서브메뉴
검색
상세정보
Educational Biotechnology and a Search for Moral Opposition to It. Nichols, Randall G.y [microform]
Educational Biotechnology and a Search for Moral Opposition to It. Nichols, Randall G.y [microform]
상세정보
- 자료유형
- 마이크로피시
- 언어부호
- 본문언어 - English
- 청구기호
- 서명/저자
- Educational Biotechnology and a Search for Moral Opposition to It. : Nichols, Randall G.y - [microform]
- 발행사항
- 형태사항
- 20; 1
- 총서명
- ERIC Reports
- 주기사항
- 20p.; In: Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations at the Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology and Sponsored by the Research and Theory Division; see IR 015 706.
- 초록/해제
- 요약This paper argues that several aspects of educational technology, especially educational biotechnology (EBT), are harmful to people and the environment, and will eventually lead to harms that far out-weigh any purported advantages of the technology, and that this is morally unacceptable. (EBT is characterized as the study and application of scientific and other organized knowledge, processes, and products to the physical state of humans for the purpose of creating changes in learning.) The first sections of the paper describe what could be immoral about educational technology (including EBT), assumptions guiding the authors current research for answers, characterizations of EBT and related ideas, and professional literature about the issues raised in the paper. Three basic lines along which educational technology just might be shown to be injurious are indicated: (1) technology may impede learning by constricting options for learners and parents; (2) oppression of less advantaged people is exacerbated by computers in education; and (3) technology and educational technology are ecologically destructive first cousins. It is suggested that intentionally choosing to continue on the path of destruction, even though the extent of negative possibilities in known, makes these effects immoral. It is assumed that critical theory and literature related to it will help show the way to a moral condition in this matter, and the ideas of three theorists--Habermas (critical theory), Rorty (liberal ironist), and Barrett (moral will)--are examined. It is concluded that we must achieve a balanced use of technology so that schools, people, and life are in moral and physical balance, and too many unnecessary and intentional deaths may be avoided. (41 reference
- 복제주기
- Microfiche. . Springfield, VA : ERIC Document Reproduction Service. . microfiches ; 11×15 cm.
- 일반주제명
- 키워드
- 기타저자
MARC
008980917s1992 us b 000 0 eng d■0010000403396
■001PCUL00330420
■002ED348013
■00520020731001259
■007heuumu---buua
■008980917s1992 us b 000 0 eng d
■040 ▼apcul
■0410 ▼aEnglish
■090 ▼a370.78▼bE68
■24500▼aEducational Biotechnology and a Search for Moral Opposition to It.▼cNichols, Randall G.y▼h[microform]
■260 ▼aU.S.; Iowa3yy▼cFeb 92
■300 ▼a20; 1
■440 0▼aERIC Reports
■500 ▼a20p.; In: Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations at the Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology and Sponsored by the Research and Theory Division; see IR 015 706.
■520 ▼aThis paper argues that several aspects of educational technology, especially educational biotechnology (EBT), are harmful to people and the environment, and will eventually lead to harms that far out-weigh any purported advantages of the technology, and that this is morally unacceptable. (EBT is characterized as the study and application of scientific and other organized knowledge, processes, and products to the physical state of humans for the purpose of creating changes in learning.) The first sections of the paper describe what could be immoral about educational technology (including EBT), assumptions guiding the authors current research for answers, characterizations of EBT and related ideas, and professional literature about the issues raised in the paper. Three basic lines along which educational technology just might be shown to be injurious are indicated: (1) technology may impede learning by constricting options for learners and parents; (2) oppression of less advantaged people is exacerbated by computers in education; and (3) technology and educational technology are ecologically destructive first cousins. It is suggested that intentionally choosing to continue on the path of destruction, even though the extent of negative possibilities in known, makes these effects immoral. It is assumed that critical theory and literature related to it will help show the way to a moral condition in this matter, and the ideas of three theorists--Habermas (critical theory), Rorty (liberal ironist), and Barrett (moral will)--are examined. It is concluded that we must achieve a balanced use of technology so that schools, people, and life are in moral and physical balance, and too many unnecessary and intentional deaths may be avoided. (41 reference
■533 ▼aMicrofiche.▼bSpringfield, VA▼cERIC Document Reproduction Service.▼emicrofiches ; 11×15 cm.
■650 4▼xEducation
■653 ▼aAccess to Education▼aAccess to Information▼aCritical Theory▼aEducational Technology▼aEducational Theories▼aGenetic Engineering▼aLiterature Reviews▼aMoral Issues▼aEducational Biotechnology
■7001 ▼aNichols, Randall G.y
■999 ▼a070; 120; 150
한글
ENG
日本
中文
Việt Nam