Philosophy	  of	  Instructional	  Technology	  and	  Education	                                                       Kris...
anymore	  than	  the	  truck	  that	  delivers	  our	  groceries	  causes	  changes	  in	  our	  nutrition	  (Robinson,	  ...
Cornelius-­‐White,	  J.	  (2007).	  Learner-­‐centered	  teacher-­‐student	  relationships	  are	  effective:	            ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Philosophy of instructional Technology and Education

1,520 views
1,415 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,520
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
115
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
18
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Philosophy of instructional Technology and Education

  1. 1. Philosophy  of  Instructional  Technology  and  Education   Krista  M.  Hess   East  Stroudsburg  University    ∞  A  teacher  who  is  attempting  to  teach  without  inspiring  the  pupil  with  a  desire  to  learn  is   hammering  on  cold  iron.  –  Horace  Mann   ∞    There  are  two  types  of  learners  that  gain  the  most  from  a  classroom  where  technology  is  integrated,  in  my  opinion.  Those  two  types  of  learners  are  the  twenty  first  century  learner  and  a  student  with  any  type  of  a  disability.  The  students  of  today  are  very  different  from  the  students  of  about  fifteen  years  ago.  These  new  students  will  go  into  a  working  world  where  computers  are  in  their  everyday  life.  Also  known  as  a  twenty  first  century  learner,  these  students  need  an  education  where  technology  is  used  to  enhance  their  learning  environment  and  to  make  sure  their  skills  are  up  to  par.  For  years  many  theorists  have  come  up  with  learning  theories  to  explain  how  a  student  learns  and  how  they  should  be  taught.  A  theory  that  I  hold  close  to  my  heart  is  constructivism.    A  good  metaphor  for  constructivism  is  that  the  student  is  not  a  customer.  They  are  a  worker  who  is  doing  the  hardest  part  of  constructing  new  knowledge,  skills,  and  attitudes.  Student  motivation  is  the  focus  and  this  concludes  in  achievement.  Constructivism  can  be  a  confusing  theory  to  understand  because  there  is  no  single  theory  inside  it.  There  is  moderate,  social,  and  many  more.  In  general,  this  theory  is  very  focused  on  the  twenty  first  century  learner.  Real  world  situations  are  used  with  formats  like  anchored  instruction,  problem-­‐based  learning,  and  computer-­‐supported  collaborative  learning.  It  is  very  helpful  with  math  and  medical  education.  In  this  theory  the  student  is  an  explorer,  his  or  her  own  teacher,  and  a  cognitive  apprentice.  The  teacher’s  main  role  is  to  facilitate  through  and  through.  The  student  uses  their  personal  experience  that  the  teacher  guides  to  gain  their  knowledge.      Constructivism  is  huge  for  instructional  technology.  A  great  example  of  this  is  a  WebQuest.  This  could  be  a  PowerPoint  that  the  student  or  group  of  students  go  through  on  their  own  and  find  knowledge  from  given  resources  to  create  a  final  product.  The  teacher  facilitates  by  giving  the  WebQuest,  the  resources  for  the  students  to  research  with,  and  expecting  a  final  product.  The  students  teach  themselves  everything,  which  is  the  base  of  constructivism.  In  this  type  of  activity  and  in  most  constructivist  activities,  the  students  work  alone  and  eventually  form  a  group  to  put  the  project  together.      A  twenty  first  century  learner  and  a  student  with  disabilities  could  gain  so  much  from  an  experience  such  as  this.  They  can  work  at  their  own  pace,  use  technologies  that  keep  them  interested  and  inspire  them  to  learn.    However,  media  is  only  a  vehicle  of  instruction.  Computers  and  other  technology  do  not  influence  student  achievement  
  2. 2. anymore  than  the  truck  that  delivers  our  groceries  causes  changes  in  our  nutrition  (Robinson,  Molenda  and  Landra  2007,  p.  41).      I  believe  that  inclusion  is  also  very  important  in  a  classroom.  Especially  in  one  where  technology  integration  will  be  utilized.  There  are  just  too  many  benefits  to  inclusion  that  someone  can  hardly  over  look  it  as  an  option.  Kochlar,  West,  and  Yaymans  (2000)  say  that  the  benefits  are  not  just  for  the  students  with  disabilities,  but  also  for  those  without  disabilities,  for  the  families,  and  the  community  too.  One  benefit  is  that  the  students  with  disabilities  can  achieve  at  levels  higher  or  at  least  as  high  as  levels  achieved  in  self-­‐contained  classes.  A  benefit  for  nondisabled  peers  is  they  can  better  understand  the  similarities  among  students  with  and  without  disabilities  (Kochlar  et  al.,  2000).  For  teachers  and  schools,  inclusion  provides  teachers  with  the  knowledge  of  individualization  of  education  (Kochlar  et  al.,  2000).  Instructional  Technology  makes  individualization  so  much  easier  than  it  ever  was  before.    The  best  way  to  include,  in  the  writer’s  opinion,  is  differentiating  instruction.  This  includes  accommodations,  adaptations,  parallel  instruction,  and  overlapping  instruction  (King-­‐Sears  1997).  Just  changing  the  delivery  of  the  instruction,  through  technology  especially,  or  lessening  the  student’s  work  load  by  a  small  amount  are  great  ways  to  differentiate  and  make  sure  the  student  with  the  disability  can  learn  and  gain  something  from  their  educational  experience.      As  for  my  future  as  a  person  with  in-­‐depth  knowledge  of  Instructional  Technology,  I  plan  to  use  it  every  day.  I  will  use  all  these  new  skills  to  create  a  positive  and  friendly  environment  for  my  colleagues  and  our  students  as  well  as  myself.  I  will  do  my  best  to  keep  an  eye  on  the  technology  being  used  in  a  future  school  of  mine,  even  if  I  am  not  the  technology  specialist.  I  hope  to  use  a  lot  of  the  projects  I  have  made  during  my  time  at  East  Stroudsburg  University  in  my  classrooms.  I  tried  to  focus  as  many  of  them  as  possible  on  some  sort  of  Communication  Studies  topic.  I  feel  I  have  grown  a  lot  in  my  time  in  this  program.  I  went  from  thinking  there  was  only  really  PowerPoint  to  gaining  so  much  new  knowledge  on  SmartBoard  technologies,  games,  Web  2.0  tools,  and  more.  I  now  know  how  to  use  technology  as  a  helping  hand  in  my  teaching  career.  I  also  have  gained  a  lot  because  my  undergraduate  degree  is  not  in  education.  I  know  that  making  sure  I  have  a  positive  relationship  with  my  learners  is  key  (Cornelius-­‐White  2007).  I  also  know  that  proper  technology  integration  involves  not  only  great  knowledge  of  technology  but  also  of  pedagogy  and  content  (Mishra  and  Koehler  2006).  I’ll  know  how  to  keep  the  twenty  first  century  learners  I  will  most  certainly  have,  engaged.    Overall,  a  classroom  where  all  types  of  learners  are  engaged  and  have  some  type  of  individualized  attention  makes  it  a  better  environment.  The  students  will  learn  better,  want  to  learn,  and  will  not  be,  as  Horace  Mann  says,  cold  iron.    
  3. 3. Cornelius-­‐White,  J.  (2007).  Learner-­‐centered  teacher-­‐student  relationships  are  effective:   a  meta-­‐analysis.  Review  of  Educational  Research,  77(1),  113-­‐143.  Doi:   10.3102/003465430298563  Robinson,  R.,  Molenda,  M.,  &  Landra,  R.  (2007).  Facilitating  learning.  In  A.Januszewski  &   M.  Molenda  (Eds.),  Educational  Technology:  A  Definition  with  Commentary  (Vol.   2,  pp.  384).  NY:  Lawrence  Erlbaum.  King-­‐Sears,  M.E.  (1997).  Best  academic  practices  for  inclusive  classrooms.  Focus  on   Exceptional  Children,  29(7),  1-­‐22.  Kochalr,  C.  A.,  West,  L.  L,  &  Yaymans,  J.  M.  (2000).  Successful  inclusion.  New  Jersey:   Merril.  Mishra,  P.,  &  Koehler,  M.J.  (2006).  Technological  pedagogical  content  knowledge:  a   framework  for  teacher  knowledge.  Teachers  College  Record,  108(6),  1017-­‐1054.  

×