Kritiek op technocentrisme en constructivisme in het onderwijs
1.In her editorial, Harris tries to explain why manyif not mostlarge-scale technology integration efforts are perceived to have failed. Recall Seymour Paperts LOGO in the 1980s, Apple Classroom of Tomorrow in the 1990s, and schools that abandoned 1:1 laptops in the past few years. She offers two reasons: technocentrism and pedagogical dogmatism.
Borrowing Seymour Paperts coined word, technocentric, Harris... points to the blinders that eager policymakers, administrators, and teachers wore (and continue to wear) in embracing the next new gadget.
Technocentrists, she says, seek educational uses for particular technologies. Instead, educators must focus upon how best to assist students learning. Many teachers and principals have said repeatedly to the point of the words being cliched: integrating technology is not about technology, it is about learning. Yet those who buy and deploy new technologiesnote that most teachers are seldom involved in such decisionscontinue to seek educational uses for the electronic devices. Thus, technocentrism rules.
2. Kritiek op constructivisme
Harriss second reason is pedagogical dogmatism. Among academics, particularly, and many educators there is a decided tilt toward progressive pedagogy, now called in its various incarnations, constructivism. As an example she quotes Christopher Moersch, author of LoTi (Levels of Technology Implementation), a popular tool used to measure classroom use of technology. The designer expresses an unvarnished preference for one kind of teaching:
As a teacher progresses from one level to the next, a series of changes
is observed. The instructional focus shifts from being teacher-centered to being learner-centered
. Traditional verbal activities are gradually replaced by authentic hands-on-inquiry related to a problem
Harris find the same bias toward constructivist teaching in other commonly used tools, even in the 739-page major work called Education and Technology: An Encyclopedia.