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. 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. 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.