Using instructional technology in my classroom on a daily basis became my passion early in my career.  While I considered myself to be an early adopter of new technologies, I never had daily access in the classroom prior to 2015. As access to technology becomes more prevalent in schools, the focus of technology integration is shifting from quantity to quality.  Effective technology integration is more important than the frequency than the use of technology in the classroom. Creating and and implementing effective technology lessons can lead students to deeper learning.  They key when integrating technology is to focus on the learning and not the tool being used. In my own classroom practice, technology is best integrated when multiple modes of learning are incorporated and the goals of learning are the focus of the task.  As such, there are two philosophies based in research that I find best align with my practice and beliefs in technology integration.  Both philosophies evolve from the constructivist approach. When integrating technology in the classroom, I believe it is important to provide students with opportunities to construct their own learning by having choice and scaffolded content within the curriculum.  

The earliest philosopher that discussed Constructivism was John Dewey.  In sum, he proposed that “students learn by doing rather than observing.” This is typically the approach I use to integrate technology in the classroom.  I tend not to be the presenter of information, but want to allow students the chance to discover it for themselves. I think that students find more ownership in this type of learning.  This seems to be the “progressive” approach that Dewey discusses in multiple writings.  It surprises me that Dewey would write about this because this model seems to lend itself to using technology in the classroom.  This constructivist approach to learning, especially while using technology, provides students an open opportunity to answer a question or research various topics using all available resources.  The vast amount of digital sources on the web, gives students the opportunity to read multiple perspectives in gathering information. Students can then draw their own conclusions based in evidence deduced from their research.    

In addition to the constructivist theorist Dewey, it is worth noting that Vygotsky has a place in my practice as well.  Based on Vygotsky’s theory of the “Zone of Proximal Development,” teachers can help students reach their full potential by including scaffolded resources.  The resources can vary between students, small group instruction and even technology.  By using these resources, the students can reach beyond their current level to push themselves “a head taller.”  Scaffolding, like a ladder, can help students to reach higher with assistance.  As the student progresses, those scaffolds can be slowly taken away so the student may continue to perform at a high level with the confidence that they can succeed.  This philosophy aids me in creating flexible groupings and creating various assignments both traditional and using technology within the classroom.  

These flexible groupings that are created in the classroom lead to a need for differentiated instruction.  Carol Ann Tomlinson best describes differentiated instruction in her book as to “provide specific alternatives for individuals to learn as deeply as possible and as quickly as possible, without assuming one student's road map for learning is identical to anyone else's.”  She also notes that a differentiated classroom “uses time flexibly...and with a variety of instructional strategies.”  The key to differentiated classrooms is that the content is not a one size fits all solution to learning.  This has important similarities to Dewey and Vygotsky’s theories.  One is the opportunity for students to learn in their own way making meaning by participating in various levels of learning.  Another is the importance of participating in learning within the zone of proximal development.  

However, the most important part to my personal teaching philosophy in both technology integration and Social Studies education is student choice.  Tomlinson talks about differentiating activities and learning in terms of the content learned, the process to learn it and the product to show what was learned.  These activities can be differentiated according to students’ readiness, choice, or learning style through a variety of instructional strategies.  Personally, I prefer to differentiate by choice.  One strategy I use is differentiated menu assignments and choice boards.  I prefer to differentiate through choice because of my foundations in constructivist learning theory.  I feel that students should be able to choose which topics they want to delve deeper into learning about, create a product based on their learning and be able to share and explain their learning to peers.  This allows a student to complete an assignment within their own zone of proximal development, in a flexible way, that creates meaning for that student.
​
In sum, technology is a tool that should help students arrive at an answer with a deeper understanding of whatever content they learn.  Technology is not meant to replace thinking or constructing knowledge, but instead as a tool to enhance it.  By providing students with opportunities to engage in multiple perspectives, on assignments tailored to their interest and needs, students can reach a new level of success.  These opportunities will give them the confidence and 21st century skills in order to be successful in their future.   

   
References
Constructivism Basics. (n.d.). Retrieved October 17, 2016, from http://www.edwebproject.org/constructivism.basics.html
Dewey, J. (n.d.). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to Differentiate Instruction in Mixed-Ability Classrooms. 2NdEdition. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.