丹麦平台和教师代理的个性化想象

Q2 Social Sciences
R. Jørnø, Bjarke Lindsø Andersen, Peter Gundersen
{"title":"丹麦平台和教师代理的个性化想象","authors":"R. Jørnø, Bjarke Lindsø Andersen, Peter Gundersen","doi":"10.1080/20020317.2021.2022073","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this theoretical paper, we argue that Tech enthusiasts and skeptics are animated by the same sociotechnical personalization imaginary to improve education and teaching through personalization, but see very different paths to this goal. Tech boosters point to well-known problems of the existing education system – and rhetorically ask: ‘why shouldn’t we solve these problems with technology?’ Doomsters claim that only humans can do this and ask ‘why should we relinquish power to machines?’ We believe that the full implications of incorporating adaptive technologies in schools have neither been considered, fully revealed, or adequately prepared for by either side. But we are not interested in evaluating either the claims of techboosters or doomsters. Through an analysis through the lens of imaginaries, we reveal the false dichotomy of for or against technology, which obfuscates the fundamental question of whether the social technology we have put in place to educate ourselves solves the right problem and solves the problem well? We conclude with a brief discussion on the value of the personalization imaginary. We argue that the question is not whether platforms enable or disable teacher agency per se, but rather why should we hold up personalization as an ideal for education?","PeriodicalId":52346,"journal":{"name":"Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy","volume":"8 1","pages":"20 - 29"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The imaginary of personalization in relation to platforms and teacher agency in Denmark\",\"authors\":\"R. Jørnø, Bjarke Lindsø Andersen, Peter Gundersen\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/20020317.2021.2022073\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT In this theoretical paper, we argue that Tech enthusiasts and skeptics are animated by the same sociotechnical personalization imaginary to improve education and teaching through personalization, but see very different paths to this goal. Tech boosters point to well-known problems of the existing education system – and rhetorically ask: ‘why shouldn’t we solve these problems with technology?’ Doomsters claim that only humans can do this and ask ‘why should we relinquish power to machines?’ We believe that the full implications of incorporating adaptive technologies in schools have neither been considered, fully revealed, or adequately prepared for by either side. But we are not interested in evaluating either the claims of techboosters or doomsters. Through an analysis through the lens of imaginaries, we reveal the false dichotomy of for or against technology, which obfuscates the fundamental question of whether the social technology we have put in place to educate ourselves solves the right problem and solves the problem well? We conclude with a brief discussion on the value of the personalization imaginary. We argue that the question is not whether platforms enable or disable teacher agency per se, but rather why should we hold up personalization as an ideal for education?\",\"PeriodicalId\":52346,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"20 - 29\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2021.2022073\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2021.2022073","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要在这篇理论论文中,我们认为技术爱好者和怀疑论者被同样的社会技术个性化所激励,他们想象通过个性化来改善教育和教学,但他们看到了实现这一目标的截然不同的道路。技术支持者指出了现有教育系统中众所周知的问题,并反问:“我们为什么不应该用技术来解决这些问题?”末日论者声称只有人类才能做到这一点,并问道“我们为什么要把权力交给机器?”我们认为,任何一方都没有考虑、充分揭示或充分准备将自适应技术纳入学校的全部影响。但我们对评估技术助推器或末日论者的说法都不感兴趣。通过想象的视角进行分析,我们揭示了支持技术还是反对技术的错误二分法,这混淆了一个根本问题,即我们为教育自己而采用的社会技术是否解决了正确的问题,并很好地解决了问题?最后,我们简要讨论了个性化想象的价值。我们认为,问题不在于平台本身是启用还是禁用教师代理,而在于我们为什么要把个性化作为教育的理想选择?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The imaginary of personalization in relation to platforms and teacher agency in Denmark
ABSTRACT In this theoretical paper, we argue that Tech enthusiasts and skeptics are animated by the same sociotechnical personalization imaginary to improve education and teaching through personalization, but see very different paths to this goal. Tech boosters point to well-known problems of the existing education system – and rhetorically ask: ‘why shouldn’t we solve these problems with technology?’ Doomsters claim that only humans can do this and ask ‘why should we relinquish power to machines?’ We believe that the full implications of incorporating adaptive technologies in schools have neither been considered, fully revealed, or adequately prepared for by either side. But we are not interested in evaluating either the claims of techboosters or doomsters. Through an analysis through the lens of imaginaries, we reveal the false dichotomy of for or against technology, which obfuscates the fundamental question of whether the social technology we have put in place to educate ourselves solves the right problem and solves the problem well? We conclude with a brief discussion on the value of the personalization imaginary. We argue that the question is not whether platforms enable or disable teacher agency per se, but rather why should we hold up personalization as an ideal for education?
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信