Sie sind auf Seite 1von 17

Discerning Humane Technogogy 1

Discerning Humane Technogogy


Dianne Johnson-Wojnicki EDTECH 504 (Spring 2013) Submitted to: K. Diane Hall May 9, 2013

Discerning Humane Technogogy 2 Abstract The purpose of this paper is to characterize the components of humane technogogical learning experiences. The Humanistic learning theory will be explored and used as the basis for developing these learning experiences. Educational technology will be scrutinized to facilitate the conclusions drawn regarding the definition of technogogy and its relevance to effective and efficient learning experiences for all ages. The conceptualization of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) and Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) will be compared and contrasted to examine their relative shortcomings with respect to incorporating learner-centered, technology-infused learning experiences for all ages. In an effort to overcome the deficiencies of the PCK and TPCK, an alternative model, Technogogical Content Knowledge (TCK) will be introduced. The term technogogy will be defined, described and conceptualized to give relevance to its pertinence in a model for developing learning experience. Finally, the future of humane technogogically designed learning experiences will be explored.

Discerning Humane Technogogy 3

What is Humanism? Epistemologically speaking, Humanism can be most simply stated as the human desire for knowledge or to learn is innate. In other words, learning is not an observable response to a particular stimuli, (Smith & Ragan, 2005) as Behaviorists would contend, or a matter of mapping the structure of the world to the learner in terms of Jonassens view of Constructivism (as cited in H. B. Long & Associates, 1994), nor is it the mere transformation of information within the brain (Atkinson and Shiffrin, 1968) as Cognitivism maintains. David C. Davis vividly describes Humanism as an ideology that views people as dynamic self-actualizing entities ever becoming their potential best (as cited in Willers, 1974, p. 40). From a theoretical prospective, Humanism may be most closely linked to the Social/Situated paradigm of Lave and Wenger in terms of interaction and observation (Thompson, 2005). Carl Rogers, one of the most significant contributors to the humanistic theory of learning, and the originator of person-centered significant or experimental learning addressed the learner at three significant levels; intellect, social skills, and feelings or intuitions (see Figure 1) (Motsching-Pitnk, 2005). According to Rogers (1983), Significant learning combines the

logical and the intuitive, the intellect and the feelings, the concept and the experience, the idea and meaning. When we learn in that way, we are whole. (p. 20) When learning is approached from a Rogerian point of view specific elements of the human experience are essential. For

Discerning Humane Technogogy 4 example, a persons feelings and cognitive properties are part of the learning event, even if initiated by an outside stimulus the sense of discovery and comprehension come from within. Behaviors, attitudes and possibly even the personality of the learner are influenced, irrespective the learner determines if the experience has met the need, and the fundamental nature of the experience provides meaning to the learner. The goal of humanistic education is to develop self-actualizing persons. Humanity requires more than mere intelligence and technical know-how. Humanity requires dealing with relationships, cooperation, understanding, acceptance, self-respect, respect for others, honesty and responsibility. Abraham Maslow would use all of the aforementioned qualities to describe the self-actualizing person (as cited in Patterson, 1987). These objectives would appear to be desirable and unobjectionable. However, humanistic educational objectives cannot be readily assessed by performance based techniques primarily because humanistic educational objectives are a matter of meaning. Meaning is internal and not outwardly available for direct investigation. Humanistic learning goals emphasis is on the creation and maintenance of process and meaning rather than the ends. These Humanistic educational goals do not fit neatly into an accountability paradigm where the learning goals are rigidly set, achieved, and assessed. As a result the humanistic theory of learning is often regarded as soft, unscientific, fuzzy minded and generally opposed to progress. (Combs, 1973) Nevertheless, proponents of the Humanistic theory of learning have persevered; neuroscientific research continues to provide evidence of a dynamic inner consciousness in control of the brains neurochemical components. The evidence provided as a result of the research indicates that the conscious mind is objective and observable. This new and more acceptable view of the mind adds credibility to the scientific aspects of human nature;

Discerning Humane Technogogy 5 establishing dignity which had been diminished through the accountability-centered learning theorists approach of learning outcomes. Whether deemed scientific or unscientific, measureable or unmeasurable, objective or subjective the fundamental philosophy of the Humanistic Theory lies within the learner, the person, the human. What is Educational Technology? Educational Technology could be defined as a process and methodology that when applied will utilize any form of medium to effectively and efficiently engage learners into selfmotivational, learner-centered, knowledge acquiring experiences that can be customized to the specifics of pedagogy, subject matter content, student characteristics, and the environmental context of learning (Cochran et al. 1993, p. 266). The technology used for educational purposes has evolved from chalk and slate, to paper and pen, white board, electronic tablet, CMSs, LMSs and the world-wide-web. The rich learning experience afforded to learners by technology today and tomorrow will never be as limiting as the boundaries of a four wall classroom. If the goal of the educational community is to provide efficient, effective, practicable and meaningful learning experiences to learners remains constant, than these learning experiences should be organized, prepared and implemented to promote exploration, engagement, empowerment and ease of use (Oblinger et al, 2001). Within this framework it can be explicitly stated that learning does not improve simply because of advances in technology nor does teaching become less complicated merely by incorporating technology. In other words, content is meaningless without context (Idrus & McComas, 2006). Context cannot be created using technology. Merely, reading content from a computer screen does not produce the contextual requirements for a meaningful learning experience. Learning with technology will not make the process more effective, practical or

Discerning Humane Technogogy 6 meaningful. Learning can only be improved when it is grounded in practical learning theory. Under these circumstances it is imperative that learning experiences in the digital era are developed with a methodology that is relevant to the power, potential, and versatility of the plethora of educational technology available today. When contemplating the use of technology to support learning experiences the possibilities for inclusion are endless, whether stand alone, online, offline, synchronous, asynchronous, virtual reality, gaming, or blended they must be grounded in solid pedagogical theory. The tool should not require the learner to expend useful cognitive resources to master rather than the content. This premise specifically applies to an environment encapsulated by a Learning Management System where the LMS takes on the role of the educator. Additionally, learning styles play a factor when determining modes of instruction, study and learning approaches, preferences for input and process or information, i.e. observing and hearing, reflecting and acting, reasoning and deducing. Thus regardless of the technology utilized to present the information the objective should be to build on learners preferred and less preferred modes of learning . This is precisely where the incorporation of technology and a multi-media environment can provide a pedagogy-rich foundation while increasing the propensity to bridge the gap between learners preferred styles and approaches to instruction. It could be said that educational technology affordances should be used to aid in the representation of content, engaging of learners, modeling of skills and assessing learner progress in a manner similar to how a carpenter uses a saw, hammer, screwdriver and wrench to construct an artifact (Dede, 2008). The analogy that should be drawn with this example is that the tools are used to make the job easier to accomplish and the result is of much higher quality that could be accomplished without the tools. However, technology should not be used to merely duplicate

Discerning Humane Technogogy 7 accomplishments already achieved; the use of technology should be to attain greater levels of participation and engagement within learning experience than can be reached within the current constraints. Dede goes on to state that even the pundits of educational technologies are finally recognizing that the quality of learning experiences utilizing educational technology cannot be disputed (2005). Whether, used to compliment face-to-face instruction as in the case of hybrid or blended or a means of distance learning educational technology is becoming commonplace. What is Technogogy? In a world where the domain of information and communication technologies (ICT) is evolving at what sometimes appears to be the speed of light it is increasingly difficult to separate the technology from the pedagogy. It is no longer a question of whether technology will be integrated into a learning experience but rather how the technology will be integrated or deployed to create innovative opportunities for learning experiences. Consequently, the development and formulation of theoretical and conceptual frameworks to guide the integration and deployment of technology into beneficial learning experiences has not kept pace. In an effort to overcome this disparity a great deal of research has been conducted to influence the discernment of technology integration. Accordingly the concept of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) was introduced by Shulman in 1986, identifying distinct bodies of knowledge to facilitate learning. Concisely stated, PCK encompasses an appreciation of students preconceptions and learning difficulties, it also includes the most effective forms of representation, the most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations, demonstrations, and any additional means of representing and formulating the subject in constructs that are comprehendible to learners. (Angeli & Valanides, 2009) This proposition is most effectively appreciated using a Venn diagram to

Discerning Humane Technogogy 8 illustrate the intersection of content and pedagogy from the learners perspective (see Figure 2) (Connell & Slough, 2006). While Shulman included various tools for instruction including

computer technology in his complete description he neglected to unequivocally examine technology as it relates to the other components; content, pedagogy, and learners. The mere addition of technology into curriculum does not necessarily produce desired outcomes without a clear vision of how these technological affordances can be exploited to enrich and enhance learning experiences. Thus, a more far reaching depiction would be required to include the technological affordances available for improving learning experiences. In 2005 Koehler and Mishra introduced a deeper conceptualization incorporating; content, pedagogy, technology and learners. Clearly, the intent of this representation was to depict the relationship of all three elements to develop relevant content-specific strategies enriching learning experiences. In doing so it evaluated awareness of the inter-relationships that exits between all elements, but most significantly the aspect of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge, at the intersection of all three factors (see Figure 3) (Angeli & Valanides, 2009). This critical intersection is perceived to be an essential component in the framework for

Discerning Humane Technogogy 9

developing, implementing and researching technology and learning. So much so, in 2005, the Association of Science Teacher Educator (ASTE) denoted this intersection as electronic Pedagogical Content Knowledge (ePCK) while defining ePCK as understanding how technology implementation in science curricular contexts may be used to promote the teaching and learning of science (as cited in Slough & Connell, 2006). Although finally included in the framework, technology is still minimized to the intersection of all three predominately teacherinitiated concerns; what subject matter, which pedagogical approach, as well as when and how to use the technology. It is here at the intersection of these three elements of learning that the notion of technogogy can be illuminated. The Greek root of the term pedagogy means to lead children, thus often referred to as the art and science of teaching children. However, it could be construes that the meaning is more broadly teacher-focused education (Conner, 2004, p. 1). Pedagogy can be further translated to imply that teachers assume the responsibility of deciding what will be learned, how it will be learned and when it will be learned. Andragogy on the other hand is most commonly defined as the art and science of teaching adults. The implications of these two terms suggest that andragogy means learner-focused (Conner, 2004) education while pedagogy

Discerning Humane Technogogy 10 means teacher-centered education. With the ever increasing use of technology to enrich learning experiences the term technogogy has been introduced into the nomenclature of educational narratives to define learner-focused, technology-infused education for all ages where the learner is focusing the infusion of technology rather than the teacher (Connell & Slough, 2006). Here within this small intersection is where we can finally discern human technogogy; where the technology glorified in flashy, glitzy razzle-dazzle multimedia, audio, visual, simulation, animation and collaboration must unite with the learning experience, the function of the educator, the needs of the learners with respect to style and deficiencies encompassing learning theory and pedagogical preference to accurately facilitate person-centered leaning. The danger this conceptualization presents is the ability of a facilitator to focus on one domain while excluding the other two. In other words, inadequate or unsound pedagogy is still pedagogy. Circumventing instructional technology with lecture or text remains a technological decision. This conceptualization also adds to the complexity of facilitating in an environment where isolated decisions must be made regarding content, pedagogy and technology. The burden becomes more predominant when the learning experiences are less learner-centered. An alternative conceptualization of Technogogical Pedagogical Content Knowledge is to consider each of the circles in the Venn diagram as lenses, where the facilitating and learning experiences for all ages can be viewed (see figure 4). By broadening this lens metaphor, when a component of a learning experience is viewed through multiple lenses the component is magnified similar to a microscope or telescope. By using this imagery we can infer, when facilitating and learning experience are viewed through the combined lenses of content and technology the outcome is magnified. Better outcomes and increased facilitation are defined with more focused and professional development in a collaborative process. This leads to more

Discerning Humane Technogogy 11 focused lenses as opposed to merely using larger lenses. When viewed from this perspective one must presuppose that these lenses are not fixed, accordingly as a single lens can become more

focused the entire assemblage can be influenced to add focus to the entire process. To acquire the benefit of this multiple lens arrangement it is critical that both lenses be used to facilitate learning outcomes. By using this conceptualization of technogogy the decisions on the use of content, pedagogy and technology are clearly linked. This representation also suggests that the facilitator is viewing and guiding the learning experience through the content and pedagogy rather than controlling these components. The Future of Humane Technologically Derived Learning Experiences. Having digested the underpinnings of the nature of humane technogogically designed learning experiences it is not hard to understand the slow rate at which these types of learning experiences are being adapted into the education process. To fully understand the dilemma that faces the proponents of humane technogogically designed person-centered learning the detrimental factors must first be characterized. The first component of difficulty is the requisite that educators possess social skill and facilitative attitudes. Secondly, course design and resource

Discerning Humane Technogogy 12 procurement requires far greater level of organization. And lastly, given the increased individual style and situated nature of the learning experience an increased level of communication in both the organizational and subject related domains. In an effort to counterbalance the need for humane technogogically designed person-centered learning and the obstacles preventing the implementation of such beneficial educational endeavors researchers and practitioners have elaborated on several frameworks, models, languages, and virtual communities to develop tangible formats to promote the adoption of this educational approach. Of significant interest is research conducted by Derntl and Motschnig-Pitrk (2003) intended to develop a patterning language to develop reusable web-based templates for recurring interactions. The process involves collaboratively and informally capturing personal experience from teaching activities. These experiences are evaluated and once a person-centered teaching activity has repeatedly proven effective the pattern materializes. The activities can then be modeled into patterns or reoccurring events which can in turn be published for reuse. This process can be used to encapsulate not only the learning activities but feedback, goals and expectations, and peer-review processes. Once a significant number of the various types of patterns have been successfully published it is the intension of these practitioners to create a web-based repository enabling rapid and simple access based on the educators specified search criteria, i.e. subject matter, learner proficiency, number of participants. This approach to streamlining the organizational overhead associated with person-centered learning can then be realized by introducing a well-documented handbook of teaching and learning scenarios supported by web based prototypes. In addition to the research conducted to explore designing user-friendly technogogical person-centered learning, studies also indicate positive emotions stimulated by the

Discerning Humane Technogogy 13 collaborative interactivity of technology-based learning environments have the potential to promote cognitive processing, enhance performance and increase intrinsic motivation for learning (Hsu, 2008). There are countless references in literary research documenting learners participation and cognitive processes were positively affected through the use of asynchronous learning environments. Learners also perceive the quality of threaded online discussions as superior to traditional classroom dialogues. And students typically quiet, even silent, during face-to-face interactions reclaim their voice during mediated interaction (Dede, 2008). These endorsements are difficult to ignore. When faced with the empirical research indicating the proven benefits of person-centered learning approaches (Aspy 1972; Rogers & Frieberg 1994) and overwhelming reality that technology infused education will gain increased acceptance within society one must contemplate the effects technogogy will have on future learners. By reflecting on the definition of the term technogogy as provided by Connell & Slough, learner-focused, technology-infused education for all ages where the learner is focusing the infusion of technology rather than the teacher, (2006) it would appear that learners whether young or mature would benefit from this learning approach. With the edification of all persons at the forefront of humanities aspirations the utilization of Humane Technogogical Person-Centered Learning Experiences should be explored.

Discerning Humane Technogogy 14

Conclusion Instruction begins when you, the teacher, learn from the learner; put yourself in his place so that you may understand what he learns and the way he understands it. ~~ Soren Kierkegaard

The goal of the Humanistic Theory of learning characterized herein as person-centered leaning is to develop self-actualizing persons. Although often considered unscientific in nature, empirical evidence sufficiently indicates the proven benefits of this approach to teach and learning. When learning experience are designed to incorporate the whole-person in terms of intellect, skills, and intuition or feelings they can have powerful and conceptual changing effects. As it has become evident that it is no longer a question of when technology will be used to facilitate learning experiences but how; the need develop a sound theoretical framework incorporating pedagogy, content and technology is required. It is the interconnectivity of these three elements of learning that technogogy is achieved finally establishing the objective of Humane Technogogy; learnerfocused, technology-infused education for all ages. With these intentions in mind the framework should ease the burden of the facilitator to guide and view the content from the perspective of the learner. Once this framework has been established systems must be developed to assist the educational community to continue to develop person-centered learning environments for all ages.

Discerning Humane Technogogy 15

Citations:
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICTTPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52(1), 154168. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.006
Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). "Chapter: Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes". In Spence, K. W., & Spence, J. T. The psychology of learning and motivation (Volume 2). New York: Academic Press. pp. 89195

Cochran K.F., DeRuiter J.A. & King R.A. (1993). Pedagogical content knowing: an integrative model for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 44, 263272. Combs, A. W. (1973). Educational Accountability from a Humanistic Perspective. Educational Researcher, 2(9), 1921. doi:10.2307/1174999 Conner, M. L. (2004). Andragogy and Pedagogy. Ageless Learner, 1997-2004. Retrieved Jan. 15, 2006 from http://agelesslearner.com/intros/andragogy.html. Dede, C. (2008). Theoretical perspectives influencing the use of information technology in teaching and learning . International Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education , 43-62. Retrieved from http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic603902.files/Theoretical_Perspectives_Dede_final.pdf Hsu, H.-Y. (20080630). Collaborative Interactivity as Emotional Design for Children in a Web-based Learning Environment. World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2008, 2008(1), 12571265. Retrieved from http://editlib.org/p/28547

Discerning Humane Technogogy 16 Huitt, W. (2009). Humanism and open education. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved [date], from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/affect/humed.html Idrus , R., & McComas, K. (2006). Technogogy: Facilitating the transformation of learning. In Special Issue of the International Journal of the Comput er, the Internet and Management, (p. Vol. 14 No.SP1). Retrieved from http://www.elearningap.com/eLAP2006/Proceeding/p5.1-9-fin58-keynote-Rozhan- Karen.pdf Motschnig-Pitrik, R., & Derntl, M. (20030000). Towards a Pattern Language for Person-Centered eLearning. Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2003, 2003(1), 23792382. Retrieved from http://editlib.org/p/18449 Motschnig-Pitrik, R. (2005). Person-Centered E-Learning in Action: Can Technology Help to Manifest Person-Centered Values in Academic Environments? Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 45(4), 503530.
Patterson, C. H. (1987). What Happened to Humanistic Education?. Michigan Journal of Counseling and Development, Vol. XVII, No. 1, Summer 1987, pp. 8-10. Retrieved from http://www.sageofasheville.com/pub_downloads/WHAT_HAS_HAPPENED_TO_HUMANISTIC_EDU CATION.pdf

Rogers, C. R. (1983). Freedom to learn for the 80s. Columbus, Ohio: C.E. Merrill Pub. Co. Slough, S., & Connell, M. (20060319). Defining Technogogy and its Natural Corollary, Technogogical Content Knowledge (TCK). Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2006, 2006(1), 10531059. Retrieved from http://editlib.org/p/22191 Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional design. (3rd Edition ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Discerning Humane Technogogy 17 Thompson, M. (2005). Structural and Epistemic Parameters in Communities of Practice. Organization Science, 16(2), 151164. doi:10.2307/25145957 Willers, J. C. (1975). Humanistic Education: Concepts, Criteria and Criticism. Peabody Journal of Education, 53(1), 3944. doi:10.2307/1491821

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen