Sunday, January 9, 2011
Technocentric approach - Adequate or not?
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)
slkdjfslajfsljfslddjf
ReplyDeleteI agree with this article and Harris, Mishra, and Koehlher on their argument stating that a technocentric approach towards technology is inadequate. The whole goal of using technology in a classroom is to adequately meet each students needs through technology. The technocentric approach takes the students needs and adjusts them to the technology. This cannot provide an optimal learning environment for students. The main argument of this article is that if the technology that you use as a teacher does not reflect knowledge differences in students or the ability to develop knowledge in students, the technology is not significant. I agree with this idea. We should not use technology that only lets students learn one way. Everybody is different, and therefore, everyone learns differently. Technology should incorporate this, and allow for students to expand their knowledge or their ways of learning.
ReplyDeleteHarris, Mishra, and Koehlher argue that the past approaches to integrating technology into the learning environment are insufficient because they are too technocentric; they give too much focus to technology and not enough to content and pedagogy. I agree with their argument because those past approaches imply that there is no variety or specialization needed to teach one's particular subject and age group. The approaches toward integrating technology into teaching need to be based on the student's level of understanding as well as the subject's context. By doing this, learning will be optimized based on the elements of TPCK.
ReplyDeleteHarris, Mishra, and Korhler argument is that the past technology that was implemented in the classroom was not sufficient in helping kids learn they were only teaching with technology in one way. I would have to agree with this argument. How does using one way of learning for a classroom effective, it is not. Teachers need to be aware of the kids and their understanding. If they are not then they need to implement technology in different ways so that there students can learn effectively. If a teacher implements TPCK it will make the learning process a lot easier for the students. Also, this becomes a helpful way to incorporate technology to teach every kid in your class. When every student is learning then learning becomes more fun. Kids are more willing to learn if there is technology involved and if they are understanding what they are being taught. Technology is a great learning tool if you use it in different ways to meet the needs of the kids.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with Harris, Mishra, and Koehlher's argument that a technocentric approach to technology integration is inadequate. What I understood from the article is that there seems to me more focus on the technology being used than the actual learning needs of the students and they focus too much on technology and not enough on content or pedagogy. If a teacher uses TPCK, the teacher will understand which technology tool to use, in conjunction with a good learning strategy which will help the students master the learning objective. Technology is now such an essential part of learning and is important for teachers and students to implement technology into the classroom while still meeting the needs of the students. TPCK puts the teacher in the position to implement the technology available to them to the best of their abilities in order to match the students needs so they can learn effectively.
ReplyDeleteThe argument posed in this article states that a technocentric approach to technology is insufficient for the classroom. This is because the basic needs of each student are not the focus point; rather, the technology is and each student is expected to shape themselves around it. This is not an approach that caters to the individuality of every student and I feel that it is an inadequate way of teaching and focusing on technology. It should be the technology that is versatile and changes to meet the needs of the different students and their abilities.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Harris, Mishra, and Koehlher regarding their view on a technocentric approach versus a TPAK approach. They believe that a technocentric approach is inadequate. It is believed to be inadequate because it fails to focus on the individual needs of each student, but instead focuses on how to implement a particular type of technology into a classroom or lesson. An additional problem with this is that a technocentric approach fails to also take into account grade level or age. However, a TPAK approach takes into consideration the needs of the student first and then looks into what type of technology would be most beneficial to him/her and helping them achieve their learning goals. I agree with their view in that the TPAK approach is a better way to look at technology. It is more beneficial because it focuses on technology, content, pedagogical approaches and knowledge in order to make a decision. Overall, student needs should not be sacrificed for the sake of technology. The TPAK framework in a way protects the student.
ReplyDeleteIn the article, the authors argue that the technocentric approach to education is not adequate. The technocentric idea is that of basing your teaching first on technology constraints and then on the student's needs. As I understand it, using this approach a teacher would analyze the technology available and then adjust her teaching according to that, rather than basing it on the needs of the students. I agree with the argument that this approach is inadequate.
ReplyDeleteTeaching should be based on the needs of the students. After the student's needs and learning styles are established, then instructional technology should be implemented to match their needs. This is what TPCK is offering. To be honest, reading the argument about TPCK was overwhelming to me. It seems very intricate and complicated when reading it, but I agree with the basic idea. A teacher should take into account student’s needs, content to be covered, and knowledge of technology and combine them to best meet the needs of the student. After all, the success of our students is what teaching is all about.
This article argues that a technocentric approach to teaching is inadequate. I understood this to mean that technology is not being used to cater to the individual needs of the student but moreover; it is being used in the classroom regardless of abilities or age groups without consideration of its purpose. The TPCK approach supports Harris, Mishra, and Koehlers’ argument because it is a balanced method of teaching, taking into consideration the content of the subject and the needs of the child to chose a suitable technology resource. I agreed with this article because I think that not enough imaginative play is used nowadays. Four year olds are being taught to use a computer and not to play dress up. I think technology should be used in conjunction with other techniques of teaching and not just randomly just because it is available. Technology is wonderful and can really help students to learn but it can also restrict them when over used.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Harris, Mishra, and Koehlher, a technocentric approach to technology integration falls short of being an optimal teaching method. In these authors' opinion, teachers who focus more on technology than the content or pedagogy of their teaching forget the real reason they're in the classroom. A technocentric ideology goes against the TPCK approach to teaching because it does not maintain balance between the three pillars. As with anything in life, when more attention is given to one area, the other areas will suffer.
ReplyDeleteI hate to jump on the bandwagon here, but my natural inclination after reading Harris, Mishra, and Koehlher's take on technocentric approaches to teaching made sense. (I would be interested in reading an article that disagrees to see both sides of the argument). According to TPCK, all three areas- content, pedagogy, and technology- are of equal importance and are, ideally, inseparable. When one becomes consumed with trying to make sure that the classroom is up to speed with the latest in technology, the students won't be learning what they need, they'll be learning how to use cool gadgets. Technology should be used to enhance learning about what matters. Unless a student is in a tech-class, their focus should be on content, not the technology used to obtain that content.
I think that the argument Harris, Mishra, and Koehler were making is self-explanatory: a “technocentric” approach to technology integration is inadequate. (“Technocentricity” meaning a focus on technology in typical settings and trying to adapt the needs of the child to the technology). They suggested that this is a rather backwards approach, as students’ needs within the curriculum standards should be determined first to then see what technologies would work best for them. They supported their argument with the simple fact that teaching with technology is not being used as effectively and efficiently as it could be due to a lack of understanding about the ever-changing technology around us. It is a pretty clear argument to agree with; there are so many technological possibilities around us to be used while teaching that are not being successfully utilized. Their argument was that the knowledge a teacher has of the interaction between content, pedagogy, and technology creates a good learning environment (TPCK). I fully agree that a teacher needs to not just know a lot about the subject matter they are teaching, but they also need to understand the different ways that such a subject can be taught and learned. With such a foundation, they can then look to see what technology would improve the efficiency and effectiveness of learning that material, adapting the technology FOR the student.
ReplyDeleteThe argument that the writers make is that a "technocentric" approach is inadequate. This approach relies too heavily on using technology to teach students, and their argument is that it does not place enough emphasis on each individual student's needs. Because of its heavy reliance on technological knowledge, content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge are neglected.
ReplyDeleteI agree with their argument, because I do not feel that the use of technology is always needed or even appropriate for students to learn effectively. I think that it is most important that a teacher knows the content of the subject and is able to teach it well to his or her students, and that a knowledge of technology should be used to further their pedagogical skills and teach the content effectively.
In this article Harris, Mishra, and Koehler argue that a “technocentric” approach in the classroom is very inadequate because the focus on the technology leaves the pedagogy and content to suffer. I could not agree more with this statement. The ultimate goal all teachers have is to find a proper balance between technology, pedagogy, and content. This technocentric approach, however, makes the content and pedagogy fit into the available technology. Instead, the technology should enhance these two aspects, not hinder them. When these aspects are diminished, the students are the ones who ultimately suffer. They may be so focused on learning how to use the technology that they miss the content entirely. Even if some students do well with technology, there is a good chance that many others do not learn best this way. Instead of a technocentric mindset, all teachers should strive for TPCK if they want to see their students succeed.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the argument made in this article. Although technology can be a great help in teaching, it can also distract from the subject matter. I have been in a few classes where my teacher would use all the newest gadgets. The children were more focused on the technology, such as the smartboard, rather than on what the teacher was trying to show the class. Technology can be beneficial for certain subjects, such as using interactive songs on the smartboard during music time. It gets the students more involved in the activity and they are more engaged. However, I have seen some smartboards used in special education classes for all subject matter. This causes the students to not focus on the activity as much because they are used to the smart board and not as engaged by it.
ReplyDeleteTechnology, when used properly, can help improve instruction in classrooms. When used excessively, however, it can detract from the lesson and become a distraction.
Harris, Mishra, and Koehler argue that the technology used in classroom teaching is too technocentric and leads to one-sided teaching. I would agree with their arguement. Technology is to be used to enhance a child's education. It is not the center of a child's education. Every child is unique and learns differently. TPACK supports the argument of Harris, Mishra and Koehler because TPACK includes the combined use and important of content, pedagogy and technology. Technology will to nothing to help improve a child's education if the content of pedagogical knowledge is lacking. Content and pedagogy must come first with the technology coming in after. Teachers must be careful not to plan a lesson around a certain piece of technology that they want to use.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the argument made by Harris, Mishra, and Koehler. They argue that the technocentric approach is ineffective. It does not address all students needs. With the TPCK approach, the teacher can look at all possible ways that will benefit the classroom the most. It shows how nondigital and digital technology both benefit one another and if combined effectively, it can make the class the best learning environment for each student. TPCK is a more customized approach because it looks at what works best for each student individually and what will realistically work for the classroom. I strongly agree with the authors of this paper that TPCK is a better teaching approach than technocentric.
ReplyDeleteThe argument that is made by Hishura, Mishura and Kohler is that technology is being misused. They state that the teachers have become technocentric and they are more focused on the technology and not how to effectively incorporate it in their classrooms. They talk about how it is important to use TPACK and integrate Technology pedagogy and content. When the teacher is more focused on the content and teaching techniques then the technology is a support. Rather than tailoring the content and the pedagogy to what the technology can help with. I would have to agree with them and their opinion. I think that the classroom needs and the individual student need should come before what kind of technology is being used. Technology is very helpful and of course should be incorporated into the classroom. The teacher just cannot get to overzealous in the way that they use technology.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Harris, Mishra, and Koeler had to say. Their mane argument is that the technology approach is not effective. While technology can provide for a great tool in educating students, the education should not be focused on the technology, but rather what the student learns by using the technology. We live in a day and age where technology is at the forefront of everything and we need to be careful so that it does not take priority to the education of our students. By using the TPCK approach, the teacher can use explore different resources that we be sure the benefit each student by teaching them the subject matter while acquainting them with technology.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the article written by Harris, Mishra, and Koehlher, technocentric approach to education is inadequate. This approach first focuses on the technology and secondly on the students, stating that teachers would evaluate the technology available to them and then adjust their teach style to revolve around the technology and not the students. I agree that the technocentric approach is ineffective, and inadequate because the focus on teaching should be based on the students and not the technology that is available. Once a teacher has established how a child learns, then they can go about adjusting their technology to match the students. Teachers need to focus on TPACK which is a program that focuses on how technology can be changed/ adapted to fit the child’s need. TPACK focuses on how to best help a child, by a combination of content, pedagogy and technology.
ReplyDeleteThe argument made here is that the past approach was ineffective in teaching the students. I agree with this statement because I feel that when you become so enthralled into technology that you lose some of the power of teaching. Teachers can forget about the "one" student that they are supposed to be helping and just seem to think that every technology thing can be applicable to every student; forgetting that each and every student learns differently. TPCK is a good alternative approach because it places the teaching and the learning aspects on the forefront again with technology taking the backside. Technology can be very effective in teaching, but not when it is the essence of the teaching, it needs to be merely a tool.
ReplyDeleteHarris, Mishra, and Koehlher state that the technocentric approach is not appropriate. I agree with their opinion. The technocentric approach states that teachers should learn the technology in one way and apply it in that one way only. This way of thinking puts the use of technology first and the success of the child second. This is not conducive to the "child first" way of adapting learning we have been discussing. The TPACK program states that teachers should use technology in ways that will best help the student by using a combination of content, technology, and pedagogy.
ReplyDeleteAs was stated in the article, keeping up with each form of technology is difficult, but it can be done. What is best for the student is best for the student... nothing should compete with that.
The main idea of this article by Harris, Mishra, and Koehlher is that a technocentric approach to integrating technology is not the best approach for teaching. This approach puts the technology first and not the students needs which should really be a teachers main focus. Technology should be used in a way to help the students reach there goals. I agree with this, it is important that as teachers our lesson should be focused on the needs of students and not the technology.
ReplyDeleteThe article then presents the TPACK program which states that teachers should use technology to help there students by using an equal balance of content, technology, and pedagogy. This is important to keep in mind since we all hope to become teachers one day in the future.(The needs of our students is number one.)
In Teachers' Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge "Harris, Mishra, and Koehlher make a case for why a technocentric approach to technology integration is inadequate". I agree that a technocentric approach is inadequate because technology does not always have to be used to teach. The technocentric approach requires you to fit technology into your classroom wherever possible. This is not always necessary. The teacher should be the most focused on the students and their needs, not what the latest technology is and how they can squeeze it into their lesson. I have seen amazing lesson ruined because a teacher just had to show this cool clip or use the latest gadget to demonstrate. I'm definitely not against using technology in the classroom but sometimes the best lessons are given without the use of technology. I think the pedagogical and content parts are more important then the technology part in TPACK although they are all extremely important.
ReplyDeleteThe author's argument is that rather than starting with the content of the knowledge needing to be taught, the technocentric approach begins from the technological way of teaching, which turns out to not be very effective at all. Some teachers place this section of the TPCK approach higher than the others and that's where they are wrong - each one should be at the same level for this approach to work the best.
ReplyDeleteBecause of the way they presented their argument, I was convinced of their opinion. They were able to present the three-sided "Contexts" which thoroughly dissected the framework of TPCK, and took me through a step-by-step pathway to really understanding their argument. I thought this approach, leading up to the "Holy Grail", was a smart way of organizing their ideas and has been the best way for me to understand and support their ideas about TPCK.