The Pharmakon of Educational Technology: The Disruptive Power of Attention in Education
Abstract Is physical presence an essential aspect of a rich educational experience? Can forms of virtual encounter achieve engaged and sustained education? Technophiles and technophobes might agree that authentic personal engagement is educationally normative. They are more likely to disagree on how...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Lewin, David [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2016 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Anmerkung: |
© The Author(s) 2016 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Studies in philosophy and education - Springer Netherlands, 1960, 35(2016), 3 vom: 29. Feb., Seite 251-265 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:35 ; year:2016 ; number:3 ; day:29 ; month:02 ; pages:251-265 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1007/s11217-016-9518-3 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
OLC2033717453 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | OLC2033717453 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230514035224.0 | ||
| 007 | tu | ||
| 008 | 200819s2016 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s11217-016-9518-3 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)OLC2033717453 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-He213)s11217-016-9518-3-p | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 100 |a 370 |q VZ |
| 084 | |a 5,1 |a 5,3 |2 ssgn | ||
| 084 | |a PHILOS |q DE-12 |2 fid | ||
| 084 | |a 80.00 |2 bkl | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Lewin, David |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a The Pharmakon of Educational Technology: The Disruptive Power of Attention in Education |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2016 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Band |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a © The Author(s) 2016 | ||
| 520 | |a Abstract Is physical presence an essential aspect of a rich educational experience? Can forms of virtual encounter achieve engaged and sustained education? Technophiles and technophobes might agree that authentic personal engagement is educationally normative. They are more likely to disagree on how authentic engagement is best achieved. This article argues that educational thinking around digital pedagogy unhelpfully reinforces this polarising debate by failing to recognise that digitalisation is, as Stiegler has argued, pharmacological: both a poison and a cure. I suggest that Biesta’s critique of learnification can be applied to online learning, but that any such application does not sufficiently acknowledge the pharmacological nature of modern technology. While Stiegler has something important to contribute on the relation between technology, attention and education, I suggest his account is rather too bound up with critical theories of technology. In the end I turn to philosophers of religion, such as Eliade and Smith to suggest different ways of conceiving the role of attention in education that does set technologies up over/against the formation of attention essential to education. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Biesta | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Stiegler | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Eliade | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Attention | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Technology | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Studies in philosophy and education |d Springer Netherlands, 1960 |g 35(2016), 3 vom: 29. Feb., Seite 251-265 |w (DE-627)129852902 |w (DE-600)280763-4 |w (DE-576)015153576 |x 0039-3746 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:35 |g year:2016 |g number:3 |g day:29 |g month:02 |g pages:251-265 |
| 856 | 4 | 1 | |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-016-9518-3 |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_OLC | ||
| 912 | |a FID-PHILOS | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHI | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHA | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-DE-84 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_11 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_70 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2505 | ||
| 936 | b | k | |a 80.00 |q VZ |
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 35 |j 2016 |e 3 |b 29 |c 02 |h 251-265 | ||
| author_variant |
d l dl |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:00393746:2016----::hpamknfdctoatcnlgteirpieoeo |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2016 |
| bklnumber |
80.00 |
| publishDate |
2016 |
| allfields |
10.1007/s11217-016-9518-3 doi (DE-627)OLC2033717453 (DE-He213)s11217-016-9518-3-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 100 370 VZ 5,1 5,3 ssgn PHILOS DE-12 fid 80.00 bkl Lewin, David verfasserin aut The Pharmakon of Educational Technology: The Disruptive Power of Attention in Education 2016 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2016 Abstract Is physical presence an essential aspect of a rich educational experience? Can forms of virtual encounter achieve engaged and sustained education? Technophiles and technophobes might agree that authentic personal engagement is educationally normative. They are more likely to disagree on how authentic engagement is best achieved. This article argues that educational thinking around digital pedagogy unhelpfully reinforces this polarising debate by failing to recognise that digitalisation is, as Stiegler has argued, pharmacological: both a poison and a cure. I suggest that Biesta’s critique of learnification can be applied to online learning, but that any such application does not sufficiently acknowledge the pharmacological nature of modern technology. While Stiegler has something important to contribute on the relation between technology, attention and education, I suggest his account is rather too bound up with critical theories of technology. In the end I turn to philosophers of religion, such as Eliade and Smith to suggest different ways of conceiving the role of attention in education that does set technologies up over/against the formation of attention essential to education. Biesta Stiegler Eliade Attention Technology Enthalten in Studies in philosophy and education Springer Netherlands, 1960 35(2016), 3 vom: 29. Feb., Seite 251-265 (DE-627)129852902 (DE-600)280763-4 (DE-576)015153576 0039-3746 nnns volume:35 year:2016 number:3 day:29 month:02 pages:251-265 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-016-9518-3 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-PHILOS SSG-OLC-PHI SSG-OLC-PHA SSG-OLC-DE-84 GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_2505 80.00 VZ AR 35 2016 3 29 02 251-265 |
| spelling |
10.1007/s11217-016-9518-3 doi (DE-627)OLC2033717453 (DE-He213)s11217-016-9518-3-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 100 370 VZ 5,1 5,3 ssgn PHILOS DE-12 fid 80.00 bkl Lewin, David verfasserin aut The Pharmakon of Educational Technology: The Disruptive Power of Attention in Education 2016 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2016 Abstract Is physical presence an essential aspect of a rich educational experience? Can forms of virtual encounter achieve engaged and sustained education? Technophiles and technophobes might agree that authentic personal engagement is educationally normative. They are more likely to disagree on how authentic engagement is best achieved. This article argues that educational thinking around digital pedagogy unhelpfully reinforces this polarising debate by failing to recognise that digitalisation is, as Stiegler has argued, pharmacological: both a poison and a cure. I suggest that Biesta’s critique of learnification can be applied to online learning, but that any such application does not sufficiently acknowledge the pharmacological nature of modern technology. While Stiegler has something important to contribute on the relation between technology, attention and education, I suggest his account is rather too bound up with critical theories of technology. In the end I turn to philosophers of religion, such as Eliade and Smith to suggest different ways of conceiving the role of attention in education that does set technologies up over/against the formation of attention essential to education. Biesta Stiegler Eliade Attention Technology Enthalten in Studies in philosophy and education Springer Netherlands, 1960 35(2016), 3 vom: 29. Feb., Seite 251-265 (DE-627)129852902 (DE-600)280763-4 (DE-576)015153576 0039-3746 nnns volume:35 year:2016 number:3 day:29 month:02 pages:251-265 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-016-9518-3 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-PHILOS SSG-OLC-PHI SSG-OLC-PHA SSG-OLC-DE-84 GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_2505 80.00 VZ AR 35 2016 3 29 02 251-265 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1007/s11217-016-9518-3 doi (DE-627)OLC2033717453 (DE-He213)s11217-016-9518-3-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 100 370 VZ 5,1 5,3 ssgn PHILOS DE-12 fid 80.00 bkl Lewin, David verfasserin aut The Pharmakon of Educational Technology: The Disruptive Power of Attention in Education 2016 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2016 Abstract Is physical presence an essential aspect of a rich educational experience? Can forms of virtual encounter achieve engaged and sustained education? Technophiles and technophobes might agree that authentic personal engagement is educationally normative. They are more likely to disagree on how authentic engagement is best achieved. This article argues that educational thinking around digital pedagogy unhelpfully reinforces this polarising debate by failing to recognise that digitalisation is, as Stiegler has argued, pharmacological: both a poison and a cure. I suggest that Biesta’s critique of learnification can be applied to online learning, but that any such application does not sufficiently acknowledge the pharmacological nature of modern technology. While Stiegler has something important to contribute on the relation between technology, attention and education, I suggest his account is rather too bound up with critical theories of technology. In the end I turn to philosophers of religion, such as Eliade and Smith to suggest different ways of conceiving the role of attention in education that does set technologies up over/against the formation of attention essential to education. Biesta Stiegler Eliade Attention Technology Enthalten in Studies in philosophy and education Springer Netherlands, 1960 35(2016), 3 vom: 29. Feb., Seite 251-265 (DE-627)129852902 (DE-600)280763-4 (DE-576)015153576 0039-3746 nnns volume:35 year:2016 number:3 day:29 month:02 pages:251-265 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-016-9518-3 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-PHILOS SSG-OLC-PHI SSG-OLC-PHA SSG-OLC-DE-84 GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_2505 80.00 VZ AR 35 2016 3 29 02 251-265 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1007/s11217-016-9518-3 doi (DE-627)OLC2033717453 (DE-He213)s11217-016-9518-3-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 100 370 VZ 5,1 5,3 ssgn PHILOS DE-12 fid 80.00 bkl Lewin, David verfasserin aut The Pharmakon of Educational Technology: The Disruptive Power of Attention in Education 2016 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2016 Abstract Is physical presence an essential aspect of a rich educational experience? Can forms of virtual encounter achieve engaged and sustained education? Technophiles and technophobes might agree that authentic personal engagement is educationally normative. They are more likely to disagree on how authentic engagement is best achieved. This article argues that educational thinking around digital pedagogy unhelpfully reinforces this polarising debate by failing to recognise that digitalisation is, as Stiegler has argued, pharmacological: both a poison and a cure. I suggest that Biesta’s critique of learnification can be applied to online learning, but that any such application does not sufficiently acknowledge the pharmacological nature of modern technology. While Stiegler has something important to contribute on the relation between technology, attention and education, I suggest his account is rather too bound up with critical theories of technology. In the end I turn to philosophers of religion, such as Eliade and Smith to suggest different ways of conceiving the role of attention in education that does set technologies up over/against the formation of attention essential to education. Biesta Stiegler Eliade Attention Technology Enthalten in Studies in philosophy and education Springer Netherlands, 1960 35(2016), 3 vom: 29. Feb., Seite 251-265 (DE-627)129852902 (DE-600)280763-4 (DE-576)015153576 0039-3746 nnns volume:35 year:2016 number:3 day:29 month:02 pages:251-265 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-016-9518-3 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-PHILOS SSG-OLC-PHI SSG-OLC-PHA SSG-OLC-DE-84 GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_2505 80.00 VZ AR 35 2016 3 29 02 251-265 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1007/s11217-016-9518-3 doi (DE-627)OLC2033717453 (DE-He213)s11217-016-9518-3-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 100 370 VZ 5,1 5,3 ssgn PHILOS DE-12 fid 80.00 bkl Lewin, David verfasserin aut The Pharmakon of Educational Technology: The Disruptive Power of Attention in Education 2016 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2016 Abstract Is physical presence an essential aspect of a rich educational experience? Can forms of virtual encounter achieve engaged and sustained education? Technophiles and technophobes might agree that authentic personal engagement is educationally normative. They are more likely to disagree on how authentic engagement is best achieved. This article argues that educational thinking around digital pedagogy unhelpfully reinforces this polarising debate by failing to recognise that digitalisation is, as Stiegler has argued, pharmacological: both a poison and a cure. I suggest that Biesta’s critique of learnification can be applied to online learning, but that any such application does not sufficiently acknowledge the pharmacological nature of modern technology. While Stiegler has something important to contribute on the relation between technology, attention and education, I suggest his account is rather too bound up with critical theories of technology. In the end I turn to philosophers of religion, such as Eliade and Smith to suggest different ways of conceiving the role of attention in education that does set technologies up over/against the formation of attention essential to education. Biesta Stiegler Eliade Attention Technology Enthalten in Studies in philosophy and education Springer Netherlands, 1960 35(2016), 3 vom: 29. Feb., Seite 251-265 (DE-627)129852902 (DE-600)280763-4 (DE-576)015153576 0039-3746 nnns volume:35 year:2016 number:3 day:29 month:02 pages:251-265 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-016-9518-3 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-PHILOS SSG-OLC-PHI SSG-OLC-PHA SSG-OLC-DE-84 GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_2505 80.00 VZ AR 35 2016 3 29 02 251-265 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Studies in philosophy and education 35(2016), 3 vom: 29. Feb., Seite 251-265 volume:35 year:2016 number:3 day:29 month:02 pages:251-265 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Studies in philosophy and education 35(2016), 3 vom: 29. Feb., Seite 251-265 volume:35 year:2016 number:3 day:29 month:02 pages:251-265 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Biesta Stiegler Eliade Attention Technology |
| dewey-raw |
100 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Studies in philosophy and education |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Lewin, David @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2016-02-29T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
129852902 |
| dewey-sort |
3100 |
| id |
OLC2033717453 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC2033717453</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230514035224.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">200819s2016 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s11217-016-9518-3</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC2033717453</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s11217-016-9518-3-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">100</subfield><subfield code="a">370</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">5,1</subfield><subfield code="a">5,3</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">PHILOS</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-12</subfield><subfield code="2">fid</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">80.00</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Lewin, David</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">The Pharmakon of Educational Technology: The Disruptive Power of Attention in Education</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s) 2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Is physical presence an essential aspect of a rich educational experience? Can forms of virtual encounter achieve engaged and sustained education? Technophiles and technophobes might agree that authentic personal engagement is educationally normative. They are more likely to disagree on how authentic engagement is best achieved. This article argues that educational thinking around digital pedagogy unhelpfully reinforces this polarising debate by failing to recognise that digitalisation is, as Stiegler has argued, pharmacological: both a poison and a cure. I suggest that Biesta’s critique of learnification can be applied to online learning, but that any such application does not sufficiently acknowledge the pharmacological nature of modern technology. While Stiegler has something important to contribute on the relation between technology, attention and education, I suggest his account is rather too bound up with critical theories of technology. In the end I turn to philosophers of religion, such as Eliade and Smith to suggest different ways of conceiving the role of attention in education that does set technologies up over/against the formation of attention essential to education.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Biesta</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Stiegler</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Eliade</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Attention</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Technology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Studies in philosophy and education</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer Netherlands, 1960</subfield><subfield code="g">35(2016), 3 vom: 29. Feb., Seite 251-265</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)129852902</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)280763-4</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)015153576</subfield><subfield code="x">0039-3746</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:35</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2016</subfield><subfield code="g">number:3</subfield><subfield code="g">day:29</subfield><subfield code="g">month:02</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:251-265</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-016-9518-3</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">FID-PHILOS</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHI</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-DE-84</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2505</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">80.00</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">35</subfield><subfield code="j">2016</subfield><subfield code="e">3</subfield><subfield code="b">29</subfield><subfield code="c">02</subfield><subfield code="h">251-265</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Lewin, David |
| spellingShingle |
Lewin, David ddc 100 ssgn 5,1 fid PHILOS bkl 80.00 misc Biesta misc Stiegler misc Eliade misc Attention misc Technology The Pharmakon of Educational Technology: The Disruptive Power of Attention in Education |
| authorStr |
Lewin, David |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)129852902 |
| format |
Article |
| dewey-ones |
100 - Philosophy & psychology 370 - Education |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
OLC |
| remote_str |
false |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
0039-3746 |
| topic_title |
100 370 VZ 5,1 5,3 ssgn PHILOS DE-12 fid 80.00 bkl The Pharmakon of Educational Technology: The Disruptive Power of Attention in Education Biesta Stiegler Eliade Attention Technology |
| topic |
ddc 100 ssgn 5,1 fid PHILOS bkl 80.00 misc Biesta misc Stiegler misc Eliade misc Attention misc Technology |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 100 ssgn 5,1 fid PHILOS bkl 80.00 misc Biesta misc Stiegler misc Eliade misc Attention misc Technology |
| topic_browse |
ddc 100 ssgn 5,1 fid PHILOS bkl 80.00 misc Biesta misc Stiegler misc Eliade misc Attention misc Technology |
| format_facet |
Aufsätze Gedruckte Aufsätze |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
nc |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Studies in philosophy and education |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
129852902 |
| dewey-tens |
100 - Philosophy 370 - Education |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Studies in philosophy and education |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)129852902 (DE-600)280763-4 (DE-576)015153576 |
| title |
The Pharmakon of Educational Technology: The Disruptive Power of Attention in Education |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)OLC2033717453 (DE-He213)s11217-016-9518-3-p |
| title_full |
The Pharmakon of Educational Technology: The Disruptive Power of Attention in Education |
| author_sort |
Lewin, David |
| journal |
Studies in philosophy and education |
| journalStr |
Studies in philosophy and education |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
100 - Philosophy & psychology 300 - Social sciences |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2016 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
251 |
| author_browse |
Lewin, David |
| container_volume |
35 |
| class |
100 370 VZ 5,1 5,3 ssgn PHILOS DE-12 fid 80.00 bkl |
| format_se |
Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Lewin, David |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1007/s11217-016-9518-3 |
| dewey-full |
100 370 |
| title_sort |
the pharmakon of educational technology: the disruptive power of attention in education |
| title_auth |
The Pharmakon of Educational Technology: The Disruptive Power of Attention in Education |
| abstract |
Abstract Is physical presence an essential aspect of a rich educational experience? Can forms of virtual encounter achieve engaged and sustained education? Technophiles and technophobes might agree that authentic personal engagement is educationally normative. They are more likely to disagree on how authentic engagement is best achieved. This article argues that educational thinking around digital pedagogy unhelpfully reinforces this polarising debate by failing to recognise that digitalisation is, as Stiegler has argued, pharmacological: both a poison and a cure. I suggest that Biesta’s critique of learnification can be applied to online learning, but that any such application does not sufficiently acknowledge the pharmacological nature of modern technology. While Stiegler has something important to contribute on the relation between technology, attention and education, I suggest his account is rather too bound up with critical theories of technology. In the end I turn to philosophers of religion, such as Eliade and Smith to suggest different ways of conceiving the role of attention in education that does set technologies up over/against the formation of attention essential to education. © The Author(s) 2016 |
| abstractGer |
Abstract Is physical presence an essential aspect of a rich educational experience? Can forms of virtual encounter achieve engaged and sustained education? Technophiles and technophobes might agree that authentic personal engagement is educationally normative. They are more likely to disagree on how authentic engagement is best achieved. This article argues that educational thinking around digital pedagogy unhelpfully reinforces this polarising debate by failing to recognise that digitalisation is, as Stiegler has argued, pharmacological: both a poison and a cure. I suggest that Biesta’s critique of learnification can be applied to online learning, but that any such application does not sufficiently acknowledge the pharmacological nature of modern technology. While Stiegler has something important to contribute on the relation between technology, attention and education, I suggest his account is rather too bound up with critical theories of technology. In the end I turn to philosophers of religion, such as Eliade and Smith to suggest different ways of conceiving the role of attention in education that does set technologies up over/against the formation of attention essential to education. © The Author(s) 2016 |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Abstract Is physical presence an essential aspect of a rich educational experience? Can forms of virtual encounter achieve engaged and sustained education? Technophiles and technophobes might agree that authentic personal engagement is educationally normative. They are more likely to disagree on how authentic engagement is best achieved. This article argues that educational thinking around digital pedagogy unhelpfully reinforces this polarising debate by failing to recognise that digitalisation is, as Stiegler has argued, pharmacological: both a poison and a cure. I suggest that Biesta’s critique of learnification can be applied to online learning, but that any such application does not sufficiently acknowledge the pharmacological nature of modern technology. While Stiegler has something important to contribute on the relation between technology, attention and education, I suggest his account is rather too bound up with critical theories of technology. In the end I turn to philosophers of religion, such as Eliade and Smith to suggest different ways of conceiving the role of attention in education that does set technologies up over/against the formation of attention essential to education. © The Author(s) 2016 |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-PHILOS SSG-OLC-PHI SSG-OLC-PHA SSG-OLC-DE-84 GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_2505 |
| container_issue |
3 |
| title_short |
The Pharmakon of Educational Technology: The Disruptive Power of Attention in Education |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-016-9518-3 |
| remote_bool |
false |
| ppnlink |
129852902 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
n |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1007/s11217-016-9518-3 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T18:09:11.617Z |
| _version_ |
1803582336268238848 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC2033717453</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230514035224.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">200819s2016 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s11217-016-9518-3</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC2033717453</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s11217-016-9518-3-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">100</subfield><subfield code="a">370</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">5,1</subfield><subfield code="a">5,3</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">PHILOS</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-12</subfield><subfield code="2">fid</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">80.00</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Lewin, David</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">The Pharmakon of Educational Technology: The Disruptive Power of Attention in Education</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s) 2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Is physical presence an essential aspect of a rich educational experience? Can forms of virtual encounter achieve engaged and sustained education? Technophiles and technophobes might agree that authentic personal engagement is educationally normative. They are more likely to disagree on how authentic engagement is best achieved. This article argues that educational thinking around digital pedagogy unhelpfully reinforces this polarising debate by failing to recognise that digitalisation is, as Stiegler has argued, pharmacological: both a poison and a cure. I suggest that Biesta’s critique of learnification can be applied to online learning, but that any such application does not sufficiently acknowledge the pharmacological nature of modern technology. While Stiegler has something important to contribute on the relation between technology, attention and education, I suggest his account is rather too bound up with critical theories of technology. In the end I turn to philosophers of religion, such as Eliade and Smith to suggest different ways of conceiving the role of attention in education that does set technologies up over/against the formation of attention essential to education.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Biesta</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Stiegler</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Eliade</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Attention</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Technology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Studies in philosophy and education</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer Netherlands, 1960</subfield><subfield code="g">35(2016), 3 vom: 29. Feb., Seite 251-265</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)129852902</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)280763-4</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)015153576</subfield><subfield code="x">0039-3746</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:35</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2016</subfield><subfield code="g">number:3</subfield><subfield code="g">day:29</subfield><subfield code="g">month:02</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:251-265</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-016-9518-3</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">FID-PHILOS</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHI</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-DE-84</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2505</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">80.00</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">35</subfield><subfield code="j">2016</subfield><subfield code="e">3</subfield><subfield code="b">29</subfield><subfield code="c">02</subfield><subfield code="h">251-265</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.4013834 |