Technology deficit (education)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The technology deficit in education and pedagogy is a contribution by Niklas Luhmann and Karl Eberhard Schorr from 1982 [1979], published in the book “Between Technology and Self-Reference. Questions to Education ”, also published by Luhmann and Schorr. The subject of the text is the “technology deficit”, which is often only mentioned in abbreviated form. What is meant by this is the lack of a linear causal relationship between cause and effect in education, which is fundamental for any educational activity.

To the authors and to the perspective

Niklas Luhmann, sociologist (for some even the greatest sociologist of the post-war period) and systems theorist , already dealt with Parson's systems theory in the 1960s and developed his sociological systems theory from it. In 1984 - two years after the article dealt with here - one of his main works was published under the name " Social Systems ". Luhmann differentiates between different (sub) systems as well as between system and environment. This perspective on pedagogy or upbringing as a system is an important basic assumption that has to be taken into account when dealing with the technological problem, as it refers to different definitions, differentiations and consequences in the interpretation. Karl Eberhard Schorr, educationalist , may have taken a similar perspective, this can at least be assumed, an exact demarcation from Niklas Luhmann is in any case difficult to make out - but also a differentiated classification.

content

In a rough summary, the text by Luhmann and Schorr deals with the fundamental technology problem / deficit in education, describes the consequences that result from it, and sketchily formulates an approach to possible technology replacement theories that work with certain causal plans, consider the different levels of the teaching reference system and ultimately (have to) take into account the fact that there is no causality between action and effect.

In the first part of the text it is pointed out that pedagogical action cannot be clearly subsumed under causal laws, as it is too multi-layered and complex. This is due to the problem of the relationship between causality (relationship between cause and effect), rationality (intentional, conscious, goal-oriented, reasonable action) and self-reference (referring to oneself), which is central to pedagogy and apparently cannot be solved (cf.Luhmann / Schorr 1982, p. 11ff). The educational system - according to the thesis of the authors - is therefore structurally characterized by a technology deficit (cf. ibid. P. 14). “This gave rise to the question of how organizations that, with the task of changing people, also take responsibility for correct, success-oriented behavior, adjust to their technology deficit, can live with it, so to speak. And further: how professions, for which such a technology deficit is typical, compensate for this deficiency, cover it up, compensate it with idealizations or moralizations or the attribution of failure ”(ibid. P. 15). The proposal of the article is to no longer look for objective causal laws in human relationships, but instead ask for “causal plans”. These are to be understood as selective constellations of causal factors that are assumed to be objectively given. This leads to shortenings and linearizations (whereby causal plans are actually always wrong), but the shortening to a few factors as "the cause" enables attributions and purposes to be set (cf. ibid. P. 18ff). In the context of teaching, this leads to operational reductions in complexity, to shortened causal plans, which those involved use to orient themselves in relation to themselves and in relation to others. “That is the only basis of every possible theory” (ibid. P. 19) and therefore it is also radically “subjective”. In order to analyze which causal plans are in use in the system, we have to distinguish between two levels. On the one hand, the control level, on which management and science are located, and, on the other hand, the technical level (of teaching). It is important to note this difference in order to be able to understand the different factors in the development and use of causal plans. So those acting in the classroom (who in turn can be differentiated into teachers and learners) have different causal plans than observers or assessing people who are to be assigned to the control level. While the latter act in a more prejudicial manner (and thus reduce them to apparently fixed personal characteristics), from the information and actions want to generate general explanations and generalizations as well as reliable knowledge, actors in the classroom usually have more concrete information, judge more historically oriented and act or rather judge situation-relative. On the one hand, this has consequences for theoretical drafts, which are almost always developed at the control level, and, on the other hand, it has implications for the different evaluations of actions in class. Luhmann and Schorr therefore demand that this difference in levels be taken into account and that the people acting on it should reflect on their roles and thus their causal plans (cf. ibid. P. 24f). After referring to the difficulty of rationality, which cannot be achieved through causal plans, the article again takes a system-theoretical balance sheet on the technology deficit and finally draws attention to the fact that the technology problem in the classroom may “primarily be a time problem” (ibid. P . 32).

Significance for pedagogy

Luhmann and Schorr use the term to refer to the fundamental and insurmountable difficulty of a lack of linear causality between the intention of an educating person and the actually occurring effect on the person being educated. In contrast to the picture of the Nuremberg funnel , a learning process can only be stimulated, but never achieved directly. With reference to Dietrich Benner , Roland Reichenbach points out that the idea alone is not desirable , since a 100% formative upbringing no longer recognizes the freedom of the child and should therefore be condemned as "inhuman". Nevertheless, there are always efforts to make education “more successful”, especially those empirical research areas that are interested in evidence-based procedures (such as in medicine). Hermann Giesecke , among others, points out that these do not only produce unintended effects, but also little success . He points out that the technology deficit in education can be justified and described, but in principle it cannot be eliminated. Despite all attempts by empirical research and politics to formulate more concrete instructions for action, hardly any noticeable income has been generated for educational practice. Obviously, upbringing must always deal with the circumstance of (double) contingency , i.e. the fundamental uncertainty and openness in human action.

Reception in education (selection)

In his scientific contribution to an educational science compendium from 2008, Heinz-Hermann Krüger counts the system-theoretical position formulated by Luhmann and Schorr - and further developed by these and others - as one of the six basic positions in educational science and states that "meanwhile approaches of system-theoretical thinking in almost all educational sub-disciplines [were] taken up. In addition, the representatives of this theory have made it clear in concrete socio-historical and current empirical studies where the great stimulating capacity of this theory lies above all, namely for a research-based educational science that generates observer knowledge about the historical development as well as the paradoxes of the educational system, educational practice and educational reflection to be able to provide a social science reference and explanatory framework ”(p. 260f).

Other educationalists, such as the historical educational researcher Heinz-Elmar Tenorth , on the other hand, responded critically to the thesis of the technology deficit and above all refer to the much too narrowly formulated concept of effect in Luhmann's theoretical development. In addition, other specialist books in the field of education repeatedly refer to the thesis of the technology deficit. For example, found in articles by Marcelo Caruso and Alfred Schäfer on the subject of contempt for education (2007). The thesis of Luhmann and Schorr is dealt with in detail in the commemorative publication "Education in the Modern Age" (2003). Egbert Witte gives a differentiated description of the technology deficit.

Whether it is a critical discussion or (only) reference to the term and the meaning of the technology deficit, in many introductory and overview works a discussion or at least a reference to the concept of the technology deficit in education can be made out.

literature

  • Niklas Luhmann / Karl Eberhard Schorr (1982): The technology deficit of education and pedagogy. In the S. (Ed.): Between technology and self-reference. Questions to Pedagogy, Suhrkamp Verlag, Stuttgart, pp. 11–41, ISBN 3-518-27991-2

swell

  1. ↑ first printed in 1979. In: Zeitschrift für Pädagogik 25 (1979), pp. 345–365.
  2. ↑ Thomas Lindemann: Reading Luhmann is like hearing techno . Retrieved March 8, 2016.
  3. ↑ general in: Luhmann, Niklas / Schorr, Karl Eberhard (1982): The technology deficit of education and pedagogy. In the S. (Ed.): Between technology and self-reference. Questions to Pedagogy, Suhrkamp Verlag, Berlin, pp. 11–41.
  4. ↑ shortened and critical in: Tenorth, Heinz-Elmar (1999): Technologiedefizit in der Pädagogik? To criticize a misunderstanding. In: Fuhr, Thomas (Ed.): On the matter of pedagogy. Studies on the subject of general educational science. Bad Heilbrunn, Klinkhardt, p. 252.
  5. ↑ explanatory in: Witte, Egbert (2003): Luhmann observed. Notes on the relationship between systems theory and pedagogy. In: Rustemeyer, Dirk (ed.): "Education in the Modern Age", Königshausen and Neumann, pp. 393–396.
  6. ^ Reichenbach, Roland (2011): Education. In: Kade, Jochen et al .: Pedagogical knowledge. Education in basic terms. Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, pp. 20-27.
  7. ↑ Bellmann, Johannes (2005): Economic dimensions of the educational reform - unintended consequences, perverse effects, externalities. In: Neue Sammlung 45, 1/2005, pp. 15–31.
  8. ↑ Giesecke, Hermann (2004): Who (still) needs educational science? In: Neue Sammlung H. 2/2004, S. 151–165 ( http://www.hermann-giesecke.de/erzwiss.htm ) - last accessed on March 8, 2016.
  9. ↑ Luhmann; Niklas (2012): Social Systems. Outline of a general theory. 15th edition. Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 191-240.
  10. ↑ Krüger, Heinz-Hermann (2008): "Theories of Education and Educational Science" In: Faulstich-Wieland, Hannelore / Faulstich, Peter (ed.): Educational Science. A basic course. Hamburg, Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag, pp. 237–264.
  11. ^ Tenorth, Heinz-Elmar (1999): Technology deficit in pedagogy? To criticize a misunderstanding. In: Fuhr, Thomas (Ed.): On the matter of pedagogy. Studies on the subject of general educational science. Bad Heilbrunn, Klinkhardt, pp. 252-266.
  12. ↑ Tenorth, Heinz-Elmar (2002): Apology of a paradoxical technology - about the status and function of “pedagogy”. In: Böhm, Winfried (Ed.): Pedagogy. For what and for whom? Stuttgart, Klett-Cotta, pp. 70-100.
  13. ↑ Caruso, Marcelo (2007): Disappointed love. An attempt at the sources of contempt. In: Ricken, Norbert (Ed.): About the contempt for pedagogy: Analyzes - Materials - Perspectives, Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp. 113–120.
  14. ^ Schäfer Alfred (2007): The problem of baselessness as a provocation of pedagogy. In: Ricken, Norbert (Ed.): About the contempt for pedagogy: Analyzes - Materials - Perspectives, Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp. 137–158.
  15. ^ Witte, Egbert (2003): Luhmann observes. Notes on the relationship between systems theory and pedagogy. In: Rustemeyer, Dirk (ed.): "Education in the Modern Age", Königshausen and Neumann, pp. 387-410. In particular chapter 2.2.
  16. ↑ Kade, Jochen et al. (2011): Pedagogical Knowledge. Education in basic terms. Stuttgart, Kohlhammer.
  17. ↑ Faulstich-Wieland, Hannelore / Faulstich, Peter (2008): Educational Science. A basic course. Hamburg, Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag.
  18. ↑ Benner, Dietrich (2015): Allgemeine Pädagogik. A systematic and problem-historical introduction to the basic structure of pedagogical thinking and acting, 8th, revised edition. Weinheim, Beltz Juventa.

Web links