Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Is a technocentric approach inadequate?
In the article Teachers' Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: Curriculum-based Technology Integration Reframed, Harris, Mishra, and Koehlher make a case for why a technocentric (bottom of page 3) approach to technology integration is inadequate. Explain what you think that they mean and whether you agree or disagree and why. Your response requires you to understand their main argument and why the TPCK framework supports their argument. Your response should be approximately 150 words (give or take. I will not be counting the words but this will give you an idea of how in depth I want your response)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Harris et al. claim that many current methods of technology integration, especially in educational settings, are inadequate. The methods are “limited in breadth, variety, and depth; and not well integrated into curriculum-based teaching and learning” (p. 1). Technology integration should instigate inquiry, encourage collaboration, and improve teaching and learning. Instead the current approaches focus on the technologies themselves rather than the students and their learning needs. I agree that a technocentric approach is insufficient; the discrepancy between the objectives and the implementation of technology integration is obvious. The TPCK framework breaks down the components of teacher knowledge and reconnects technology to curriculum content and pedagogy. The application of the concepts of the TPCK framework will work because the concepts emphasize integration and a return of focus to student learning. Harris et al. stress that there is no one technological solution that will work for every teacher, curriculum, or student. The main goal is for teachers to apply their TPCK, and it will all fit together resulting in a good learning environment. Charisse VanDerwerken.
ReplyDeleteIf a teacher is using a technocentric approach to integrate technology in their classroom then the technology becomes the focus and not the curriculum or content. The teacher is basically saying, "I have this technology, what subject or lesson can I use to be able to use this technology?" What the teacher should be saying is "How can I use this technology to better teach this subject or lesson?" The TPCK framework is connecting technology to curriculum content and specific pedagogical approaches. Using technology appropriately during learning, the teacher can meet the standards of the curriculum content. By using the TPCK approach the teacher is using technology, content and pedagogy together to provide an exceptional learning environment.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Harris, Misha, and Koehlher, most technological aids used in the classroom today are technocentric blanket systems that are created to increase efficiency but pay little attention to course content and leave little room for variations between courses. Instead of using technology to modify curriculums in a way that could increase student learning, these educational technologies lack the specialization to account for the differences between different fields of studies and between different age groups—along with the corresponding differences in effective teaching methods. I agree with Harris and company in their criticisms of such teaching aids. They seem to encourage teachers to hop on the latest pedagogical bandwagon, sacrificing individualized education that caters to students' needs and turning the classroom in to a twenty-first century knowledge factory, assembly lines and all. The proposed TPCK framework shows how the focus of education can be brought back to student learning, internalizing the areas in which more technocentric methods fall short into the heart and soul of the configuration. It shifts the responsibility of how much a student learns away from inflexible technological programs and back to the versatility of teacher knowledge and creativity.
ReplyDeleteThe main argument of Harris, Mishra, and Koehler in this article is that the current approach to integrating technology into education is too technocentric. They suggest that teachers gain knowledge of technology, pedagogy, and content. This is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge(TPCK). Further, they explain that teachers need to understand the relationship among these three areas--they need to be able to utilize tools in a way that effectively teaches the material students need to learn. For example, rather than having computer time for computers' sake, a class could use an online program to research a science topic, and organize and share what they learn. I agree. From grade school I can remember experiences when I didn't feel that I was learning from the technology we used, and others when I learned more effectively because of the technology. The first priority of education is to teach students, thus how students learn (pedagogy) and what they need to learn (content) should be considered when planning what tools to use (technology).
ReplyDeleteI agree with Harris, Mishra, and Koehlher’s argument that a technocentric approach is inadequate. They argue that the technocentric approach involves the use of content and pedagogy, but ignores the complex combinations involved in pedagogy, content, and knowledge that are needed to make this technology adequate for its users.
ReplyDeleteHarris, Mishra, and Koehlher suggest the use of TPCK, or Technological Pedagogy Content Knowledge. TPCK allows the teacher to use his/her understanding of pedagogy, content, and knowledge to create efficient lessons based on educational technology. TPCK consists of three forms of knowledge: content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and technological knowledge.
The intertwining of these three forms of knowledge are: pedagogical content knowledge, and technological pedagogical knowledge. By intertwining these essential forms of knowledge, TPCK has allowed the user to understand the dynamic relationships not found in the technocentric approach. This lack of understanding in the technocentric approach is what makes it inadequate, and makes TPCK a more adequate approach in the use of educational technology.
After reading the article, the claim made by Harris, Mishra, and Koehlher made sense to me. They made a case for why a technocentric approach to utilizing tools in educational settings is inadequate. To me, this meant that educators are often teaching with the same, commonly used tools (or technology) with different ages, subjects, and learning styles. This seems ineffective because it focuses more on the tools and how to fit them in, rather than the students, subject matter, and teaching styles needed for each subject matter. I liked the idea of TPCK and agree that this would be the best learning environment. The article outlines that TPCK is understanding a good tool (technology), using a good teaching strategy with that tool (pedagogy) to teach a principle or subject (content). This kind of teaching seems like it would be so much more effective for the learners. Great teaching is truly demonstrated when you know what resources best match what subject you want to teach and are done using an instructional method that helps students learn best for their age group or learning style.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHarris, Mishra, and Koehler claim that a technocentric approach to technology integration is inadequate. After studying this article I could not agree more. Harris, Mishra, and Koehler explain that teachers bring technology into their classroom as a way to teach their lesson for them, not in a way to enhance the students’ educational experience. Technology must be looked at in a way to enhance, not to escape. The TPCK framework encompasses helpful ways to teach students according to their specific learning style, how technology can help explain “conceptual challenges”(P.10), and how to “represent content using technology”(P.10). TPCK is made up of three domains, content, technology, and pedagogy. Although teachers may understand each contributing domain individually, it only makes a class discussion beneficial if they understand “the manners in which these domains interrelate”(P.11). The TPCK framework enables teachers to reach that point of understanding. There are certain “activity types” that help teachers develop TPCK “in ways that attend to the particular demands of different subject domains” (P.12). As teachers it is our job to have the students’ best interest at heart. It is important to stay current on new technology for our classrooms, but it is even more important to know how to use and incorporate these technologies effectively for our students.
ReplyDeleteThe main point of the article is the importance of TPCK, and how that helps make you a more effective teacher. Basically their argument was that it is important that a teacher understand all three aspects of their teaching- technological, pedagogical, and content. Technological knowledge consists of knowing the different technologies that exist, pedagogical is knowing different strategies and methods of teaching and knowing how to implement them, and content is understanding the concepts that you are teaching your class. They argued that these 3 components are all interrelated and that it is essential as an effective teacher that you are efficient in all 3 and understand that they are all connected- if you lack skills in one component, it will affect your skills and efficiency in another one. I agree with the authors’ argument. As a teacher, you need to understand the content, understand what you are teaching. You also need to understand how to teach it and you need to understand how to use and make the most of the different technologies available to you. When you understand these different components, you can be a more effective teacher because you can really adapt your lesson plans and your teaching strategies to make them the most helpful and effective that they can be for your students. You can play off of your students’ needs and make the most of their learning experience.
ReplyDeleteTechnocentric approaches are unable to differentiate between content, and teaching forms through different classes. It assumes that every class can be taught using the same general outline, and tries to fit that outline into every circumstance. This does not seem to be an effective way to teach. Instead you should be able to use technology However, different approaches work better with some content than others.
ReplyDeleteTPCK can change it’s framework to teach a learning base for any subject according to the student’s needs. It utilizes the teacher’s knowledge, and their teaching style to find what educational technology would enhance the students learning the most. It also encourages teachers to continue to develop, and strive to find better ways to teach. With TPCK the teachers have many activity options to add to any subject or class level. I think that TPCK is a better option as it is flexible to fit with any subject, teacher, or student. It can be complimentary to the class, instead of the class complimenting it.
Harris, Mishra, and Koehlher argue that technocentric approaches for integrating technology in learning are inadequate in content and pedagogy. They explain that these approaches deal primarily with the use of the technology rather than the needs of the students, providing an inadequate learning environment. When the focus of new technology overpowers student’s needs, technology integration is misunderstood and misused. A new tool means more than simply having a new technology in the classroom. This is why TPCK is introduced as an adequate way of integrating technology. It involves learning objectives (content) and methods for learning those objectives (pedagogy) along with enhancing that learning with implementing tools to carry out those methods (technology). It is more tailored to meet the needs of students and create a successful learning environment.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Harris, Mishra and Koehlher, the tendency to first look at the advantages and limitations of technology and then try to make them fit into an already established course content is a technocentric, and consequently inadequate, approach to technology integration in education. Harris et al. argue that the technocentric approach short-changes students and educators in that it does not make allowances for different disciplines or the processes and methods of teaching and learning. They assert that TPCK is the answer to the problem of technocentric teaching because it gives teachers the tools to manipulate their instruction in order to successfully cover every component of knowledge. I feel that the argument is an extremely salient one because one-sided or formulaic teaching is generally ineffective,especially when it comes to the widely diverse population of students with exceptionalities. The authors were absolutely correct when they stated that educating is much too complex to look at technology integration from only one or two aspects of knowledge. I agree that a flexible, multi-faceted approach to integrating technology in teaching, such as TPCK, is not only helpful, but essential to effective and progressive teaching.
ReplyDeleteIn this article, Harris et al. argue that technology-based learning in school systems falls short of the intended goal. Rather than furthering knowledge in a particular subject through the use of technology, many educators are focusing strictly on the technology itself; there is no connecting link between course content and the technology involved. I agree that this is ineffective and inadequate. Learning can be greatly enhanced through the integration of technology into a particular class. The TPCK framework requires teachers to be more knowledgeable and creative in order to promote the higher learning of their students. When educators combine content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and technological knowledge into their lesson plans, learning is much more effective. I believe that the TPCK framework will work well in the education system because it emphasizes student learning, rather than teaching simply to say that something was taught. Also, lesson plans can be tailored to the specific needs of the class, thus allowing students to learn at their level. This integrated system allows students to better understand course material because there are different channels of learning that are being utilized simultaneously. -Ariele Herring
ReplyDeleteThe technocentric approach is definitely inadequate--as are any "centric" approaches (unless they are lovecentric!). No instruction should be central to anything but the learning objective and meeting the needs of the student. A technocentric approach claims that its methods will satiate all needs, and this of course cannot be true--especially when considering those with special needs who require specialized instruction. The most vital part of an effective learning environment is meeting the child's needs by accommodating each student according to their abilities; however, this is all done while considering the subject matter (content knowledge), the best way to teach it (pedagogy), and technology.
ReplyDeleteTechnology can be enabling when utilized properly, which is when strengths and needs are considered thoroughly. By doing this, the amount and type of technology to integrate into instruction should become more apparent. But it cannot be integrated appropriately without content knowledge in mind as well as a deep understanding of how it should be taught.
All three of these components of teaching must be utilized simultaneously for the most effective lesson. TPCK and knowing the relation between each is pertinent; lacking understanding in one part will affect the other parts and ultimately the lesson will have lost validity and effectiveness. To provide for the best lesson, all three must be taken into account.
The technocentric approach argued in this article, by definition is the integration of technology into the classroom using the most common or attainable technology and blanketly adapting them to the needs of all students, despite differences in age or learning levels. It argues that this one size fits all approach may be inadequate, losing sight of two key areas ‘content and pedagogy’. I agree that this approach is defective. It suggests that teachers despite their grade level or class subject need the same kind of technological knowledge. In plain language they are trying to use irrelevant technology to help specific competency. I believe that a true, working understanding of TPCK would be priceless for a teacher. Molding and using appropriate and innovative technologies to help students as opposed to blanket technologies sometimes used to replace actual teaching could be very, very effective in the classroom.
ReplyDeleteIn this article Harris, Mishra, and Koehler claim that the technocentric approach is falling short of the goal in mind. They are too focused on integrating technology into the classroom just for the sake of claiming they have done so and not on how this technology is going to benefit the school and its students. To adequately integrate technology into classrooms educators need to have a firm understanding of the TPCK framework and be able to combine Content Knowledge, Pedagogical Knowledge, and Technology Knowledge. If educators are able to combine all three main components of the TPCK framework, they will be able to emphasize student learning on more of a personal level for each individual student. Classrooms are very diverse with a broad range of abilities and disabilities. Since this is the case, not having a basic understanding that there is a difference to actual subject matter that is understood, deep understandings of the processes of learning, and that technology is constantly changing so ones knowledge must do so also, can heavily impact the outcome of a student’s learning. Teachers are not taking into account that the technology needs to enhance the content in the curriculum. By using the TPCK framework, it emphasizes integration of technology while keeping the focus on student learning.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Harris, Mishra, and Koehlher, a technocentric approach to technology integration is one that looks simply at technologies and what they can and cannot do, and then try to take those technologies and make them fit into lessons plans and teaching strategies that they are already using. In using technology this way, the authors argue that teachers are severely limiting the usefulness and success of incorporating technology into their teaching. I completely agree with their argument. In just reading this article, I learned about many different technologies and techniques that are out there that I have never even heard of before. I feel like a lot of the time teachers will look at what technology is most easily available or accessible, and will just use that technology to enhance the lessons and activities that they already have planned. However, if teachers were to be trained and better able to apply the TPCK framework into their planning, I feel like the vast amount of technological resources that are out there could be used to much better advantage because they would be able to more seamlessly integrate their knowledge of teaching strategies, subject content, and technology together to ensure more successful and engaging learning experience for all of their students.
ReplyDeleteThe main argument that I saw in this is that merely having technology in the classroom to advance, recreate, or even enhance the learning process isn't enough in bringing out the overall learning outcomes of a student and classroom. They suggest that the entire "framework" be under constant repair and that the TPCK guidelines best support doing that. One of the points in the article argues that there needs to be more interconnectivity between the teacher, content knowledge, the technology being used, and the student (to name a few), in bringing about better results. I found it interesting when they talked about certain devices and programs being created by the professionals in those fields of study, and how they find their place inside the classroom - this I agree with, in that we need to look at the actual purpose of a "Powerpoint" or "class blog", to strip it down and see if the actual subject matter or curriculum is being assessed through these devices. The TPCK idea introduces a step back from the technology, and look at who and what is being taught, and then a reassessment of that teacher's teaching strategy.
ReplyDeleteHarris, Mishra, and Koehlher argue that the technocentric approach in classrooms is inadequate in teaching students with different educational needs. I agree with the authors in that you can’t use technology for different students of different ages with different needs and have it be equally effective. To me, believing that technology can work with every student every time would be like handing the same book to every student in grades K-12 and expecting that book to give new knowledge and teach helpful skills. This way does not consider different learning styles of each individual student. This also doesn’t let the teacher use their skills. TPCK uses technology with teaching techniques with consideration of students’ requirements. “TPCK encompasses understanding the representations of concepts using technologies; pedagogical techniques that apply technologies in constructive ways to teach content in differentiated ways according to students’ learning needs” (pg.10). In reading this article I believe that the TPCK approach is more effective than that of the technocentric approach. It allows teachers to have the help of technology yet still requires them to use their pedagogical skills.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Harris, Mishra, and Koehler, by incorporating a technocentric approach teachers use the technology that is most readily available and common instead of searching for the perfect technology that will supplement their lesson and further improve a student’s learning. This article suggests using the TPCK method which involves pedagogy, content, and technology. With all three of these aspects working together an effective use of technology in a lesson can be achieved. I agree with the article’s claims that the technocentric approach is inadequate. Instead of the focal point being on the student and curriculum it is placed on technology. Technology is meant to act as a learning/teaching aide and supplement to a lesson not as the reason for the lesson. The students’ learning should be a teacher’s number one priority not the technology or resources that are most prevalent.
ReplyDeleteIn the article the authors present this idea about using technology in a “technocentric” way. When this term is used the authors are trying to present the idea that the focus is on the piece of technology that is used rather than on the content that is being taught or on the student. This technocentric approach is an inadequate way to implement technology into a classroom. TPCK suggests that technology should be used in a way that combines technology with content and pedagogy in the best way possible. Technology should not just be used if there is not a specific way in which it would improve the students’ ability to learn. Teachers must use their knowledge of technology, pedagogy, and content to decide how to best implement technology into their lesson plans. If teachers are able to follow the TPCK framework technology will be used in a much more effective way.
ReplyDeleteAs I was reading this article and contemplating on the different teachers I had growing up, teachers in college, and even teachers for my church, I was able to see the truth in what was shared in this article. It was shared that a technocentric approach to teaching and learning is not adequate. From the limited knowledge I have in the classroom and more my personal experience, I agree with this statement. I think so much of learning and the way we learn can not be based on one solo factor. In this article it tries to show how the focus of pure technology first in teaching and then trying to make it fit into the content or core of the classroom is not the most beneficial to the learning process. It believe that there does need to be a balance between the crucial factors of learning such as content, knowledge, pedagogical or the theories about how we learn, how we study and how to best be taught. I think that these components have to all be considered with equal relevance when preparing to teach. I saw the benefit of this as I was in a class in my high school. We had a program that was created for us in my math class. My teacher had thought through how the content that he wanted us to understand in this calculus class. He then thought about each of us and how we each learn. He considered our learning types when deciding on how to modify the technology. He then took his knowledge in the subject area of math and considered the areas that most students have difficulty learning. With all these points in mind and maybe other areas he considered, he was able to find technology that would assist in all these areas for the benefit of us. I think that any time we can have a more well rounded, out stretching approach to teaching we will be in the better. If we stick to one method or one way of thinking and making all else fit to that, I don’t think we will be as successful as teachers. Especially teachers of special education. Our students are so individual and unique and all that we do for them needs to be individualized and we need to consider how our way may not be the very best for them.
ReplyDeleteThe authors believe that a technocentric approach to technology integration is inadequate because teachers use available technology as their pedagogy plan instead of knowing first their students needs. This approach is backwards when you want to improve learning. It hinders the teacher’s ability to effectively teach when you give them technology to solve problems instead of strategies. It tells the teacher that they do not have to know the problem, just the technology solution. Technology is not one general tool that can solve every classroom problem. It has to be used by a person who knows and understands the problems it can solve instead of this technology using them. If it sounds like I agree with these authors already, it is because I do. It does not make logical sense that one would use a tool without knowing what it does. Technology is only worth anything if it is used correctly and efficiently. TPCK is the solution. Once a teacher understands her subject, her students, her purposes and aims, then she can begin to use the technology to her advantage. These tools are then flexible and able to adapt to any situation and can solve any problem.
ReplyDeleteHarris, Mishra, and Kohler define technocentric approaches to teaching as ones that “…begin with technologies’ affordances and constraints, then attempt to discern how the technologies can be integrated successfully into content-based learning at different levels” (Harris et al., p. 3). In other words, teachers are trained to put technology first. They expect that the same software can be successfully implemented across disciplines. Yet many of the programs commonly used in classrooms today—the Microsoft Office suite, for example, including PowerPoint, Word, and Excel—are not even designed for educational purposes. Teachers are adapting their content and pedagogical knowledge to the insufficient technology offered to them, when it should be the other way around.
ReplyDeleteTechnological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) is the solution to inadequate technocentric teaching approaches. It allows teachers’ knowledge of technology, content, and teaching to be integrated successfully with discipline-specific educational technologies (Harris et al., p. 4), thereby creating a better learning environment.
I feel that Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge is a good way for teachers to merge technology and content. Because this helps the teachers use all of the resources available it means the best outcome for the students because children have the most resources to succeed.
ReplyDeleteFor example, Josh's teacher found something the student liked using and then used the Bookworm Technology with books to keep the student motivated since it was something the child already demonstrated enjoying. Second, the teacher realized the student had to have this technology and integrated it into everything she could use. Third, the teacher used the technology to focus on the learning task (reading) instead of trying to teach the child the technology; since the child was already interested in reading as observed through cause/effect books the technology was complimentary. Last of all, the teacher used the technology and found an effect that could have been unrepeatable with another technology. Not only did the teacher find that the technology facilitated the learning, but the child was able to learn other skills like speaking and was able to generalize this information outside of the classroom.
Since Josh's teacher correctly used TPCK concepts it meant Josh was able to learn skills with technology he would not have earlier been considered able to do and it meant the teacher was able to assist him and her other students to succeed.
I believe the authors are correct because like Josh's teacher she used the technology to enhance the learning opposed to trying to get the technology to do all of the work for her.
A technocentric approach to teaching involves using readily available technology to adapt to each discipline. While many teachers use the technocentric approach, it is inadequate, in that it does not completely satisfy the needs of a course or its students.
ReplyDeleteTo be completely successful, an instructor must have a thorough understanding of content, pedagogical/teaching practices, and technology. The course must be entirely content-based, using technology as a supplement and as a means of magnification. This may take considerable planning, but it should be done to ensure the most efficient and successful teaching/learning environment.
I agree with the argument that the technocentric approach is inadequate. Teachers should not be finding things to teach just becuase they need to or want to use a certain technology. For technology to be effective the teacher needs to be teaching students what the students need to know and then use the technology as a boost in the curriculum when needs be. They should use the technology because it is going to help the student understand the content better not because they have it and want to find a way to use it.
ReplyDeleteWe have been asked to agree or disagree with the idea of vaccinations contributing to the onset of autism. After watching the news report about the mother who said she would "go to her grave" knowing that her son is autistic because of vacinations, I felt there may be some sort of connection and further studies should be made, even after the court ruling. However, then I read the article and the statement made that there should be some sort of trace of the virus before the immunization can create an effect and in the tests performed only one child had the virus previous to the immunizations. Therefore, I was leaning toward the court ruling that the MMR immunization had not contributed to autism. It seems there comes around "trends" of causes for medical issues, such as "toxic shock syndrome" which put Rely Tampons out of business...there has been the Murcury in the teeth cause for lock jaw etc. etc. some of these trends are just that, a trend, and later realize it was not completely true. Could be a true reaction to certain genetical types or something, so do I agree or disagree....I think I need to do more research and more studies research need to be documented before a ruling could be substatial.
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree with Harris, Mishra, and Koehlher. I don’t think that the five general approaches that are in effect now and have been in the past are enough incentive for a teacher to encourage more of a technology based classroom, thus leaving them inadequate.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading and understanding the five principles they seem to appear very straight forward in the way they are supposed to work. However, I don’t think that they are working according to plan. I think that teachers (especially ones who have taught for a long time) are stuck in a rut and quite comfortable with their teaching style. With the new TPCK way it puts the ball more into the teachers court; it allows them to feel comfortable because they are already knowledgeable about their subject (content knowledge). This then creates a comfortable environment when technology is brought into the classroom.
I can speak from example; in our classroom we just received a promethean board. When we first got it we were scared and hesitant to use it, because we didn’t know how it would help our students learn effectively. Since we have been using it I have noticed a world of difference in the way the students are learning it has allowed them to open up to the subject matter in ways we never thought. By giving the promethean board a chance it has allowed us follow the TPCK way.
If I had a child with Autism I first would do research on where this happened. Was he born with this diagnosis? Or was it after? I think I would do some deep research into as well. I have noticed that with parents so often they are so quick to point fingers at other people or with what happened instead at looking at the whole situation and having their eyes open to other options. I really would go into this research with my eyes opened regardless of whether or not it had something to do with me or someone else.
ReplyDeleteAs far as treatment I really think it’s a fine line of how much to risk. Because honestly is it really worth taking that chance of putting my child at risk and even possibly death. I think the treatment could be well worth if it was proven to really help but right now it’s not proven for some people say that chelation really works and it could very well work and cure an autistic child but at the same time it has killed a child. And I wouldn’t want to risk that chance of my child dying. I would def go into further research regarding this treatment but wouldn’t just do it because I was told that it works. My child, and having an autistic child is just fine with me, I wouldn’t mind caring for it. That’s a lot more worth it then risking their life