Les technologies culturelles comme le contrôle, pratiques culturelles, morphologies de contrôle
Mots-clés :
Tecnologías del yo, reestructuración de la educación, diseño.Résumé
Avec ce texte on entend faire comprendre la pédagogie de 1 'école et la restructuration actuelle de l’éducation comme les technologies du moi-même. Le texte aussi analyse quatre pratiques contemporaines : le redesign d'une cité industrielle, un livre de l'enseignement à ligne, un rapport du Conseil National de la Recherche Américaine et un magazine professionnel, dans cela, l'idée du design est présente donnant un fil conducteur que permettre réfléchir même que sur les diverses connections et les relation
Téléchargements
Références
BECKER, C. (1932). Theheavenly cityoftheeighteenth-century philosophers. New Haven: Yale University Press.
BRITZMAN, D. (1991). Practice makes practice: A critical study ofleamingto teach. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Washington, DC: Department of Education, US Government Printing Office. COMMITTEE ON SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES FOR EDUCATION RESEARCH. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council.
DANZIGER, K. (1997). Naming the mind. How psychology found its language. London: Sage.
Dean, M. (1999). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society. London: Sage.
THE DESIGN-BASED RESEARCH COLLECTIVE (2003). “Design-based research: An emerging Paradigm for educational inquiry”. Educational Researcher. Vol. 32, No. 2. pp. 5-8.
FENDLER, L. (1999). “Making trouble: Predictability, agency, and critical intellectuals”. En: POPKEWITZ, T. y FENDLER, L. (eds.). Critical theories in education. New York:
Routledge. pp. 169-190.
FOUCAULT, M. (1988). “The political technology of individuals”. En: MARTIN, L.; GUTMAN, H. y HUTTAN, P (eds.). Technologies of the Self. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, pp. 145-162.
________(1991). “Governmentality”. En: BURCHELL, G.; GORDON, C. y MILLER, P (eds.). The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, pp. 87-104.
GIDDENS, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
HACKING, I. (2002). Historical ontology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard university press.
HETHERINGTON, K. (2001). “Moderns as ancients: Time, space and the discourse of improvement”. En: MAY, J. y THRIFT, N. (eds.). Timespace, geographies of temporality.
London: Routledge. pp. 49-72.
HULTQVIST, K. (en prensa). “Fremtid som styringsteknologi og det paedagogiske subjekts opdigtede inderlighed ‘The governing of the future and the fabrication of the
inferiority of the pedagogical subject’”. En: KREJSLER, J (ed.). Paedagogikken ogkampen om individet Kritisk paedagogik ny inderlighed selvets teknologi. Seks essays om paedagogik og senmoderne uddannelse, Hans Reitzel forlag, Kopenhamn.
_______ (1998). “A history of the present on children’s welfare in Sweden”. En: POPKEWITZ, T. & BRENNAN, M. (eds.). Foucault’s challenge: Discourse, Knowledge, and power in education. New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 91-117.
KELLY, A. (2003). “Research as design”. Educational Research. Vol. 32. No. 1, pp. 3-4.
LATOUR, B. (1986). “Visualization and cognition: Thinking with eyes and hands”. Knowledge and Society. No. 6. pp. 1-40.
MAEROFF, G. (2003). A classroom of one: How online learning is changing our schools and colleges. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHERS OF MATHEMATICS (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
NYE, D. (1999). American technological sublime. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
________(2003). America as second creation: Technology and narratives of new beginnings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Petersson, K. (2003). Governing the risky souls. Pedagogical inscriptions as a style of governing the future. Nordisk Pedagogikhistoraiekonferens. Stockholm: Lararhogskolan 25-27 sept.
POPKEWITZ, T. (a publicarse en la primavera de 2004). “The Alchemy of School Subjects: Standards-based Mathematics Education, Research, Inscriptions and the Fabrication of the Child”. En: The American Educational Research Journal.
POPKEWITZ, T. S. y LINDBLAD, S. (2000). “Educational governance and social inclusion and exclusion: Some conceptual difficulties and problematics in policy and research”. Discourse, Vol. 21, No. 1. pp. 5-54.
POPKEWITZ, T.; TABACHNICK, B. y WEHLAGE, G. (1982). The myth of educational reform: A study of school responses to a program of change. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
ROSE, N. (1999). Powers of freedom: Reframing political thought. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
SCHRAM, S. F. y NEISSER, P T. (eds.). (1997). Tales of the state: Narrative in contemporary U.S. politics and public policy. N.J.: Rowman & Littlefield.
SKLANSKY, J. (2002). The soul’s economy: Market society and selfhood in American thought, 1820-1920. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
WAGNER, P (2003). “As intellectual history meets historical sociology: Historical sociology after the linguistic turn”. En: G. Delanty & E. Isin (eds.), Handbook of historical sociology. London: Sage Publications, pp. 168-179.
WAGNER, P; WEISS, C.; WITTROCK, B. y WOLLMAN, H. (1991a). Social sciences and modern states: National experiences and theoretical crossroads. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
WAGNER, R; WITTROCK, B. y WHITLEY, R. (eds.). (1991b). Discourses on society: The shaping of the social science disciplines. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Téléchargements
Publié-e
Comment citer
Numéro
Rubrique
Licence
Esta obra está bajo una licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional
