CURRICULUM (identifying)
The progression of pedagogy from 20th to 21st century learning is rooted in student centered, constructivist outcomes. Curricula overhaul is necessary to match a new set of beliefs about learning by replacing dated curricular outcomes that were built for an industrial factory model (Robinson, 2010). Constructivist ideals view “learning as a personal, reflective, and transformative process where ideas, experiences, and points of view are processed into something new” (Herzing, 2004, p. 113). This process promotes inquiry and project based learning approaches, is student centered, and emphasizes the process of learning in communities of learners. Teaching practice, however is adapting slowly. Herzing (2004) argues that teachers are still “limiting instruction to drill and practice” (p. 112). To date, ministry-set curriculum has done little to steer teachers towards student centred learning or to suggest that teachers review their pedagogical beliefs. Rather, most curriculum continues to further fact based learning and retention. To illustrate, Robinson (2010) articulates that modern curriculum is doing a disservice to students. It was found that higher levels of students identified with ADHD were found in jurisdictions of higher “drill and drone” practice and standardized testing. The education system is in need of reform to match the skills needed today, not those of the enlightenment or industrial revolution. New curricula needs to be best set that promotes divergent thinking; a necessary step to creative thinking.
In addition, Harris, Mishra and Koehler (2009) argue that the majority of technology integration initiatives continue to be “technocentric.” That is, most professional development and technology integration revolves around the technology being used at the moment. However, technology is constantly changing and thus, the teaching practices are not truly transformative. The authors believe that technology, pedagogy, knowledge, and content are interconnected and should be considered together when planning for student learning. Furthermore, they contend that technology should support curricular goals and sound pedagogy, rather than curriculum being planned around a particular technology.
In addition, Harris, Mishra and Koehler (2009) argue that the majority of technology integration initiatives continue to be “technocentric.” That is, most professional development and technology integration revolves around the technology being used at the moment. However, technology is constantly changing and thus, the teaching practices are not truly transformative. The authors believe that technology, pedagogy, knowledge, and content are interconnected and should be considered together when planning for student learning. Furthermore, they contend that technology should support curricular goals and sound pedagogy, rather than curriculum being planned around a particular technology.