J.

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS, 28(3) 211–218, 1999-2000

A METAPHOR FOR TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION

EDWARD K. BROWN

BRIAN D. KERR
Memorial University of Newfoundland

ABSTRACT
This article examines the use of an organizing metaphor, the walking tour, as
a means of integrating learning activities with appropriate media support.
The article pursues two themes; first, the effectiveness of the metaphor for
knowledge acquisition activities, and second, the student-directed nature of
the activities this approach fosters (the selective use of technology where it
can be most effective). Of importance to both these themes is the notion that
multimedia technology can enhance learning opportunities, but need not
control the instructional agenda.

It is not multimedia resources that make a difference in teaching, it is how

they are used . . . if you do not have the appropriate conditions for learning,
then the students will not learn [1].

INTRODUCTION
Our work in technology integration began with teachers that were not technologi-
cally sophisticated. Our desire was to encourage teachers to think about media
integration in their teaching, without constraining their approach and without
requiring any special prerequisite knowledge, training, or aptitude with technology.
We wanted to provide teachers with something more constructive than the ability
to simply use existing computer-based materials in their classroom. The desire to
use up-to-date multimedia materials should not substitute for careful planning of
instructional strategies for conveying information. After a specific topic is identi-
fied, the learner needs identified, and a strategy chosen, only then should the
medium be determined.

211
© 2000, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.
212 / BROWN AND KERR

Our challenge is to enable the teacher to make reasonable choices about tech-
nology integration, without their teaching becoming techno-centric. An approach
that over-emphasizes technology resources may be using the technology for its
own sake, without due regard to curricular objectives or learner needs. The use of
technology can itself lend a sense of legitimacy to an activity, which may not be
warranted in terms of instructional value. When political, personal, or motiva-
tional effects come into play, the instructional value of the activity can be at risk.
Also of concern is that teachers may not consider possible uses of technology if
they have not personally acquired sufficient skills to evaluate the technology, or
if they do not have access to suitable staff resources. This may lead to missed
opportunities for technology- (and multimedia) -based activities. It may also lead
to a costly and time-consuming pursuit of technical skills. Both can have detri-
mental effects on other curricular objectives.
We use an approach that mitigates these problems. The metaphor of a walking
tour consolidates the use of media and technology with the context of instruction,
allowing a meaningful critique of the value of the activity. Furthermore, the
design of a “walking tour” instructional unit (including the use of technology)
does not rely on the acquisition or availability of specific skill sets or resources.
The rest of this article is dedicated to explaining the philosophy driving this
approach and practice deriving from it.

DESCRIPTION OF THE TOUR

The idea of the tour is quite simple: the students, as individuals or groups, take
a topical subject and arrange the information suitably for a visitor “touring” the
domain. This virtual “tour” maps the topic into tour “sites”—forming a chronol-
ogy of events, a photo-journal, or a spatial layout of objects.
The common pattern is the arrangement of the topic information as a series of
experiences. Technologies can be incorporated to augment the experiences, but
no specific technology or medium is requisite. Web page authoring, text descrip-
tions, graphical layouts, images, audio, and movie production can be included in
the manner they are perceived to be effective. When defining or deciding the best
way to organize and present the tour “sites” has constructive learning value,
it may be given over to the students as a learning activity. However, the instructor
may determine that some or all of the tour elements should be provided to help
students structure their activity, and to make more effective use of the available
time.
One form of initial structure we have found successful is to provide a central
organizing “map” of the tour. Topics can then be subdivided as specific “sites” on
this central organizing map. Figure 1 shows three examples of such a map: a geo-
graphical map, a chronology or time-line, and an actual image with “hot spots” for
“zooming.” These three types of maps cover a broad range of possible topics, and any
curricular topic can be accommodated with some variation of these constructions.
 A METAPHOR FOR TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION / 213

Figure 1. Three different examples of a tour “map” used in instructional settings.

A genuine “walking tour” of a city was used as a class project. The timeline
covers events preceding the first world war. The photograph is part
of a high school biology unit exploring a beach inter-tidal zone.

Each point of interest on the map has a corresponding “site” developed with
appropriate information content. Individual students can create these “sites” inde-
pendently, and the integration of the different tour elements with the “map” can
be executed at a later time. Alternatively, a site construction can be a group activ-
ity (competitive or cooperative). Often we implement the “map” as a Web page
that has links to the various tour “sites,” however, that is only one possible tech-
nological incarnation of a map and other media can be adopted as appropriate.
A technology should only be used when it adds learning value to the activity.
Producing a movie or short clip may be the best way for the students to explore
a particular concept, or it may be an ineffective use of their time. Planning the
“best” way to present an element of a topic (that is, to create a “site” on the tour)
and struggling with the integration of that element with the rest of the tour are the
general activities which encourage the student to think about the topical content.
They are planning two things: how to get tour visitors to understand or “experi-
ence” the information, and how the information fits with the rest of the topical
“tour.” Both require that the students develop their own understanding of the
material.
The construction of the individual site might be left up to the student or group
to develop or select from their own resources. In our experience, additional guid-
ance can help accelerate these activities. For groups new to Web-authoring, for
214 / BROWN AND KERR

example, we provided templates to help with the design of their Web pages. They
were able to design their tour sites first, and subsequently seek out or develop the
expertise to implement their designs. The learning that occurred under this situa-
tion was not dependent on the students’ success with the Web development tools,
but rather was part of their design activity work with the templates.
It is important that the approach is not constrained by technology. The tour can
be built with markers, glue, and Bristol board, and, in certain circumstances, these
materials may provide more effective learning than the use of the latest technology.
Furthermore, technologies can be mixed within a particular tour, or introduced at
late stages of refinement or final production. It is this flexibility that makes this
single organizing metaphor applicable to many instructional environments and
needs.

PROBLEMS IN USING TECHNOLOGY

There are two reasons teachers may not critically evaluate technology-based
teaching materials. First, many materials are designed as complete units that
cannot be decomposed; it is difficult for a teacher to adopt part of a CD-ROM pre-
sentation (or other technology-based presentation) without adopting the whole
presentation as delivered by the CD-ROM. In effect, the teacher must surrender
instructional strategies and decisions to the software once it is adopted. Second,
developing and integrating multimedia resources is a demanding task. Even
teachers with the technical skill and desire to introduce technology into their teach-
ing often cannot afford the time or resources required to arrange the material for
their specific needs [2].
As student populations grow it is increasingly unlikely that learner needs will
be met by a static, production-oriented system of instruction [3]. Some suggest
that new technologies could provide the solution; however it really depends on
how the technology is being used [4]. The paradigm of a walking tour metaphor
helps in two ways: as a general metaphor for knowledge, and as framework for
technology integration.
As a general metaphor for knowledge the walking tour is not specific to a par-
ticular topic or field, but is amenable to any domain of study.
In constructing and organizing information in the form of a tour, a connected
sequence of experiences, the student must make judgments and evaluate the mate-
rial, and in so doing, constructs their own understanding of the domain. Students
demonstrate an understanding through a detailed “map” of the topic with relevant
associations explained and identified. Construction of a quality tour requires
knowledge of the topic in order to make these associations or to draw them out of
the available information sources.
Because this metaphor is effective for any subject of study, it provides a means
to think about instructional activities in a general manner, allowing for the incor-
poration of different strategies, objectives, and learning and teaching styles.
 A METAPHOR FOR TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION / 215

As a framework for technology integration the walking tour concept is amenable

to any technology that is available, from multimedia productions to paper and
pencil activities. It allows extensive use of media and technology in appropriate
ways, supporting the students’ exploration of a topic. When the technology is not
enhancing the activity, it becomes obvious in that no new experience is added to
the tour site. At the same time, there is no requirement for sophisticated technology
to be available or to be used if it is available; technology can be used to support the
learning activity, but does not dictate the curriculum. It supports the objectives
and curriculum as selected for their pedagogical value.
This arrangement removes any pressure to conform to a particular technological
standard. Techno-centric focus on technical skills and materials is replaced by the
consideration of how media and technology can enhance the activity. An activity
is valued not for what technology it uses, but what learning it generates.
The walking tour approach suggests teachers should treat technology-based
curriculum much as they do traditional teaching materials: to critically evaluate,
select, modify, and develop materials as needed. They are able to use the materi-
als in different instructional modes and adopt different approaches to the use of
materials, be it learner-controlled, individual, or group work. And they have this
flexibility without unreasonable demands in skills development and training.
Using this approach, teachers and students can decide on technology support
for their projects without first acquiring the technical skills personally, and with-
out specific emphasis on technology. It is possible to reason about the value of
media and technology from the perspective of supporting learning, rather than from
the perspective of a technology expert.

AIDS TO ORGANIZING KNOWLEDGE

The Graphic Organizer Concept

Many different graphic and visual organizers have been proposed in order to
structure knowledge and make it easier for the student to acquire [5]. Some of
these have a theoretical basis; the structure (organizing chart, semantic network,
etc.) is endorsed as being a reflection of the way the mind organizes information
internally, and therefore, it is suggested, the information will be easier to acquire
[6, 7].
Students are taught to construct or manipulate the graphic organizer, sometimes in
accordance with particular rules that maintain logical consistency or semantics of
the diagram. Thinking about the relationships among the concepts or ideas imbed-
ded in the diagram leads a student to “higher order” thinking about the subject.
As far as a graphic organizer or diagram is a concrete representation of a stu-
dent’s knowledge, it serves as a “thinking aid.” The manipulation of the graphic is
a reflection of their internal mental processes, a struggle to integrate new knowl-
edge with old [8].
216 / BROWN AND KERR

The Constructivist Philosophy

. . . it seems possible that spatial strategies are effective not because they provide
an image, but rather because in constructing a graphic representation the learner
carries out activities such as analysis, encoding, and organization that are them-
selves effective regardless of whether or not they result in a spatial representation.
If so, the critical elements to be taught may not be the spatial scheme itself but
rather the steps taken in constructing a spatial representation . . . [9].

The constructivist philosophy emphasizes that the learner must independently

construct an understanding of the topic and its structure in order to integrate new
knowledge into their current understanding. Graphical or visual aids are seen as
valuable external aids to support this internal mental activity [10]. Arguments have
been made in favor of particular relationships or diagramming techniques, for
example, on the basis of their explanatory completeness. Other researchers contend
that it is the act of organizing the information and making or constructing meaning of
the whole content that is important, and the specific mechanism or resulting form is
of less significance in terms of learning value of the exercise [11,12].
We see no advantage in any particular special syntax or type of diagram. There
is no comparative evidence that one technique engages students in constructive
activity better than any other. The CSILE project has students building a collabo-
rative set of on-line notes which reflect communal “knowledge-building” on a
topic of study [13]. Others have experimented with programming or mailing lists
as constructive activities [14]. In 1969, Rudolf Arnheim, in his popular book
Visual Thinking, proposed an entire school curriculum based on student activities
that were effectively the construction of visual aids. The central theme was graph-
ical design; it could incorporate any domain topic (history, geography, etc.) in a
manner that made the activity both constructive and meaningful [15].

Rationale for the Tour as an Organizer

Our choice of a “walking tour” as the organizer provides a rich set of connectives
and associations can be incorporated into the construction. More importantly, we
can rely on student’s existing cultural knowledge of how tours are organized.
There is no need to teach either a specific syntax of expression, nor tie their
expression to a set of technical skills such as how to use e-mail or how to enter
notes in a database. The tour metaphor relies on an organizing construct with which
the student will already be familiar.
In other words, the student understands the tour concept and immediately
begins thinking about the site elements, its relationship to other parts of the tour,
and the quality of the information being presented. While the instructor can improve
the quality of the activity with appropriate prompts and suggestions, there is no
instruction required as to the nature of the construction itself; i.e., what a tour is or
what connections or associations are possible.
 A METAPHOR FOR TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION / 217

Since we are not advocating a particular technology, such as e-mail, or a par-

ticular piece of software or even a particular level of technological skill, we are
not bound to any limitations or requirements in resources, nor will the approach
become outdated with new technology. In fact, the “tour” content can he designed
without reference to any particular medium, and implemented after it is designed.
This allows us to exploit technology in a fashion that enriches the selected
topic and structure, but does not control its topical content or direction. It provides
the teachers with an effective means of thinking about technology in the specific
context of their own instructional unit; i.e., they consider how the multimedia
technology could improve the “tour” the students will build.
An alternative approach to using technology might take a particular topic area
and list possible uses of technology based on some instructional design princi-
ples. Or specific technology might be prescribed for activities based on learning
objectives. The problem with such approaches is that they prescribe specific tech-
nologies or uses of technologies which may be unavailable, become obsolete, or
be inappropriate because of particular student or classroom needs [2]. While not
as detailed as individual prescriptions, the walking tour has the benefit of being
concise, comprehensive, and amenable to different technological innovations.
Within this metaphor, technology can be evaluated according to its support of the
individual instructional activities, not as a requirement to produce the activity.

CONCLUSIONS

The reaction to the walking tour concept is often one of familiarity. Most
schools with authoring software will have completed projects using a similar
approach. Its generality alone ensures that it fits with many independent student
activities. We do not claim to be introducing new activities to the classroom as
much as providing a paradigm for evaluating and thinking about activities that are
already prevalent. In this regard, the familiarity of the walking tour illustrates the
strength of our approach—that it is comprehensive.
Our intent is to provide a means to devise and critique technology-based learn-
ing activities. The tour makes the curricular and pedagogical context of the activity
immediate and specific. This allows questions that are concrete both to the teacher
and the student, questions such as “how can the tour be improved?” and “what will
the visitor see here?” which reflect value in terms of student learning.
This is the claim for the walking tour paradigm; that it helps identify and focus
the learning value in the activity, so the activity can be critically assessed; and that
it also provides for the critical appraisal of the integration of technology in the
student activity. Of paramount importance is that it allows for (in fact, requires)
this appraisal not by technology experts, not by researchers, and not even by
educational technology experts, but by average classroom teachers observing and
interacting with their own students in their own setting.
218 / BROWN AND KERR

REFERENCES
1. M. D. Merrill, On instructional design. MDM on ID: Commentary on Instructional
Design, 1996 [Online], 1(1). Available: http://www.coe.usu.edu/it/id2/DDC1196.htm.
2. K. Wiburg, The Dance of Change: Integrating Technology in Classroom. Computers
in the Schools, 13:2, pp. 171–184, 1997.
3. B. S. Butler, Using the World Wide Web to Support Classroom Based Education:
Conclusions from a Multiple Case Study, in Web-Based Instruction, E. Badrul (ed.),
Educational Technology Publications, Edgewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1997.
4. K. A. Lawless and S. W. Brown, Multimedia Learning Environments: Issues of
Learner Control and Navigation, Instructional Science, 23:2, pp. 117–131, 1997.
5. J. H. Clarke, Patterns of Thinking; Integrating Learning Skills in Content Thinking,
Allyn and Bacon, Boston, Massachusetts, 1990.
6. J. D. Novak and D. B. Gowin, Learning How To Learn, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 1984.
7. P. B. Horton, A. A. McConney, M. Gallo, A. L. Woods, G. J. Senn, and D. Hamlin,
An Investigation of the Effectiveness of Concept Mapping as an Instructional Tool,
Science Education, 77, pp. 95–111, 1993.
8. D. Perkins, Knowledge as Design, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1986.
9. E. T. Goetz, The Role of Spatial Strategies in Processing and Remembering Text, in
Spatial Learning Strategies, C. D. Holley and D. F. Dansereau (eds.), Academic
Press, Orlando, pp. 47–77, 1984.
10. C. Fosnot, Media and Technology in Education: A Constructivist View, ECJT, 32:4,
1984.
11. W-M. Roth and A. Roychoudhury, The Social Construction of Scientific Concepts or
the Concept Maps as a Conscription Device and Tool for Social Thinking in High
School Science, Science Education 76, pp. 531–557, 1992.
12. S. Sizmur and J. Osborne, Learning Processes and Collaborative Concept Mapping,
Journal of Science Education, 19:10, pp. 1117–1135, 1997.
13. M. Scardamalia and C. Bereiter, Higher Levels of Agency for Children in Knowledge
Building: A Challenge for the Design of New Knowledge Media, Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 1:1, pp. 37–68, 1991.
14. I. Harel and S. Papert, Software Design as a Learning Environment, in Construction-
ist Learning, I. Harel (ed.), MIT, MIT Media Laboratory, Massachusettes, 1990.
15. R. Arnheim, Visual Thinking, University of California Press, Berkeley, California, 1969.

Direct reprint requests to:

Dr. Edward K. Brown
Assistant Professor
Department of Computer Science
Faculty of Science
Memorial University of Newfoundland
St. John’s NF Canada A1C5S7