), 813-834.
Drake, S.M. (1998). Integrated Curriculum: Proven Ways to Increase Student Learning.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
28
Eshet, Y. (2004). Digital literacy: A conceptual framework for survival skills in the
digital era. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia 13(1): 93-106 .
Eshet, Y., Henderson, L., & Klemes, J. (1999). Breaking the mould in Plano: Technology
and systemic change. Association for Educational Communication and Technology
(AECT) National Conference, Houston, TX.
Eshet, Y., Klemes, J., Henderson, L., & Jalali, S. (2000). A model of successful
technology integration in school systems: Plano's Curriculum Integration Project. In
T. Ottman & I. Tomek (eds), Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia (pp. 275280). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in
Education.
Hargreaves, A. & Moore, S. (2000). Curriculum integration and classroom relevance. The
Journal of Curriculum and Supervision 15(2), 89-112.
Hawley-Orrill, C. (2001). Building technology-based learner-centered classrooms: The
evolution of a professional development framework. Educational Technology
Research and Development 49 (1), 15-34.
Henderson, L., Eshet, Y., & Klemes, J. (1998). Educational multimedia implementation
in schools: Producer-teacher-student links. In T. Ottman & I. Tomek (eds),
Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia (pp. 579-585). Charlottesville, VA:
Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
Henderson, L., Klemes, J., & Eshet, Y. (2000a). Just playing a game? Educational
simulation software and cognitive outcomes. Journal of Educational Computing
Research 22(1), 105-129.
29
Henderson, L., Eshet, Y., & Klemes, J. (2000b). Under the microscope: Factors
influencing student outcomes in a computer integrated classroom. Journal of
Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching 19(3), 211-236.
Hord, S. (1992). Facilitative Leadership: The Imperative for Change. Austin, TX:
Southwest
Educational
Development
Laboratory.
Also
available
at:
http://www.sedl.org/change/facilitate/welcome.html, accessed November 2004.
Jacobs, H.H., ed. (1989). Interdisciplinary Curriculum: Design and Implementation.
Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Jacobs, H.H. (1997). Mapping the Big Picture: Integrating Curriculum and Assessment
K-12. Washington, DC: 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?
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Kovalik, C. (2003). Reflections on a technology integration project. Journal of
Technology and Teacher Education 11(1), 73-90.
Kovalik, S. & Olsen, K. (1994). ITI, The Model: Integrated Thematic Instruction. Kent,
WA: Kovalik & Associates.
Levande, J.S., Glaser, R., Henrion, A., Kruyer, R., Schmitt, L., & Woodman, D. (1998).
Technology integration initiatives and statewide curriculum integration in Michigan.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Technology Association,
Fort Worth, TX (April 8-10).
30
Maddux, C., Johnson, D., & Willis, J. (1997). Educational Computing: Learning with
Tomorrow's Technologies. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Marzano, R.J. (1992). A Different Kind of Classroom: Teaching with Dimensions of
Learning.
Washington,
DC:
Association
of
Supervision
and
Curriculum
Development.
Moonen, J. (2002). Design methodology. In H.H. Adelsberger, B. Collis, & J.M.
Pawlowski, Handbook on Information Technologies for Education and Training (pp.
153-180). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Morra, L.G. & Friedlander, A.C. (1999). Case study evaluations. Washington, DC: The
World Bank. Available at http://www.upeace.org/opa/cyc/docs/Casestudy.pdf,
accessed November 2004.
Otto, D. (1997). Curriculum integration: We’re writing the book. [Unpublished internal
document]. Plano, TX: Plano Independent School District.
Papert, S. (1993). The Children Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer.
New York: Basic Books.
Pelgrum, W.J. (2001). Obstacles to the integration of ICT in education: Results from a
worldwide educational assessment. Computers & Education 37(1), 163-178.
President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (1997). Reports to the
President on the Use of Technology to Strengthen K-12 Education in the United
States. Available at http://www.ostp.gov/PCAST/k-12ed.html, accessed November
2004.
Provenzo, E.F., Brett, A., & McCloskey, O.S. (1999). Computer Curriculum and
Cultural Change. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
31
Resnick, R.M. (1999). National survey of teachers' use of digital content. Education Week
19(4), 7-39.
Robertson, J.W. (2003). Stepping out of the box: Rethinking the failure of ICT to
transform schools. Journal of Educational Change 4, 323-344
Sarason, S. (1996). Revisiting “The Culture of School and the Problem of Change”. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Schofield, J.W. (1995). Computers and Classroom Culture. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge
University Press.
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, DC: National Council
for Social Studies.
Seels, B. & Glasgow, Z. (1998). Making Instructional Design Decisions. Columbus, OH:
Merrill Publishing Company.
Shade, D.D. & 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.
Stake, R. (2000). Case studies. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (eds), Handbook of
Qualitative Research (2nd ed., pp. 435-354). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Szabo, M. & Schwarz, K. (1997). What do teachers need to incorporate instructional
technology into classroom teaching? A survey. [CD-ROM]. Paper presented at EDMEDIA 97, Calgary, Canada, June 16-19.
32
Tal, R. (1999). Schools' computation: A pedagogical-organizational revolution, or
conservation of the present? Research Report, Faculty of Education, University of
Haifa (in Hebrew).
Texley, J. & Wild, A. (1996). NSTA Pathways to Science Standards. Washington, DC:
National Science Teachers Association.
US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1995). Teachers and technology:
Making the connections. OTA-HER-616. Washington, DC: US Government Printing
Office.
Vars, G.F. (2001). Can curriculum integration survive in an era of high stakes testing?
Middle School Journal 33(2), 7-17.
Yin, R. (1989). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
33
Table 1: Major components of the Plano educational system before and after the project
(modified from Eshet et al., 2000).
Pre-technology-based Plano
Project
Technology-based System Changes
Curriculum design
Traditional discipline-based
curriculum that adopted
mainly behaviorist
pedagogy
A conceptual redesign to a
technology-based, thematically
integrated curriculum that adopted
cognitive and constructivist
pedagogy
Teacher’s
involvement
Infrequent and minimal
involvement of teachers in
curriculum design
Teacher ownership in redesigning
the curriculum and developing the
learning materials.
Technology
infrastructure
Limited use of technology in
schools due to scarcity of
computers and an
inadequate technological
infrastructure
An appropriate technological
infrastructure plan that included 8
computers and a printer per
classroom, ethernet connectivity,
and Internet access
Use of software
Very limited use of
software, partly due to its
lack of suitability to the
curriculum
Custom learning material
development, both computer-based
and other types of materials
Classroom design
Classrooms were designed
for traditional ‘frontal’
‘chalk-and-talk’ style of
teaching
Interior classroom and school
redesign to promote an open
teaching style, use of technology,
teamwork, and group discussion
Funding
Lack of finance
Debenture bonds
34
Table 2: A section of the pre-Plano K-2 Curriculum Project demonstrating a disciplinesegregated curriculum
Kindergarten
LIFE SCIENCE
Grade 1
Grade 2
 Looking at plants
 Animal body parts
 Grouping animals
 Looking at animals
 Grouping plants
 Homes for living
things
 Where plants live
 Ancient living
things
 My body grows
 Living/ non-living
things
 My body grows
 Staying healthy
EARTH
SCIENCE
 Exploring space
 Looking at the sky
 The sun
 Exploring earth
 Earth seen from
space
 Fossils & dinosaurs
 Watching the
weather
 Weather changes
 Air and water
 Looking at weather
35
Table 3. Part of the Plano ISD Integrated Thematic Curriculum (Themes and Organizing
Ideas for K-4th Grades) *
Continuity
& Change
K
Change is
All Around
Me
Systems
All Aboard
for Systems
Cycles
Events in
My World
What’s the
Connection?;
Grady's Weather
Window
Changes
Around Us
1
Interactions
It’s No
Mystery,
Cause and Effect
Diversity
What’s Alike?
What’s
Different?;
Balance &
Stability
How Do I Learn
About My World?
Off to a
“Beary” Good
Start!
Making
Connections
Solid
Foundations;
Animals and
Their Homes
Why Classify?;
Animals in
Their World
It’s a
System;
Communication
Fun With Maps
Calling All
Problem
Solvers!
2
What
Impacts Our
World?
How Do
Systems
Help Us
Connect in
Our
World?;
How Are
Communities
Interdependent in
Our World?;
How Are We
Alike and
Different in
Our World?;
What Does
Evidence Tell Us
About Our
World?;
Get the Story!
Many Places,
Friendly Faces
Message in a
Fossil
Seeking
Reasonable
Solutions;
Proud to Be an
American
The Fine Arts of
Sharing;
Where is
Harmony in
Our World?
Weather,
Climate &
You
3
A Matter of
Time
The Way We
Live
Where
Would We
Be Without
Systems?;
Your Town
4
Changes
Over Time
One
Affecting
the Other;
Body
Balance
Adventures in
Problem Solving
Animals in Our
World
Many Faces,
Many Places;
Drawing Upon
Our Resources
State of
Diversity
Earth: Forces
and Formations
Clues That
Communicate;
Sun, Earth, Moon
Mankind and
Nature in
Harmony;
Our
Environment
* Map Room and Visual Planner (tools) are used throughout the organizing ideas
from 1st through 5th grades. Names of organizing ideas are in normal text; names of
custom educational software programs are in italics.
36
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
What Does Evidence Tell Us About Our World?
Computer "lessons" Hands-on and off-line activities
ORGANIZING IDEA:
Figure 1: Basic organization of a six-week thematic unit (organizing idea), using a Grade
2 organizing idea as an example.