{"title":"人工智能与教育目标:创造者、管理者还是信息者?","authors":"Geoffrey M. Cox","doi":"10.1007/s11217-023-09907-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The recent appearance of generative artificial intelligence (AI) platforms has been seen by many as disruptive for education. In this paper I attempt to locate the source of tension between educational goals and new information technologies including AI. I argue that this tension arises from new conceptions of epistemic agency that are incompatible with educational aims. I describe three competing theories of epistemic agency which I refer to as Makers, Managers, and Inforgs. I contend that educators are correct in maintaining the first of these, which is rooted in the educational theories of Locke and Dewey, as their main educational purpose. Competing theories do not serve the goals of learners, even as they must prepare for life in a very different epistemic environment.</p>","PeriodicalId":47069,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Philosophy and Education","volume":"130 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Artificial Intelligence and the Aims of Education: Makers, Managers, or Inforgs?\",\"authors\":\"Geoffrey M. Cox\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11217-023-09907-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The recent appearance of generative artificial intelligence (AI) platforms has been seen by many as disruptive for education. In this paper I attempt to locate the source of tension between educational goals and new information technologies including AI. I argue that this tension arises from new conceptions of epistemic agency that are incompatible with educational aims. I describe three competing theories of epistemic agency which I refer to as Makers, Managers, and Inforgs. I contend that educators are correct in maintaining the first of these, which is rooted in the educational theories of Locke and Dewey, as their main educational purpose. Competing theories do not serve the goals of learners, even as they must prepare for life in a very different epistemic environment.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47069,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies in Philosophy and Education\",\"volume\":\"130 5\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies in Philosophy and Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-023-09907-2\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Philosophy and Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-023-09907-2","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
Artificial Intelligence and the Aims of Education: Makers, Managers, or Inforgs?
The recent appearance of generative artificial intelligence (AI) platforms has been seen by many as disruptive for education. In this paper I attempt to locate the source of tension between educational goals and new information technologies including AI. I argue that this tension arises from new conceptions of epistemic agency that are incompatible with educational aims. I describe three competing theories of epistemic agency which I refer to as Makers, Managers, and Inforgs. I contend that educators are correct in maintaining the first of these, which is rooted in the educational theories of Locke and Dewey, as their main educational purpose. Competing theories do not serve the goals of learners, even as they must prepare for life in a very different epistemic environment.
期刊介绍：
Studies in Philosophy and Education is an international peer-reviewed journal that focuses on the philosophical, theoretical, normative and conceptual problems and issues in educational research, policy and practice. As such, Studies in Philosophy and Education is not the expression of any one philosophical or theoretical school or cultural tradition. Rather, the journal promotes exchange and collaboration among philosophers, philosophers of education, educational and social science researchers, and educational policy makers throughout the world. Contributions that address this wide audience, while clearly presenting a philosophical argument and reflecting standards of academic excellence, are encouraged.
Topics may range widely from important methodological issues in educational research as shaped by the philosophy of science to substantive educational policy problems as shaped by moral and social and political philosophy and educational theory. In addition, single issues of the journal are occasionally devoted to the critical discussion of a special topic of educational and philosophical importance. There is also a frequent Reviews and Rejoinders’ section, featuring book review essays with replies from the authors.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
