Friday, January 8, 2010
Is a technocentric approach to technology integration adequate?
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. In your response you need to state their main argument and why the TPCK framework supports their argument and whether you agree or disagree and why. 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, Mishra, and Koehler describ five approaches for technology integration, but then go on to explain that the efforts put forth are not adequate because they lean towards educational technologies being used, as opposed to focusing more on the students learning needs. They further explain that they begin by looking at technology and what the technology can positively or negatively provide. After deciding on a piece of technology, they then try to successfully integrate it into content based learning. I believe they referred to this procedure as "technocentric", which to me means revolving around technology, technology being the most important. They state that the approach is "comparatively weak" and have only seen "sporadic instances of technology integration". Why is this? These approaches are not taking into consideration that there are different contents being taught, different teaching strategies, and different student needs. TPCK suggests that teachers find a relationship between content, pedagogy, and technology. First, teachers need to fully understand their subject matter and then use appropriate technologies that, through their teaching style, will most effectively assist in the learning of each student. I completely agree, teachers need to look at the needs of their students and the content they teach and from there decide which technologies will best aid in the learning process.
ReplyDeleteHarris, Mishra, and Koehler have five general approaches; software-focused initiatives, demonstrations of sample resources, technology-based educational reform efforts, structured/standardized professional development workshops or courses and technology-focused teacher education courses. They state that "these approaches tend to initiate and organize their efforts according to the educational technologies...rather than the students' learning." These approaches do not focus on the student and how to help them learn according to their needs. They argue that this approach is weak and inadequate. The new approach using TCPK encourages teachers to incorporate content, pedagogy and technology into a correlating relationship. Creating this relationship and implementing TCPK into the classrooms are beneficial to the learning of the students. I agree with the arguments made here. I believe that teachers need to do what is best for the students and adapt their curriculum to new concepts that are proven to improve learning in students.
ReplyDeleteHarris, Mishra, and Koehler do not believe that the five approaches to integration of technology will be adequate because they are not personalized for grade level or even for each individual person. I agree. Throughout elementary and high school there was multiple times that the teacher had us learn from a computer. When I think back, that did not help at all. You can't ask the computer questions and it isn't specified for your type of learning. Their argument is that each individual student needs something different. They need adaptations made to fit their abilities. The TPCK outline talks about how things can be adapted by pedagogical knowledge and how teacher's need to have this type of knowledge as well as content knowledge. Again, I agree with this. A teacher can know every bit of fact in the world and not be able to teach it to their students. Technology should be adapted for the needs of specific people.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHarris, Mishra, and Koehler were not supportive of the integration of technology into the educational system mostly because they feel that they take too much of a general approach and are not specific enough to be effective. In some ways I am in agreement with this. I think that in a regular classroom technology is too general of a teaching method and it does not make very much of an impact on students. In a special education setting however, technology can be very effect but it needs to be specifically adapted to each students needs. This is exactly what the three of them encourage. As we have been instructed, they encourage that teachers take advantage of the pedagogical knowledge and from there adapt technology to their specific students. I completely agree with their opinions and hope that more teachers will take advantage of the knowledge we have to better instruct students with special needs.
ReplyDeleteHarris, Mishra and Koehler explain that technocentric approach to technology integration is inadequate because the technocentric approach tries to take one program and then fit it into every class regardless of the grade level. It does not take into consideration that children in different grades learn differently and the product is not appropriately tailored to the subject being taught. The authors feel that approaching technology in the classroom in this manner is not effective. Only when the teacher, understands what is expected of his or her students, uses the best approach he or she can make in teaching that subject and the technology that compliments and assists his or her efforts, can technology be fully utilized. This is the TPCK framework at its best. It supports their argument because TPCK takes the grade and subject into consideration and tailors the programs to best suit the material and objectives of study. I agree with this idea. Technology can and should be utilized for use in the classroom as a way of assisting the teacher and reaching the students. TPCK seems like the most logical way to best implement technology.
ReplyDeleteIn the article, the authors first discuss the five basic methods of using technology in the classroom: Software focused-initiative; demonstrations of sample resources, lessons, and projects; technology-based educational reform efforts; structured/standardized professional development workshops or courses; and lastly technology-focused teacher education courses. Their argument is that this is inadequate. “Technocentric” methods of teaching do not take into a account differences in the classroom, the limited uses of some technology, or simply the difficulties that teaching with technology can sometime present. Their plan is to implement a plan to use TPCK, which stands for Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Basically, this helps teachers when planning lessons to think about not simply the technology they will use but also the methods in teaching it will be used for, and also what content it can be used best with. I completely agree that this is the best method. Think about in Special Education. Every single student in a classroom could have completely different needs. Therefore, you have a lot more to think about when planning lessons, so the TPCK way is definitely the best.
ReplyDeleteThe authors of this article focus on the flaws in technocentric teaching and the solution possible through TCPK. By technocentric they imply teaching based first upon technology. This means that the teacher is adapting all classroom learning to fit with a specific technology. The argument is that in doing this teachers are not allowing the technology to benefit the learning of the students as much as if they took a TCPK approach. This approach supports their argument by first placing the focus of teaching on content and pedagogy appropriate for each subject matter and individual classroom, and then choosing the technology that best fits those needs. I fully agree tha technology should enhance pedagogy and content, but should never run the whole program. Sometimes teachers get excited about new technology and the never ending possibilities and they may forget where the focus really belongs. Not all technology, however fun and innovative it may seem, is appropriate for every classroom setting.
ReplyDeleteIn my own words, technocentric approaches to instruction means that the technology is the center of the instruction used in the classroom. This means that the material of the class or the strategies for teaching are jeopardized in order to look primarily at integrating technology into today's classrooms. The main point that the authors argue is that a technocentric approach to instruction in the classroom is an inadequate approach to teaching students and that neither a single look at content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, nor technological knowledge alone or any two of them combined is adequate to teaching students. In part, I agree that some schools and classrooms tend to be more technologically oriented, but one could argue that not all schools are classrooms are this way; however, in my experience, I see that some teachers are unable to use technology appropriately as discussed in the article. By inappropriate use I mean that teachers either use technology in a way that is not conducive to the instruction they are teaching, the technology is not applicable to the situation or instruction they are giving, or teachers are unaware of the resources they have available to them. The authors argue that TPCK, a look at the interaction of the three areas together, is the best approach to teaching students. This type of approach works best because all areas of concern are thought about rather than just one (i.e. technology is mainly considered in the technocentric classroom). What is being taught, how it is being taught, and the best way to portray what is being taught are all part of how we learn and all interact with one another whether or not all areas are considered. In my opinion, as with the authors, the best way to learn something is when all three areas are considered when teaching. For instance, many times a teacher will present US history by simply telling information to the students while the teacher is at the front of the class and the students are in rows in front of him taking notes. Is this necessarily the best strategy and use of technology to present the content of the class? This may be the best way, but I for one would rather have a teacher consider all the areas of TPCK before making such a choice.
ReplyDeleteby technocentric I think that they are meaning that there is a one sided focus on only technology and those who are technocentric are neglecting the other aspects of being a good teacher. It is important to be up to date on the technology and to know how to use it appropriately in our teaching but to only focus on technology is not enough for our students. The entire arguement of this paper seemed to be all about balance as a teacher. As teachers we need to be well rounded and in this paper it argues that we need to have ability in content knowlege, Pedagogicial knowledge, and technology knowledge. I think that the biggest fear of the authors with being technocentric is that the technology being used might not relate or just vaguely relate to the content being taught. One who is technocentric may just use technology just for the sake of using techology without any practical application. In my opinion when we are using technology in our teaching we need to make a clear and direct relation to what we are teaching to the technology that is being used. We must understand why we are using that particular tool vs using another one
ReplyDeleteHarris, Mishra and Koehlher are not in favor of a technocentric approach to technology integration. In their argument, they explain the five general approaches of technocentric teaching. All of these approaches are not sufficient for what they believe “expert teachers” should implement in classrooms. These approaches are too close minded, and only focus on the function of the technology being used, rather than understanding and discovering ways to best use the technology according to different subject matter and learning styles. In their opinion, the TPCK framework is the best approach to teaching because it involves an overall understanding of content, pedagogical, and technological knowledge. This approach to teaching is specific and well thought out. It requires teachers to embrace all aspects of teaching and learning. From this, they can develop a teaching curriculum specific to the needs of their individual students, while using the most effective technology for the subject matter. I also support the TPCK framework and think it is the smartest way to teach. I believe teachers must focus on individual needs in the classroom and go from there, rather than generalizing teaching for all students. I believe technology can and should be used in many different ways according to these needs. Incorporating technological, content, and pedagogical knowledge will make for a much more effective learning environment.
ReplyDeleteI think that Harris, Mishra, and Koehlher say that a technocentric approach to technology integration is inadequate because it starts with the allowances and constraints of the technology and then tries to fit that to the desired pedagogies and content. Technocentric is focusing on the technology and revolving the teaching around that instead of a balance of T,C, and P: technology, content, AND pedagogies. I agree with their argument because of the complex components in a classroom and by focusing on only one of those aspects you will be missing out and a lot of opportunities to help your students learn and grow. I think that we should teach by utilizing our knowledge of a combination of the three. Technology should always be used for the benefit of the students, not the convenience of the teacher so it is vital that the teacher make sure they are utilizing the best possible technologies and pedagogies for the content they are teaching their students.
ReplyDelete