Ann-Marie Peirano Instructional Technology Philosophy
My instructional technology (IT) philosophy is built upon the personal theory of learning I have developed over the course of my teaching career and through my study of educational, instructional, and developmental theories and philosophies. My personal theory of learning includes aspects of behaviorism, cognitive information processing, learning and schema theory, situated cognition, cognitive development, motivation and self-regulation in learning, Gagne’s theory of instruction, and constructivism (Driscoll, 2005). This personal theory of learning has greatly influenced my instructional technology philosophy. The philosophy I have developed supports the belief that instructional technology is a very broad field that includes both the process and products of technology and attempts to resolve instructional issues (Pershing, Molenda, & Paulus, 2000).
In my personal theory of learning, I first established what the outcomes of learning must be for learning to have occurred. The learner must attain a lasting knowledge, skill set, or insight, and demonstrate a general ability to solve problems. Also, there must be an observable change in behavior (Skinner, 1989). The learner must be able to demonstrate proficiency and understanding in using knowledge associated with a community of practice and demonstrate the ability to critically think about both general and specific problems (Li, Grimshaw, Nielsen, Judd, Coyte, &
Graham, 2009). Self-regulation practices and positive self-efficacy beliefs must also be
established. In addition, the use of the tools of the learner’s culture, environment, or society must be mastered (Driscoll, 2005). Finally, learners must exhibit reflectivity concerning their thought processes and problem solving endeavors.
In my personal theory of learning the role of the learner is crucial to the instructional process. The learner has to actively engage his or her thinking through the learning process and in the construction of knowledge (Perkins, 1991). Individuals must make use of prior knowledge in an attempt to understand new information. Under certain conditions, the learner will determine his or her own learning outcomes. Furthermore, a student has to interact appropriately with the community of practice for learning outcomes to take place problems (Li, Grimshaw, Nielsen, Judd, Coyte, & Graham, 2009). Lastly, the learner must be able to interact with the instructor in a quest to achieve problem solving skills.
The instructor has certain responsibilities in my theory as well. The instructor must provide an environment in which realistic and authentic situations are presented to learners. The environment must be organized and offer activities that provide individuals with the opportunity to learn and model proper behavior within a community of practice. Motivation must be created and sustained in learners by taking the following steps: gain the learners attention, impart a sense of relevance for the learning task, instill confidence in the learner, and provide a sense of
satisfaction with the outcomes of the learning task (Gagné, 1985). The instructor must determine what behaviors or thought processes are to be learned and inform students of the ways in which memory functions and can be improved. They must also bring to the learner’s attention
discrepancies in thinking and reasoning (Vygotsky, 1978). Furthermore, elaboration, prior knowledge, and existing schemata must be activated; and learning must be made meaningful to the individual (Driscoll, 2005). The instructor must craft instruction so that questions are not only being asked of the learner that are appropriate to the individual’s developmental level but also move the learner forward developmentally. Additionally, the instructor must communicate learning objectives to the learner. The most important role the instructor plays is to protect
learners from any damaging unintended consequences of learning activities or the learning environment.
The next component of my learning theory deals with the preconditions for learning.
These inputs must be developmentally appropriate activities that promote critical thinking, independent thinking, creativity, discernment, and self-sufficiency (Vygotsky, 1978). Knowledge construction and critical thinking must be fostered through the use of ill-structured problems.
Advance organizers will be used to activate prior knowledge and orient students to a new topic or concept (Driscoll, 2005). However, these activities, or instructional materials, cannot overload working memory and must be at a suitable developmental stage. Reinforcements or punishments must also be applied, and these reinforcements may be tangible or non-tangible. In addition, learners must acquire strategies to improve the encoding of information and long term memory.
These preconditions for learning lead to certain learning outcomes, and these encompass the process of learning. The inputs must incrementally challenge the limits of each learner’s thinking. In addition, the inputs utilize multiple teaching methods and student abilities.
Integrating new concepts into current thought processes using anchoring ideas are also necessary for the process of learning. Reinforcements must be consistently applied in the learning process over a long period of time, and inputs must capture and sustain student attention and be made relevant to the learner. Lastly, the inputs instill confidence in the learner and lead to a sense of satisfaction.
Using my personal theory of learning as a foundation, I developed my instructional technology philosophy. As part of this philosophy, it was necessary to first define the meaning of the word “technology.” Technology goes beyond simple electronics and is not even necessarily tangible. Technology is any instrument or method that can be used to fix a problem (Reiser,
2001). Therefore, instructional technology uses the process of technology to resolve instructional issues. This field fundamentally deals with human interaction and how to allow individuals and organizations to reach the greatest level of productivity and potential (Pershing, Molenda, &
Paulus, 2000). Instructional technologists must facilitate personal and organizational solutions that achieve lasting results in which individuals gain a long-term understanding of how a particular process or resource works. This lasting knowledge is achieved when professionals within the field of instructional technology develop solutions and innovations that merge with the prior knowledge and abilities of individuals and the larger community of practice (Pershing, Molenda, & Paulus, 2000). In addition, the practice and theory of instructional technology takes into account the professional or instructional environment in which a process is implemented, and IT professionals use tools and resources that will realistically bring about desired change.
Lastly, in practice, the field of instructional technology uses tools, processes, and other means that are relevant to specific communities of practice to provide realistic solutions to a variety of instructional problems.
References
Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon:
Pearson.
Gagné, R.M. (1985). The conditions of learning (4th ed.) New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Li, L.C., Grimshaw, J.M., Nielsen, C., Judd, M., Coyte, P. C., & Graham, I. D. (2009) Evolution of Wenger's concept of community of practice. Implementation Science, 4(11). Retrieved from http://www.implementationscience.com/content/4/1/11
Perkins, D.N. (1991). What constructivism demands of the learner. Educational Technology, 31, 19-21.
Pershing, J.A., Molenda, M.H., & Paulus, T. (2000). Letters home: The meaning of instructional technology. TechTrends. 44(1), 31-38.
Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part I: A history of instructional media. Educational Technology, Research and Development. 49(1), 53-64.
Skinner, B. F. (1989). The origins of cognitive thought. American Psychologist. 44(1), 13-18.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
