نوع مقاله : پژوهشی

نویسنده

دانشگاه تربیت مدرس

چکیده

هدف اصلی این مطالعه، تبیین و تحلیل انتقادی رویکردهای مربوط به مناسبات فناوری و تربیت و نیز نقد گفتمان حاکم بر سیاستگذاری در نظام تربیتی ایران از منظر این رویکردها می­باشد. با این توضیح که یکی از رسالت‌های مهم فلاسفه تعلیم و تربیت، تبیین چند و چون مناسبات بین فناوری و نظام تعلیم و تربیت است. در این میان، برخی بر این باورند که باید فناوری را تنها به مثابه ابزاری در خدمت نظام تربیتی در نظر گرفت (رویکرد فلسفه «تربیت فناورانه»). در مقابل، برخی دیگر اذعان دارند که فناوری‌های نوین لاجرم نظام تربیتی متناسب با اقتضائات خود را پدید می‌آورد (رویکرد «فلسفه فناورانه» تربیت). امروزه تأکید بر نقش فقط ابزاری فناوری به گفتمان حاکم بر رویکرد فلاسفه تربیتی به ویژه در ایران تبدیل شده است که نماد حاکمیت این گفتمان را می‌توان در تلاش­های مربوط به تدوین اسناد بالادستی برای نظام تعلیم و تربیت ایران ملاحظه نمود. گرچه این اسناد به ویژه سند تحول بنیادین به‌طور اساسی وارد مسئله مناسبات دانش و فناوری نشده‌اند، اما از محتوای آن چنین استنباط می‌شود که سند بیشتر با ابتناء بر رویکرد فلسفه «تربیت فناورانه» تدوین شده است و از رویکرد دوم یعنی رویکرد «فلسفه فناورانه» تربیت غفلت کرده است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Philosophy of Technological Education or Technologic's Philosphy of Education: A Criticism of Educational Policymaking in Iran Higher Education

نویسنده [English]

  • Seyed Mahdi Sajjadi

Tarbiat Modares University

چکیده [English]

Among the important missions of philosophers of education is the clarification of the relationship between technology and the education system. Some believe that technology should be considered merely as a means to serve the educational system (the approach of philosophy of "technological education"). In contrast, others believe that new technologies also inevitably lead to a system of education appropriate to their requirements (the approach of "technological philosophy" to education). Emphasizing the role of purely technological means, today, is the discourse governing the approach of education philosophers, especially in Iran, has become the symbol of the sovereignty of this discourse can be found in upstream documents for the education system of Iran was also witnessed. The critique of the ruling discourse governing the approach to technology in policy making in Iran's educationa system is one of the aims of the present article. Explaining, critique and critical analysis of approaches to relations between technology and education, and implications of each approach to the philosophy of education, including the methods are in the formulation of the article.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Philosophy of Technological Education
  • Technological Philosphy of Education
  • criticism
  • Educational policy
  • Higher Education
Aristotle, S (2009) Nicomachus. (Lotfi, M. H.Trans) Tarh Press.Tehran. (InPersian)
Aznar, M. F. (2005). Technology Challenged Understanding Our Creations Choosing Our Future. California: Knowledge Context.
Bagheri, Kh. (2003). Philosophy of Technology and Technologic Education. Journal of Education and Pshycology.Vol.1.p.98.
Berners, L. (2001). ”The Semantic Web”Scientific American, 284 (5), P. 37
Bogue, R. (1989). Deleuze and Guattari. London: Routledge.
Boundas, C.V. (1996). Deleuze-Bergson: an ontology of the virtual. In. P. Patton (ED). Deleuze: A Critical Readers. Cambridge. Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Bus, J. & Cromptom, M. (2012). Digital Enlightenment.Yearbook 2012. Amsterdam: IOS Press
Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. (1987). A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia (Brian Massumi, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Dewey, (1991). How We Think. New York. Prometheus Book.
Document of Foundamental Development in Iran education system. (2012).
Downes, S. (2006). Learning Networks and Connective Knowledge, Retrieved February 20, 2009, from http://it.coe.uga.du/itforum/paper92/paper92.Html.
Gehlen, A. (2003). A Philosophical-Anthropological Perspective on Technology. In: R.C. Scharff and V. Dusek (eds.), Philosophy of Technology: The Technological Condition. Oxford: Blackwell, PP. 213-220.
Gough, N. (2006). Shaking the tree, making a rhizome: Towards a nomadic geophilosophy of science education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38(5), 625-645.
Habermas, J. (2003). The Future of Human Nature. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Heidegger, M (1999) Question about Technology. (Etemad, Shapour. Trans).Center Press.Tehran. (In Persion)
Herschbach, D. R. (1995). Technology as knowledge: Implications for instruction. Journal of technology education, 7(1), 31-42.
Ihde, D. (2009). Postphenomenology and Technoscience, The Peking university lectures. Suny Press.
Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld: From garden to earth (No. 560). Indiana University Press.
Kaplan, D. M. (Ed.). (2009). Readings in the Philosophy of Technology. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Latour, B. (2014). Agency at the Time of the Anthropocene. New literary history, 45(1), 1-18.
Lehmann, U. (2012). Making as knowing: epistemology and technique in craft. The Journal of Modern Craft, 5(2), 149-164.
Ling, X. J. (2010). Thinking like Grass, with Deleuze in Education? Journal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies, 7(2), 31-48.
Nye, D. E. (2007). Technology matters: Questions to live with. MIT Press.
Parry, R. (2008).” Episteme and Techne “In: Zalta, E. (ED): Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy. Fall Edition, New York.
Sajjadi, S. M (2017) Virtual Space and Reconceptualization in Religious education Components: Ignored Challenge and Necessity in Educational heorizing.Educational Innovation Journal .4 (2):
Sajjadi, S. M. (2015). Development discourses on the educational system of Iran: A critical analysis of their effects .Policy Futures in Education .13: 819-834
Sajjadi, S. M & Imanzadeh, A. (2010). The study of Rhyzomatic Space and its Educational Implications in Curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies.vol.12
Semetsky, I. (2003). Deleuze's new image of thought, or Dewey revisited. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 35(1), 17-29.
Siemens, G. (2006d). Connectivism: Knowing Knowledge. Paper presented at the meeting of the European Institute for e-Learning on e-Portfolios, Oxford, U.K., Oct. 2006.
Siemens, G. (2009). Handbook of Emerging Technologies for Learning. University of Manitoba p.436.
Siemens, G. & Tittenberger, P. (2009). Handbook of Emerging Technologies for Learning. University of Manitob
Stiffler, E. (1984). A definition of foundationalism. Metaphilosophy, 15(1), 16-25.
Strong, K., & Hutchins, H. M. (2009). Connectivism: A theory for learning in a world of growing complexity. Impact: Journal of Applied Research in Workplace E-learning, 1(1), 53-67.
Toffler, Alvin (1980). The Third Wave. (Kharazmi, Shahindokht .Trans). Simorgh Press.Tehran. (In Persian)
Verbeek, P. P. (2005). What things do: Philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design? Penn State Press.
Verbeek, P. P. (2008). Cyborg Intentionality – Rethinking the Phenomenology of Human-Technology. Relations. In: Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 7:3, pp. 387-395
Verbeek, P. P. (2010). Moralizing Technology: Understanding and Designing the Morality of Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Vries, M. (2005). Teaching about Technology: An Introducation to the Philosophy of Teaching for Non-Philosophers, Netherland: Apringer
Wartofsky, M. W. (1979). Philosophy of technology InAsquith, P. D & Kyburg, H. E. (Current Research in Philosophy of Science, East Lansing: Philosophy of science Association, PP.171