Information technology in schools: Should the product be marked hazardous?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
One of the things that make some tools hazardous is that when you plug themin you have considerable power in your hands. False moves and you maylose a body party. ICT, I argue in this paper, is such a tool and yes it shouldbe marked hazardous. How powerful? Why hazardous?The power and the hazard go together. By means of ICT we can do morequickly and comprehensively what we could only do more slowly before. Andif aspects of what we were doing before were problematic, they will be evenmore so thanks to the amplification provided by ICT. The amplifying powerof ICT is one of the central themes of this paper. If instruction is routine andboring, computers can make it much more so. If products for schools weredriven by commercial considerations before, they can be much more so withICT - the investments are much higher. If schools had ways of monitoringteachers and children before, computers enhance that many times. Iftechnologies were thought to drive what happens in schools before, ICTmagnifies that potential many times.In short, computers allow us to do what we did before only more so - so if wedid not do well before IT, we may well do worse with it. Or we may dobetter. We need to keep these questions open. The biggest danger is that in therush to conform to visions of ICT we may stop asking them. We need adialogue. The desire for dialogue has, however, frustrated many ICTadvocates who see it as a form of resistance to change (Ameral, 1983; Papert,2001; Yelland, 2002). From a philosophical point of view, we need a dialoguethat considers the techniques of practices and the goods that such practicesseek, as Macintyre (1981) and Strike (nd) point out. Practices involve skillsand techniques - which do not once and for all define the practice and whichover time change the practice as the goals of practice - in this case teaching -change over time.In the first part of this paper I look at how ICT has come to play such adominant role in schooling. Over the last 20 years we see a continuous pressto adopt this technology. What we do not see is a debate about the plussesand minuses of computers in schools based on experience. This is a cause forconcern. In the second part of the paper I look at what happened in schoolsover this time and the beginnings of concerns about ICT. In the third part ofthe paper I look at the response teachers might make to ICT as it evolves.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».