Infusing Technology into a Human Services Curriculum: A Developmental Approach Dr. Susan Cramer |
![]() |
Curriculum development to meet the changing needs of human service graduates
is an ongoing process in most human service programs. In the Human Service Program
at the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, curriculum review and development is
addressed, in part, through the involvement of our Community Advisory Board
which meets twice per year. The Community Advisory Board, initiated as part
of Council for Standards in Human Service Education accreditation, consists
of human service program graduates, and others, who are currently working in
supervisory capacities in local human service agencies. Each board meeting has
a period devoted to discussion of trends in service delivery in human services.
In the fall of 1995, talk eventually turned to technology. The consensus of
the Board was twofold: 1) that various uses of computer technology were increasingly
necessary to do the work of human services and 2) the skill level of human service
graduates was uneven. A few students were lacking even basic word processing
skills; a few students excelled in advanced applications. The majority of students
had some word processing skills and occasionally used the web. Across the board
however, few students held a clear understanding of how those skills are used
in the practice of human services. From this initial meeting, program faculty
and the Board have developed and continue to refine the process for including
technology within our program.
Curricular Approaches for Including Technology within a Program
There are a number of different ways technology may be placed into a human services
curriculum. Perhaps the two most common approaches to curricular revision are
add-on and integration. A curriculum add-on involves development of a new course
or unit which is then added onto the curriculum. The content is a stand alone
entity which the student must later figure out how to apply to other concepts,
skills, and processes taught in the curriculum. The benefit of this method of
curriculum revision is that it requires little time or effort on the part of
the department with the exception of the individual who is making the course
revision/addition, because only one course is involved. From the student perspective
this type of curricular revision is also very straightforward. One completes
the additional requirement and is done with it. This type of revision very closely
resembles the production model of schooling devised in the early 1900’s.
In this model, learning and content are viewed as self-contained entities which
have no need to mix until they are in the learner’s head. The problem
with teaching segregated modules of content in this manner is the lack of compatibility
with current brain research. Caine and Caine (1994) suggest that brains and
humans learn by connection-making. The brain searches for interconnections and
patterns as it seeks to make meaning. Stand alone courses/units do not promote
rich opportunities for this type of connection-making therefore do not promote
long term retention and application of material.
The second type of curricular revision that may occur involves integration of
new content across a few courses or the entire curriculum. Content is taught
within a context as opposed to teaching it as a stand-alone entity. This type
of curricular revision involves several departments or program members and courses.
Dialogue ensues as members seek to understand the new content, how it applies
to their profession, and how it may be woven into courses for student mastery
and application. New skills may need to be learned by faculty members while
traditional assignments may be discarded or significantly revised to accommodate
these new learnings. Curricular revision beyond integration of the one new content
may also occur as additional interconnections and irrelevancies are discovered.
Though useful, this change can be disconcerting. Development of new lectures,
assignments, readings, projects, and grading criteria take time, an asset in
short supply for most faculty. Course sequencing may also need to be readjusted
and exit proficiency expectations may need to change. Relevancy, application,
and interconnections are stressed when learning is project based and interconnections
purposefully made and discussed. This type of curriculum design aligns well
with both brain research and actual learning.
Variations on the two approaches to curricular revision may also be taken. Such
an approach blends various levels of integration with components of the add-on
method. By combining the two approaches, revision may be accomplished in a timely
fashion involving those people who wish to be involved in change. This is the
approach we at University of Wisconsin Oshkosh have taken. Our story follows.
Our Approach
A Problem and an Opportunity
Based on the conversations with our Community Advisory Board starting back in
1995, we knew we needed to incorporate technology into our curriculum. Yet,
by 1998 it became obvious that accomplishing this was more difficult than we
had first envisioned. Other than the inclusion of email basics and introductory
web surfing, inclusion of technology into existing courses appeared to be a
hit or miss endeavor as faculty took sabbaticals and ad hoc faculty filled in
for a semester or a year or as faculty members continually revised their courses
sometimes but not always addressing technology. Consistency was not occurring.
Many students were leaving our program with a lack of appropriately sophisticated
levels of technology knowledge or ability.
Our opportunity came in the spring of 1999 when a fellow department member with
technology expertise, who had not regularly been teaching in our program, became
available to teach one course per semester. This person had human service knowledge,
experience in teaching with and about technology, and was supervising human
service field placement students that semester. She also works well in a collaborative
environment and did not have preconceived ideas as to what should be taught
in a particular course. Thus, she was willing to combine – think integrate
and add-on – technology instruction into a course that had previously
had a more singular focus. Now the course had a dual focus, the original content
plus technology. Concurrently she also helped other faculty members to consider
where and how technology could be woven into their courses. Cross curricular,
complementary efforts of this type are critical to provide developmentally appropriate
introduction of skills and continual reinforcement of taught skills.
Planning for Technology Infusion
Rosenzweig (1999) has defined basic computer technology needs in human service
work as 1) client/agency data management, 2) professional communication, and
3) information access. This begins to provide a framework within which one may
begin identification of critical technology knowledge, skills, abilities, and
dispositions. The profession however has yet to develop technology benchmarks
similar to those in teacher education models (Northrup & Little, 1996) which
can be utilized as a component of ongoing student and curricular assessment.
Thus, we set off on the journey knowing we needed to identify more specifically
what technology skills were needed and how they would fit into a project based
learning environment with the ultimate goal of preparing graduates to improve
the content and process of human service delivery.
Our program seeks to follow a constructivist or project based educational approach.
Traditional lectures and readings are used to introduce content and critical
background information. Projects are then employed to assist students in learning
how to think critically about the content and apply it. Field experiences are
the third leg of our program as students do real work in human service agencies.
Technology fits into this picture naturally as we envision technology as a tool,
much like a chalkboard, book, telephone, or calculator rather than a discrete
skill to be learned. Yet, like any tool, instruction in the use of the tool
may be a necessary first step.
Initially the focus was on some very basic uses: e-mail to communicate with
professors, using a word processing program for class work, web searches for
class topics, and e-mail lists for the human service student organization. How
to use the computer programs was not taught, instead students were instructed
to seek assistance from supervisory personnel in the computer labs on campus.
This was adequate for very basic skills, but a more focused approach was necessary
for students to fully appreciate the context and use of technology specifically
in human service work. We also recognized that not all necessary technology
skills were being mastered.
To identify the technology skills which our program graduates needed to obtain,
we informally surveyed Advisory Board members, supervisors of students in field
placements, and students who were completing their major field placement which
is generally the last coursework in the program. We also brainstormed among
program faculty as to what skills were needed; courses where they might be introduced,
directly taught, or reinforced; what current practice was; and the degree to
which we were modeling what we were saying. From this information a checklist
of skills, courses, and projects was developed articulating how and where technology
fit into the program
Technology Skill |
Level of Instruction |
Projects |
Course Name |
|
No specific Instruction |
Assignments are submitted as attachments Class materials are sent as attachments |
Introduction to Human Services Task Group Strategies Program Planning other classes |
Listservs |
No specific Instruction |
Invited to join when declare major |
Human Service Organization |
Word Processing Insert graphics Use of text boxes Use of tables Picture toolbar Drawing toolbar |
Direct Instruction |
Develop a business card for yourself |
Program Planning and Evaluation |
Desktop Publishing/ Word Processing (3-fold brochure) |
Direct Instruction |
Develop a brochure to advertise your program |
Program Planning and Evaluation |
Electronic Presentations (PowerPoint) |
Direct Instruction |
Develop an electronic presentation to present your program to your agencyÕs Board of Directors for funding |
Program Planning and Evaluation |
Web Page/Site Development |
Direct Instruction |
Develop a web site to communicate your program to a specified audience |
Program Planning and Evaluation |
Web Searching |
No specific instruction |
Search web for information related to: Freedom of Information Act State statues Legal definitions Information on client groups and agencies Professional information on NOHSE, CSHSE, Student handbook Course syllabi and aids |
Value Development Introduction to Human Services Legal and Ethical Issues in Human Services Other classes |
Paint/Draw |
Informal instruction |
Concepts integrated into: Brochure Business card Electronic presentations Web page projects |
Program Planning and Evaluation |
Hand-held Scanner |
Direct Instruction |
Scanning documents in field |
Value Development |
Digital Camera |
Direct Instruction |
Document activities in field |
Value Development |
Camcorder |
Direct Instruction |
Develop videotape demonstrating course skills |
Interpersonal Development |
Smooth Sailing
Curricular revision which requires change on the part of many people is never
without its problems and triumphs. A triumph of which we are very proud is our
own increasing mastery of technology. More faculty members are placing their
syllabi and general information online. This models how one can effectively
use the web to communicate with others as well as a place to turn to get information.
Faculty members are also utilizing electronic presentations (PowerPoint) to
deliver lecture information as well as to stimulate discussion and focus attention
on content mastery. With increasing use comes increasing confidence to rely
on the technology as one tool among many to use during the act of teaching.
Students are also employing PowerPoint when giving presentations. This suggests
that they are gaining familiarity with the tool and are beginning to understand
when to use it.
All human service students are enrolled to our human service listserv (with
options to unsubscribe if they choose). Information related to the major, courses,
and opportunities are then disseminated electronically. Again, this models how
human service professionals may utilize listservs as a source of information
and networking on the job.
Email is a given. All students at our university are issued a username and allocated
10 MEG of hard disk space on a university server. Multiple, staffed university
computer labs are located across campus; many allow 24/7 access. Students may
elect to use these accounts and labs or obtain their own. Either way, access
to email and computers can be assumed. Because of this, many faculty members
have set up class lists and distribute information before or after class electronically.
They also require electronic submission of assignments, papers or field journal
entries, and are able to respond to student questions electronically outside
of class time.
Do all students like this focus on technology? Not necessarily. For some students
overcoming the fear of technology is a first step. For others, they need to
develop habits of checking their email rather than only relying on communication
during scheduled class times. Because a variety of software programs and platforms
exist and are used by professors and students alike, directions may be quite
specific yet not match what one sees on the screen. Thus, learning how to trouble
shoot becomes a necessity. Computer labs are staffed with consultants. They
can be a great source of information, but only if one can ask questions and
understand the answer given. Learning how to pose questions and persist until
one understands the answer is another skill that must be learned. Learning how
to communicate with text and graphics is yet another challenge for some as is
the nonlinear format of the Internet. All of these are skills and attitudes
that must be gained by students. For some, this is natural. For others it is
a challenge. Passwords are forgotten. Email doesn’t arrive. Attachments
can’t be opened. Documents are lost. The screen doesn’t look like
what you are used to working with so you don’t know what to do. The internet
is down. Programs are not compatible. Files are too big to fit on the floppy.
Viruses corrupt your system or infect your programs/files. Everything takes
longer as both content and technology must be mastered. New ways of thinking
and communicating are being demanded.
Can all students master the technology? Yes, although to varying degrees. Like
any skill, process, and content to be learned, mastery is at differing levels
for each individual. Different amounts of effort are expended. Different degrees
of interest exist. Different degrees of innate understanding and ability to
master exist. However, when students are placed in cooperative groups, an existing
component of many courses across the curriculum, they are able to build on one
another’s strengths as they will need to do in the workplace. Some will
learn that they want to find positions where they are expected to use the computer
extensively. Others will want to find jobs where use of computers is not a primary
responsibility. Understanding personal strengths, weaknesses, and interests
in this sense is extremely important while understanding that certain levels
of competency are necessary for all practitioners.
Room for Growth
Our program continues to need to focus on technology integration as do many
human service programs (DiPietro & Nelson, 2001). For example, we need to
provide illustrations and opportunities for use of: spread sheets, electronic
data bases, software for case management, software for education (such as risk
assessment), online counseling, and online, real time conferencing. Patterson
(2000) discusses the importance of common graphic tools used in practices such
as eromaps and genograms while our Community Advisory Board recently asked if
we were discussing ergonomics and software for people with disabilities. Additionally,
our field placements do not have a technology requirement. We need to address
those weaknesses in our program. As technology continues to evolve, we need
to remain abreast of the advances and weave them into coursework and associated
projects. Likewise, we need to examine online delivery of coursework.
In yet another area and as part of our development of the profession, we need
to encourage and facilitate the acquisition of technology skills by human service
professionals in our community. For example, we offered a six-hour Introduction
to Web Page Development Workshop to human service professionals in January 2001.
More of this type of outreach education needs to be available and encouraged
so that field experiences include sophisticated examples of technology while
at the same time moving the field forward.
Recommendations
How can other human service programs that do not have strong technology components
develop them? Following our model is one step. Identification of one or two
people in the program who will take the lead yet be supported by others is critical.
Faculty release time to learn the technology and revise courses is extremely
helpful but was not utilized by us. Starting small is important. Technology
skills cannot all be mastered in two or three workshops. It takes time and practice
as well as access to mentors who can help when you get stuck. Most campuses
have these resources. Public libraries also are an excellent option to offer
workshops and facilities for use by faculty or students. Recognition that failure
will occur and that the technology will not always work as you expect is important.
Self confidence, alternative plans, and the ability to say, “it isn’t
working!” are needed to deal with these problems. Demonstration of these
attributes by professors also helps students see how they can comport themselves
when they are relying on technology and it doesn’t work. Additionally,
programs should integrate technology into their program only to the level the
college/university is able to support it. Unsupported efforts lead to frustration
which, when it occurs often enough, will turn even ardent supporters into non-users.
It will also turn students off, potentially making them into life-long avoiders
of technology.
The path to technology integration is not a straight line nor is it a stationary
target. This adds to the excitement and uncertainty of the adventure. Watching
the smiles and feelings of accomplishment of students as they master technology
within human service contexts is worth the effort. Equally important is fulfilling
the obligation to improve the theory and practice of human services.
References
Caine, R.N. and Caine, G. (1994). Making connections: Teaching and the human
brain. New York: Adison Wesley Longman..
Di Pietro, K.A. & Nelson, J.T. (2001). Human Service challenges of the
21st century, p.347–358. McClam & M Woodside (Ed) Council for
Standards in Human Service Education Monograph.
Northrup, P.T. & Little, W. (1996). Establishing instructional technology
bench marks for teacher preparation programs. Journal of Teacher Education,
Vol. 47 #3 p. 213-223.
Patterson, D.A. (2000). Personal computer applications in the social services.
Needham Heights, MA.:Allyn & Bacon.
Rosenweig, S. (1999). Technology in Human Services p.401-408 in Harris, H.S.
& D.C. Maloney (Eds). Human Services: Contemporary Issues and Trends.
Needham Heights, MA.:Allyn & Bacon.
This article was published in Human Services Today, Spring
2003, Volume 1, Issue 1.
http://hst.coehs.uwosh.edu This article
may be freely distributed for educational purposes provided above copyright
information is included.