Running Head: PHILOSOPHY OF INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY

Personal Philosophy of Instructional Technology Maegan Slaten University of Alabama

Slaten - Philosophy of Instructional Technology 2 When given the task of defining my personal philosophy of instructional technology, I initially felt confident in my ability to share my perspective on a field about which I am so passionate and around which my life revolves. I use technology on a daily basis; I am a former elementary school teacher turned technology instructor for the undergraduate CAT classes and a current doctoral student in the program. As I sat down to put pen to paper, I quickly realized that expressing my thoughts on the field was far more difficult than I originally realized as I quickly became overwhelmed with the passion that I have for technology and its role in education. In hopes of better organizing my thoughts, I began to reflect back on my years as a student in the program, and one of the first things that came to mind was the many conversations Ive had with people about my experiences in the program. When I say that I am pursuing a PhD in instructional technology, I am often asked What exactly is instructional technology and what made you choose that program? My answer varies from conversation to conversation, but it always involves three topics about which I am extremely passionate: teaching, learning, and, of course, technology. I quickly realized that I define my philosophy of instructional technology, albeit a condensed version, every time I answer these questions. In keeping with this revelation and for the purpose of this paper, I will present my philosophy of instructional technology in the three aspects which make it up: my personal definition of instructional technology, my background experiences with technology and how they relate to my philosophy of instructional technology, and finally, my perspective on the role of technology in teaching and learning.

Slaten - Philosophy of Instructional Technology 3 Personal Definition Before I begin defining my philosophy of instructional technology, I believe it is first necessary to define the term and the field itself. As mentioned above, I often get asked to define the term instructional technology, but my answer has varied over the years. In my first year or so in the program, my answer was straightforward: the use of technology in education. The further I got into my program, the more I realized that instructional technology was far more complex than just technology in education, but I struggled to find the appropriate definition that fully embraced the complex field. My first impulse was to turn to the literature, but I soon found that I was not the only one struggling to come up with a definition. Luppicini (2005) outlined this struggle in his article entitled A Systems Definition of Educational Technology in Society. He contributes this struggle to two aspects of the field: it aplitic nature and varying definitions of the term technology. First of all, he asserts that instructional technology varies from other science-based fields in that is an applied field rather than a scientific one, meaning multiple knowledge bases are employed and in this case, multiple knowledge bases lead to multiplying change (p. 105). Obviously, it is extremely difficult to define a field that is constantly changing and technology is unquestionably an ever-changing field. Secondly, he provides a discussion on the varied definitions of the term technology. Some definitions focus on the equipment side of technology while others focus on the process, but nevertheless it causes an immense deal of confusion when trying to provide a definition for the field. (Luppicini, 2005). The argument made in this article helped me realize why coming up with the perfect definition was such a difficult task. In my search, I ran across a 1994 definition from AECT that adequately describes the complexities of the field of instructional technology from an educator standpoint. AECT (1994)

Slaten - Philosophy of Instructional Technology 4 defines instructional technology as the theory and practice of design, development, utilization, management, and evaluation of processes and resources for learning (Seels & Richey, 1994). Although this definition is a bit dated and somewhat vague, it is closest I have come to finding a definition that resembles my thoughts on the field. One of the aspects I liked most about this definition is the inclusion of the theory aspect of instructional technology rather than focusing on just the application alone. As educators, we are taught various learning theories to help us better understand our students, how they learn, and how best to teach them. Just as with any learning theory, I think, the theories behind instructional technology are a significant part of the field and a feature that should receive some attention in its definition. I also appreciate that it highlights the various aspects of instructional technology like the design, development, management, and evaluation rather than just the utilization. In my classroom experiences, I have seen many teachers choose to use a technological tool without having a pedagogical reason, or link to a theory, for its use, but rather just using it to say they are using technology. This definition is not perfect, but I think it does an excellent job of describing the various facets of this field; therefore this is the definition I have adopted as my personal definition of instructional technology. Background in Technology Numerous studies have been conducted to find out why teachers choose to use or not to use technology in the classroom. Research has shown that teachers background experience with technology can positively or negatively affect their opinion of technology and its role in the classroom. (Wood, Mueller, Willoughby, Specht, & Deyong, 2005). I have been fortunate enough to have many incredible experiences with technology throughout my time as a student, which I believe have helped shape my positive view of technology. Because of this, I think I

Slaten - Philosophy of Instructional Technology 5 would be doing a disservice if I did not describe my background and how it relates to my philosophy of instructional technology. Being a child that grew up in the 1990s, I have obviously always had some access to technology, whether or not I was able to use it. According to Mark Prensky (2001), I am considered a digital native, meaning that, for my entire life, I have been surrounded by technology of some sort, therefore, I think and process information fundamentally differently than those from previous generations. (p 1). Although I do not always feel like a digital native being that I remember not having a computer in my home and not using technology on a daily basis at school, I do agree with Prensky in his argument that we, as digital natives, learn in an entirely different way. (Prensky, 2001) Even from a young age, I have always enjoyed learning. Whether it is academic knowledge or a new skill, I just cannot get enough. Although I have always been flexible when it comes to what I am learning, I am a little more selective in how I learn if given the choice. In the classroom, the assignments from which I learn the most were the assignments that are handson and interactive. Projects and assignments like creating a mural to learn about the rainforest, building a mini ecosystem to learn how living things depend on each other, and lighting a cardboard house to learn about electricity taught me much more than I could have ever learned by just reading about these things in a textbook. When I was 10 years old, my mom signed me up to take a two month computer class as part of the after-school program I attended. The purpose of this class was to learn the basics of computers, but I learned so much more than that. From this class alone, I developed a love of technology and all things involved. Im not sure if it was that I was able to get hands-on

Slaten - Philosophy of Instructional Technology 6 experience with the computer, or just the appeal of having a new toy, but, regardless of the reasoning, I was instantly hooked and could not seem to get enough of technology. A few years later and after much begging, I finally convinced my parents to purchase our family a home computer. As expected, I spent hours upon hours on the computer utilizing it for everything from school work and research, to chatting with my friends. Because my parents had little to no technology experience, I was responsible for troubleshooting if something stopped working properly. This not only taught and forced me to utilize problem-solving skills, but it also helped me gain some familiarity with the computer and how it worked. For some people, continued issues with technology often lead to avoidance of the tool, but in my case, it led me to better appreciate the complexities of technological tools, and, therefore, use it more often. When I became a student in the college of education, I carried my love of technology with me and tried to share that love with my students. I had some excellent teachers in my years as a student. Although technology was not as readily available to them as it is now, they always used whatever tools they had, at their disposal, to meet the diverse needs of the students in their classrooms. When I became a teacher myself, I reflected fondly back on those experiences and tried to model my own teaching style after those teachers. I tried to make use of every tool for which I had access to make sure my students received the best learning experience; one of those tools being technology. During my placements in undergrad, I saw how excited the students in

got when they were instructed to use technology as part of their assignments and being that I have always had an interest in technology myself, I incorporated it as much as possible. When I finally got my own classroom, I incorporated technology daily. I used it as a teaching tool, but I also allowed each student to use the computer during literacy, math, and sometimes free centers at least once a week. Although they were just kindergarten students and were limited as

Slaten - Philosophy of Instructional Technology 7 to the activities they could complete on the computer; their computer time was something they enjoyed working because it provided them with the opportunity for exploration and inhibited learning. I feel that all of these positive experiences have had a positive influence on my perspective on technologys role in teaching and learning. Technology as a Tool for Teaching and Learning There is no doubt that technology is an integral part of our society. As Prensky (2001) asserts, todays students do not know a world without technology. They are used to being connected twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. They get their news from the internet versus reading a traditional newspaper; send texts, tweets and Facebook messages to their friends rather than sending them a letter or calling them on a landline; and record their entire lives using a smartphone other than carrying around a traditional camera. Because technology plays such an important part of their lives, the integration of technology into the classroom seems to be a logical choice. My teaching philosophy has always been based on the constructivist theory, which posits that individuals use their experiences to construct their own meaning and knowledge. (Harris & Graham, 1994). Given that this theory is extremely student-focused, my classroom environment has always been more of a student-centered learning environment that focus(es) on the needs of the students while addressing their unique and individual learning styles and interests. (Flemming, n.d.). With each lesson, I try to embrace each students individuality using the tools I have available to me, which often includes technology. Although technology offers many other benefits, I have chosen to outline only three of them in this paper that follow along with my beliefs on the importance of a student-centered learning environment: technology as a way to

Slaten - Philosophy of Instructional Technology 8 address multiple learning styles; technology as a way to differentiate learning; and finally, technology as a way to encourage motivation, engagement, and self-confidence in students. I believe that students should be able to learn in the way that suits them best. Not all students are created equal and do not approach learning in the same way. This idea that students learn in a variety of ways is the basis for Gardners theory of multiple intelligences, which has become the driving force behind many curriculum and instructional developments in the classroom. (Armstrong, 2009). One of the benefits of using technology in the classroom is that it offers something for all learners regardless of their learning style, or preferred way to learn (McCoog, 2009) When I was in high school, I had an English teacher that fully embraced this idea when it came to classroom assessments. After each book unit, we completed, she gave us a list of assessment methods from which to choose. They could be anything from illustrating a scene or writing a new ending, to composing a song about the story or even designing (and executing) a period-appropriate costume for one of the characters. Regardless of where ones skills or learning styles lie, there was an assessment that everyone could do and feel comfortable in doing to display their knowledge of the topic. Thanks to this flexibility in allowing us to choose the way we were assessed, she was always one of the favorite teachers and her students actually learned the material rather than just memorizing it for a test. Being that this was around the year 2000, technology was not as readily available as it is now, but it would be easy to insert technology into that student-centered format. Instead of just typing out a new ending to the story, students could use a Flip camera and Windows Movie Maker to act out their ending. Instead of just making a sketch of a period-appropriate costume,

Slaten - Philosophy of Instructional Technology 9 students could design an avatar wearing that costume and bring it to life. Regardless of the topic, technology provides an easier way for teachers to address the variety of learning styles in their classroom. Just as the preferred learning styles of students vary, the pace of which they learn also varies. One of the first things I learned while in the college of education was the importance of differentiating instruction, or personalizing learning, for our students. In fact, Keefe and Jenkins (2008) assert that personalized learning plays a crucial role in student achievement. The goal of personalized learning or differentiated instruction is to provide a holistic learning environmentwith emphasis on collaborative groups and authentic assessment. (Molenda, 2012). Personalized or differentiated instruction has been around for a long time, but with the focus of education shifting to student test scores and authentic learning, todays teachers are striving to provide more of this type of instruction in their classroom. Differentiating instruction is not an easy task. Even in a single classroom, the students skill and achievement levels can vary considerably from one end of the spectrum to the other. In a perfect world, a teacher would be able to design an individual learning plan for each student, follow that plan, and measure the students progress using an assessment that matches their learning style. In the real world, however, of packed schedules and full classrooms, this is just not feasible. Technology, however, provides an easier way for teachers to design and implement this customized learning in their classroom. With the variety of tools available for teachers, such as software that helps students practice reading skills, or a website with math games, (t)echnology offers many tools to help teachers decrease the gaps in reading, math, social studies, and science. (Standford, Crowe, & Flice, 2010). If a student is struggling in a certain subject or topic, it is easy for the teacher to find or develop an online game or activity that the

Slaten - Philosophy of Instructional Technology 10 student can complete to, independently, get some extra practice in hopes of closing the achievement gap. There is a variety of software programs available that have automaticleveling, meaning that the game or program automatically adjusts to the level of the student playing. Even if this feature is not available, one can compile a list of games, based on the students needs, using a social bookmarking tool or online notebook. This allows students to move at the pace in which they need to move to obtain mastery, regardless of the pace of their peers. Regardless of the quality of tools or instruction available, students will not be able to learn to their full potential if they are not engaged, motivated, and self-confident enough to do so. (Guo, Connor, Tompkins, & Morrison, 2011; Tileston, 2010; Kaufman & Dodge, 2009). Because students are so accustomed to using technology in their personal lives, many see technology as more of a toy, rather than an educational tool. Because of this, several studies have shown that integrating technology into classroom instruction can promote student engagement and motivation. (Cole, 2009; Hepplestone, Holden, Irwin, Parkin, & Thorpe, 2011; Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Glazewski, Newby & Ertmer, 2010; Sadik, 2008). A students self-confidence also has a tremendous impact on student achievement. (Levitt, Guacci-Franco, & Levitt, 1994). The aforementioned benefits of using technology to implement a student-centered learning environment, like the ability to differentiate learning and address a variety of learning styles, can have a positive influence on a students self-confidence. (Hepplestone, Holden, Irwin, Parkin, & Thorpe, 2011). In some cases, students can get frustrated if they are not quickly grasping a skill or concept. Using technology, in the ways mentioned above, can help them learn in a fun, game-based environment. This environment can also seem less inhibiting, and they often feel free to explore and take risks without fear of

Slaten - Philosophy of Instructional Technology 11 judgment. (Miller & Robertson, 2010). This improved self-confidence can help them become much more engaged and motivated, therefore, helping them become better learners. Conclusion As mentioned above, my personal definition of instructional technology, my background experiences with technology use, and the learned benefits of using technology in the classroom, all play crucial roles in the creation of my philosophy of education. Being that I consider myself a life-long learner, Im sure this philosophy will change numerous times, just as it has up to this point as I grow and change as an educator, academic, and instructional technologist.

Slaten - Philosophy of Instructional Technology 12 References Armstrong, T. (2009). Multiple intelligences in the classroom. Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development. Cole, M. (2009). Using Wiki technology to support student engagement: Lessons from the trenches. Computers & Education, 52(1), 141-146. Flemmer, L. (n.d.) Technology's Influence on SCLEs - Learning Theory and ... (n.d.). Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/a/boisestate.edu/edtech504/lflemmer Guo, Y., Connor, C. M., Tompkins, V., & Morrison, F. J. (2011). Classroom quality and student engagement: contributions to third-grade reading skills. Frontiers in Psychology, 2. Hannafin, M. J., & Land, S. M. (1997). The foundations and assumptions of technologyenhanced student-centered learning environments. Instructional science, 25(3), 167-202. Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1994). Constructivism: principles, paradigms, and integration. The Journal of Special Education, 28(3), 233-247. Hepplestone, S., Holden, G., Irwin, B., Parkin, H. J., & Thorpe, L. (2011). Using technology to encourage student engagement with feedback: a literature review.Research in Learning Technology, 19(2). Kaufman, A., & Dodge, T. (2009). Student perceptions and motivation in the classroom: Exploring relatedness and value. Social Psychology of Education,12(1), 101-112. Keefe, J. W., & Jenkins, J. M. (2008). Personalized instruction: The key to student achievement. Rowman & Littlefield Education. Blue Ridge Summit, PA. Levitt, M.J., Guacci-Franco, N. & Levitt, J.L. (1994). Social support and achievement in childhood and early adolescence: A multi-cultural study. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 15, 207-222. Luppicini, R. (2005). A systems definition of educational technology in society. Journal of Educational and Technology in Society, 8(3), 103. McCoog, I. J. (2007). Integrated instruction: Multiple intelligences and technology. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 81(1), 25-28. Miller D.J., Robertson D.P. (2010). Using a games console in the primary classroom: effects of Brain Training programme on computation and self-esteem. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 41(2):242-255. Molenda, M. (2012). Individualized instruction: A recurrent theme. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 56(6), 12-14 Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Glazewski, K. D., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2010). Teacher

Slaten - Philosophy of Instructional Technology 13 value beliefs associated with using technology: Addressing professional and student needs. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1321-1335. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants Part 2: Do they really think differently?. On the horizon, 9(6), 1-6. Rosen, D. (1997). Do technology-based lessons meet the needs of student learning styles. http://edweb.sdsu.edu/courses/edtec596r/students/Rosen/Rosen.html (accessed March 12, 2012). Sadik, A. (2008). Digital storytelling: a meaningful technology-integrated approach for engaged student learning. Educational technology research and development, 56(4), 487-506. Seels, B. B., & Richey, R. C. (1994). Instructional technology: The definition and domains for the field. Washington, DC: Association for the Educational Communications and Technology. Stanford, P., Crowe, M.W., & Flice, H. (2010). Differentiating with Technology. Teaching exceptional children plus. 6(4) Article 2, Retrieved June 1, 2012 from http://escholarship.bc.edu/education/tecplus/vol6/iss4/art2. Tileston, D. W. (2010). What every teacher should know about student motivation. Corwin Press. Wood, E., Mueller, J., Willoughby, T., Specht, J., & Deyoung, T. (2005). Teachers perceptions: Barriers and supports to using technology in the classroom. Education, Communication & Information, 5(2), 183-206.