TEACHING PRIORITIES IN TECHNOLOGY AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION

Authors

  • Lyuben Vitanov Sofia University, “St. Kliment Ohridski “ Bulgaria

Keywords:

priorities in technology and entrepreneurship education, cognitivism, pragmatism, humanism, connectivism, STEAM, active learning

Abstract

The education in technology and entrepreneurship is aimed at the formation of two k ey competencies:
technological and entrepreneurial, which makes its place in the general education preparation at the initial stage of
learning especially important. This also sets higher requirements for dynamic changes and priorities in line with the
pri orities in the European Education Policy, as well as the new STEM orientations in education.
This article discusses the main methodological concepts and guidelines for
determining pedagogic al priorities in
teaching and learning in technology and entrepreneurship. They are structured in several directions: constructivist,
pragmatic, humanistic, connectivist, STEAM priorities, as well as orientation towards active learning. The main
approaches and the resulting specific changes in approaches, methods and techniques of training are considered.
Cognitive priorities are aimed at acquiring more procedural knowledge and skills, accessibility of training in
teaching learning content on a practical basis and more. The pragmatic orientation is aimed at changes in the
development of generally applicable competencies and basic skills such as entrepreneurship, critical thinking and
creativity, as well as strengthening practical work and integration. Constructivist prioriti es are based on more
systematic support of students' "concepts" and perceptions of technology and entrepreneurship, as well as
strengthening collaborative learning and synergies in the learning community. Humanistic priorities are aimed at
teaching more pe rsonally significant knowledge, increasing the affectivity of learning as well as developing self
confidence and positive self esteem. The priorities directed by connectivism are related to the more active
involvement of information and communication techn ologies and the formation of skills to draw on the experience
and competencies gained in digital networks. Important STEAM priorities and priorities for active learning through
more research, project work, problem solving, business games, etc. are also ide ntified.

References

Брунер, Д. (1962). Процесс обучения. М., АПН на РСФСР.

Брунер, Д. (1995). Психология на познанието. Педагогика, кн. 9/1995 г.

Виготски, Л. (1983). Мислене и реч. София: Наука и изкуство.

Гарднър, Х. (2014). Множеството интелигентности. Нови хоризонти в теорията и практиката. София: Изток- Запад.

Голман, Д. (2011). Емоционалната интелигентност. София: Изток-Запад.

Дюи, Д. (1941). Опитът като основа на образованието. София: Стоян Георгиев.

Дюи, Д. (2006). Моето педагогическо кредо. Култура, бр. 31 (2690).

Жиордан, А. (1995). Отказ от конструктивизма ли са новите образователни модели. Перспек¬тиви. ЮНЕСКО, т. ХХV, №1, бр. 93

Иванов, И. (2004). Теории за образованието. Шумен: УИ „Еп. Константин Преславски“.

Иванова, М. (2010). Теория и методика на обучението по бит, техника и технологии. Пловдив: УИ „Паисий Хилендарски“.

Митова, Д. (2011). Проектно базираното технологично обучение. Теория и методика. Благоевград: УИ „Неофит Рилски“.

Плачков, С. (2014). Оценяване качеството на образователния пакет за технологично обучение в първи клас. Благоевград: УИ „Неофит Рилски“.

Роджър, К. (2015). Начин да бъдеш. София: Изток-Запад

Селигман, М. (2017). Благоденствие. София: Хермес.

Стърнбърг, Р., & Уилямс, У. (2014). Педагогическа психология. София: Изток-Запад.

DeCarvalho, R. (1991). The humanistic paradigm in education. The Humanistic Psychologist, 19 (1), 88 – 104.

Hurrell, D. (2021). Conceptual knowledge or procedural knowledge or conceptual knowledge and procedural knowledge: Why the conjunction is important to teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 46(2), 57 – 71.

Kelley, T.R., & Knowles, J.G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. IJ STEM Ed 3, 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z

Moon, J. (2004). A Handbook of Reflective and Experiential Learning: Theory and Practice. London, NY: Routledge.

Moon, J., & Singer, S. R. (2012). Bringing STEM into focus. Education Week, 31(19), 32.

Ord, J. (2012). John Dewey and Experiential Learning: Developing the theory of youth work. Youth & Policy, 108(1), 55 – 72.

Sawyer, T., White, M., Zaveri, P., Chang, T., Ades, A., French, H., & Kessler, D. (2015). Learn, see, practice, prove, do, maintain: an evidence-based pedagogical framework for procedural skill training in medicine. Academic Medicine, 90(8), 1025 – 1033.

Siemens, G. (2017). Connectivism. Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology. https://lidtfoundations.pressbooks.com/chapter/connectivism-a-learning-theory-for-the-digital-age/

White, D. W. (2014). What Is STEM Education and Why Is It Important? Florida Association of Teacher Educators Journal, 1 (14), 1 – 9.

Williams, M. K. (2017). John Dewey in the 21st century. Journal of Inquiry and Action in Education, 9(1), 7.

Xie, Y., Fang, M., & Shauman, K. (2015). STEM education. Annual review of sociology, 41, 331 – 357.

https://stem.mon.bg.

Downloads

Published

2023-02-23

How to Cite

Vitanov, L. (2023). TEACHING PRIORITIES IN TECHNOLOGY AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION. KNOWLEDGE - International Journal , 50(2), 221–227. Retrieved from https://ikm.mk/ojs/index.php/kij/article/view/4929