Résumés
Abstract
The influence of technology in today’s classroom is undeniably ubiquitous and scattered, and though the practice of conceptualizing technological application emerges from within an already contested and highly politicized field of human relations, when approached in the context of curriculum, this contestation takes on new significance. In this paper, I construct a claim that, when introduced into the sphere of education, technology brings its own curricular shadows. I argue that while certain technologies seem to place restrictions on a learner’s capacity for expression and experimentation, these restrictions are by no means absolute or immovable, and that to think through technology aesthetically is to posit the presence of alternative possibilities and meanings. The performative potential of technology is here considered as within a dialogue with the curriculum-as-lived-experience, where learning necessarily exclaims its ambiguity as a forever-fluctuating relationality.
Résumé
De nos jours, l’influence de la technologie au sein des classes est indéniablement perméable et répandue. L’utilisation d’applications technologiques conceptuelles émerge d’un domaine des relations humaines largement politisé et déjà contesté. Cependant, cette contestation, lorsqu’étudiée dans le contexte des programmes, prend un tout nouveau sens. Dans cet article, j’énonce que la technologie, une fois introduite dans la sphère éducationnelle, crée des zones ombres sur le programme. Je soutiens que, même si certaines technologies semblent restreindre la capacité de l’apprenant à s’exprimer et expérimenter, ces restrictions ne sont en aucun cas absolues et inébranlables. En fait, considérer la technologie de manière esthétique équivaut à postuler l’existence de possibilités et sens alternatifs. Le potentiel performant de la technologie est considéré ici comme faisant partie d’un dialogue avec le programme comme expérience vécue, au coeur de laquelle l’apprentissage exprime son ambiguïté comme relation toujours fluctuante.
Veuillez télécharger l’article en PDF pour le lire.
Télécharger
Parties annexes
Biographical note
David Lewkowich is a doctoral candidate in McGill University’s Faculty of Education. His research interests include young adult literature, reading experience, psychoanalytic theories of learning, and representations of teaching in literature and popular culture. His doctoral research involves an analysis of the cultural and psychic uses of young adult literature.
Bibliography
- Aoki, T. T. (1987/1999). Toward understanding “computer application.” In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), Contemporary curriculum discourses: Twenty years of JCT (pp. 168-176). New York: Peter Lang.
- Aoki, T. T. (2005). Curriculum in a new key: The collected works of Ted T. Aoki (W. Pinar & R. Irwin, Eds.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Apple, M. W. (1988). Teaching and technology: The hidden effects of computers on students. In L. E. Beyer & M. W. Apple (Eds.), The curriculum: Problems, politics and possibilities (pp. 289-311). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
- Apple, M. W. (1990). Ideology and curriculum (2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge.
- Borgmann, A. (1984). Technology and the character of contemporary life. Chicago, Il: The University of Chicago Press.
- Britzman, D. (2003). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach, revised edition. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
- de Certeau, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life (S. Randall, Trans). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
- de Vries, M. J. (2006). Technological knowledge and artifacts: An analytical view. In J. D. Dakers (Ed.), Defining technological literacy: Towards an epistemological framework (pp. 17-30). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Egan, K. (1978/2003). What is curriculum? Journal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies, 1(1), 9-16.
- Feenberg, A. (1999). Questioning technology. New York, NY: Routledge.
- Feenberg, A. (2006). What is philosophy of technology? In J. D. Dakers (Ed.), Defining technological literacy: Towards an epistemological framework (pp. 5-16). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination: Essays on education, the arts, and social change. San Francisco, CA: Josey Bass.
- Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology and other essays. New York, NY: Harper Torchbooks.
- Hwu, W.-S. (2004). Gilles Deleuze and Jacques Daignault: Understanding curriculum as difference and sense. In W. M. Reynolds, & J. A. Webber (Eds.), Expanding curriculum theory: Dis/positions and lines of flight (pp. 181-202). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Ihde, D. (2006). The designer fallacy and technological imagination. In J. D. Dakers (Ed.), Defining technological literacy: Towards an epistemological framework (pp. 121-131). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Ingold, T. (2006). Walking the plank: Meditations on a process of skill. In J. D. Dakers (Ed.), Defining technological literacy: Towards an epistemological framework (pp. 65-80). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Kliebard, H. M. (1988). The effort to reconstruct the modern American curriculum. In L. E. Beyer, & M. W. Apple (Eds.), The curriculum: Problems, politics and possibilities (pp. 19-31). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
- Low, B. E. (2008). Jamming the signal: Rap music and the poetics of technology. In M. Hoechsmann & B. E. Low, Reading youth writing: “New” literacies, cultural studies and education (pp. 129-146). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
- Marcuse, H. (1964/1991). One-dimensional man. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
- Michael, M. (2006). How to understand mundane technology: New ways of thinking about human-technology relations. In J. D. Dakers (Ed.), Defining technological literacy: Towards an epistemological framework (pp. 49-63). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Monahan, T. (2005). Globalization, technological change, and public education. New York, NY: Routledge.
- Pearson, G., & Young, A. T. (Eds.). (2002). Technically speaking: Why all Americans need to know more about technology. Washington DC.: National Academy Press.
- Pinar, W. F. (2012). What is curriculum theory? (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
- Pinar, W. F., Reynolds, W. M. Slattery, P. & Taubman. P. M. (1996). Understanding curriculum: An introduction to the study of historical and contemporary curriculum discourses. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
- Robertson, H-J. (2001). But it’s only a tool! Deconstructing the defense. In M. Moll (Ed.), But it’s only a tool! The politics of technology and educational reform (pp. 13-42). Ottawa, ON: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
- Streibel, M. J. (1988). A critical analysis of three approaches to the use of computers in education. In L. E. Beyer, & M. W. Apple (Eds.), The curriculum: Problems, politics and possibilities (pp. 259-288). Albany: SUNY Press.
- Wajcman, J. (2004). Technofeminism. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
- Winner, L. (1986). The whale and the reactor: A search for limits in an age of high technology. Chicago, Il: University of Chicago Press.
- Zylinska, J. (2009). Bioethics in the age of new media. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Parties annexes
Note biographique
DAVID LEWKOWICH est doctorant à la Faculté des sciences de l’éducation de l’Université McGill. Il s’intéresse à la littérature destinée aux jeunes adultes, à l’expérience de la lecture, aux théories psychanalytiques de l’apprentissage, aux représentations de l’enseignement dans la littérature et à la culture populaire. Ses recherches doctorales impliquent une analyse des utilisations culturelles et psychiques de la littérature pour jeunes adultes.