1

Philosophy of Instructional Technology

Laura Knighton The University of Alabama Summer 2012

Introduction: Instructional Technology as a Building Process Instructional technology can be compared to the process of constructing a building. When planning for building construction, plans must be made, and materials are carefully selected based on the style of the building. Certain methods for constructing the building are implemented based on the type of building as well as the materials. The architect and the construction team share responsibility for the final product. My philosophy of instructional technology will articulate how the building process is comparable to teaching and learning via instructional technology. The Instructional Designer as an Architect Just as an architect meticulously creates plans for the construction of a new building, an instructional designer methodically crafts a plan for learning. Considerations for a learning plan include: student readiness, appropriate instructional strategies based on the learning objectives and learner characteristics, suitable technology and other instructional resources, necessary supports for successful learning, and assessment measurements (Morrison, Ross, Kalman, & Kemp, 2011). An architects plan ensures the successful, solid construction of a building while the plans of an instructional designer are essential for effective teaching and learning. A Teacher and the Learners: The Construction Company Once learning objectives have been established and appropriate pedagogical strategies have been determined, the teacher begins the role of facilitating learning for the students. Much like the foreman who oversees workers, a teacher guides students in the instructional design scenario. Just as there may be many types of workers on a construction site, so also are there many types of students within a learning environment. Knowing what learners already know has been identified as the single most important factor that impacts learning (Driscoll, 2005). Thus, the teacher must know the background each student brings into the classroom. Checking

this knowledge against the plans made by the instructional designer, if the instructional designer was someone other than the teacher, will allow the teacher to implement learning tools and strategies that will be most effective for the learners. It is not acceptable to use high-tech instructional tools for the sake of being flashy. Sometimes low-tech instructional materials are more suited to learner needs. It is essential that the teacher chooses instructional tools and methods that enable the learner to process material and assimilate new knowledge and skills into their existing knowledge bases (Clark & Mayer, 2008). After all, it is not the delivery medium that enables learning, but rather the instructional methods (Clark & Mayer , 2008). However, choosing tools and teaching methods is only the beginning of the process of knowledge construction. Effective execution of the plan, which may need to be altered based on the learners responses, is a critical component of effective teaching and learning. Just as a building will not be sturdy without a thorough execution of well-laid plans, learning cannot take place without strategic implementation of effective pedagogical methods. I believe learning can be most effectively accomplished through a blend of constructivist and cognitive principles. Constructivism assumes that the learner constructs knowledge as they make sense of experiences (Driscoll, 2005). Learning goals within this pedagogical principle include: reasoning, critical thinking, understanding and application of knowledge, learner self-regulation, and reflection. Learning should occur within settings that are multifaceted, realistic, and meaningful. Social negotiation, or cooperative learning, is a key element in learning. Information should be conveyed through multiple modes of representation, as each different mode allows for different aspects of knowledge to be viewed and constructed by the learner. Learners should be encouraged to take ownership in the learning process, thus promoting the development of autonomous thinkers (Driscoll, 2005).

The cognitive theory asserts that learners have a role as active participants in the learning process (Morrison, Ross, Kalman, & Kemp, 2011). Thus, a teacher must create an engaging learning environment. A learners attention is a crucial factor in his or her learning. Other important implications for instruction related to the cognitive information processing theory include organized instruction, extensive and varied practice, and developing learners selfregulation of learning (Driscoll, 2005). Learners create meaning through their interpretations of their experiences. Cognitive operations are the driving force behind the meaning that is developed. Driscoll (2005) explained that rote learning, commonly called memorization, is what occurs when no connection was made to previously acquired knowledge (Driscoll, 2005). However, cognitive principles focus on meaningful learning (Morrison, Ross, Kalman, & Kemp, 2011). Through these principles, learners will be able to integrate new knowledge with what they already know, which results in meaningful learning that is not likely to be forgotten (Clark & Mayer, 2008). Conclusion When people hear the word technology, they often immediately think of computers and electronics. However, technology is about tools, both low-tech and high-tech, and processes. Thus, instructional technology entails selecting appropriate tools and pedagogical strategies based on sound principles of teaching and learning. The instructional designer and teacher hold the responsibility for planning an engaging, relevant environment for learning. However, the students must also be active participants for learning to occur. In this view, learning is an ongoing, cooperative, strategic process, much like that in which an architect and construction team engage when constructing a building. The resulting product, in this case learning, will only be as strong as the planning and inputs.

References

Clark, R.C. & Meyer, R.E. (2008). e-Learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. Driscoll, M. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. V., Kalman, H. K. & Kemp, J. E. (2011). Designing effective instruction (6th ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.