La educación y su conceptualización como técnica autónomaun análisis a partir de la obra de Jacques Ellul

  1. IGELMO ZALDÍVAR, Jon 1
  2. JOVER OLMEDA, Gonzalo 1
  3. QUIROGA UCEDA, Patricia 1
  1. 1 Universidad Complutense de Madrid, España
Zeitschrift:
Utopía y praxis latinoamericana: revista internacional de filosofía iberoamericana y teoría social

ISSN: 1316-5216

Datum der Publikation: 2022

Titel der Ausgabe: Voces de la Educación desde la Filosofía, la Pedagogía, el Deporte, la Lengua y las Bellas Artes

Ausgabe: 27

Nummer: 96

Art: Artikel

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Andere Publikationen in: Utopía y praxis latinoamericana: revista internacional de filosofía iberoamericana y teoría social

Zusammenfassung

In this article we return to the ideas of Jacques Ellul in the context of the technologicalization of education. We take as a reference for the analysis the book entitled The Technoligical Society. The starting idea of this work by Ellul is that societies began in the second half of the 20th century a historical period under the dominance of technique. In an educational perspective, it is possible to observe a drift towards the rationalization, systematization and sequencing of the teaching and learning processes, under the premise that education can be conceptualized as an autonomous technique.

Bibliographische Referenzen

  • Citas ALMAZÁN GÓMEZ, A. (2016). Las TIC en el pensamiento de Jacques Ellul. Explorando la frontera de lo humano. Tales. Revista de Filosofía, 6, 228-233.
  • BLYTH, A. (2010). From individuality to character: The Herbartian sociology applied to education. British Journal of Educational Studies, 29, 1, 69-79. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.1981.9973586
  • BOYLES, D. y KLINE, K. (2018). On the Technology Fetish in Education: Ellul, Baudrillard, and the End of Humanity. Philosophical Studies in Education, 49, 58-66.
  • BREHONY, K. (2001). From the particular to the general, the continuous to the discontinuous: progressive education revisited. History of Education, 30, 5, 413-432. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00467600110064717
  • BREHONY, K. (2009). Transforming theories of childhood and early childhood education: child study and the empirical assault on Froebelian rationalism. Paedagogica Historica, 45, 4-5, pp. 585-604. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00309230903100965
  • BROOKFIELD, S. D. (2015). The Skillful Teacher: on Technique, Trust, and Responsiveness in the Classroom. Estados Unidos: Jossey-Bass.
  • BRUNO-JOFRÉ, R. e IGELMO ZALDÍVAR, J. (2012). Ivan Illich's Late Critique of Deschooling Society: “I Was Largely Barking Up the Wrong Tree”. Educational Theory, 62, 5, 573-592. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2012.00464.x
  • COSTA, A. L. y LOWERY, L. F. (1989). Techniques for teaching thinking. London: Routledge.
  • CUBAN, L. (1986). Teacher and Machines: Classroom use of Technology Since 1920. Nueva York: Teachers Colleges, Columbia University.
  • CUBAN, L. y JANDRIC, P. (2015). The dubious promise of educational technologies: Historical patterns and future challenges. E-Learning and Digital Media, 12, 3-4, 425-439. doi: 10.1177/2042753015579978
  • CUESTA, R. (2005). Felices y escolarizados. Crítica de la escuela en la era del capitalismo. Barcelona: Octaedro.
  • COHEN, S. (1999). Challenging Orthodoxies: Toward a New Cultural History of Education. New York: P. Lang.
  • DELORS, J. (1996). Learning: the treasure within. Paris: UNESCO.
  • DERRIDA, J. (2002). La Universidad sin condición. Madrid: Trotta.
  • ELLUL, J. (1964). The Technological Society. Toronto: Vintage Books.
  • ELLUL, J. (1985). The Humiliation of the Word. Estados Unidos: Eerdmans.
  • ELLUL, J. (2004). Perspectives on Our Age. Toronto: House of Anansi Press.
  • ERMENC, K. S.; VUJISIĆ, N. Z.; SPASENOVIĆ, V. (2015). Theory, Practice and Competences in the Study of Pedagogy--Views of Ljubljana and Belgrade University Teachers. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 5, 2, 35-55.
  • FRIESEN, N. y OSGUTHORPE, R. (2017). Tact and the pedagogical triangle: the authenticity of teachers in relation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 70, 255-264. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.11.023
  • GARCÍA CARRASCO, J. (1983). La Ciencia de la Educación. Pedagogos ¿Para qué? Madrid: Santillana.
  • GILL, D. W. (2016). “Introduction to Jacques Ellul’s Life and Though”. En ELLUL, J. (2016) Presence in the Modern World (pp. 107-112). Eugene, Oregon: Cascade.
  • GOODMAN, P. (2012). Growing Up Absurd. Problems of Youth in the Organized Society. Nueva York: New York Review Books classics.
  • HENRY, C. J. (1995). Education, Technology, and Human Values: Ellul and the Construction of and Ethic of Resistance. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 15, 2-3, 87-91, doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/027046769501500206
  • ILLICH, I. y SANDERS, B. (1988). ABC: The Alphabetization of the Popular Mind. Estados Unidos: Marian Boyars.
  • ILLICH, I (1991). In the Mirror of the Past. Lectures and addresses 1978-1990. Estados Unidos: Marian Boyars.
  • ILLICH, I. y CAYLEY, D. (2013). Conversaciones con Ivan Illich. Un arqueólogo de la modernidad. Madrid: Enclave de libros.
  • IGELMO ZALDÍVAR, J. y QUIROGA UCEDA, P. (2019). La pedagogía ligera en tiempo hipermodernos. El homeschooling, las escuelas Waldorf y la nueva pedagogía ignaciana. Teoría de la Educación, 30, 1, 75-94, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14201/teoredu3017594
  • KENKLIES, K. (2012) Educational Theory as Topological Rhetoric: The Concepts of Pedagogy of Johann Friedrich Herbart and Friedrich Schleiermacher. Studies in Philosophy of Education, 31, 265-273. Doi: 10.1007/s11217-012-9287-6
  • KOCHHAR, S. K. (1985). Methods and Techniques of Teaching. Nueva Delhi: Sterling.
  • LAHAV, R. (1973). Futurology and Education: Four Futurologist and Their Theories of Education. The Journal of Educational Thought, 7, 1, 48-64.
  • LERENA, C. (2005). Reprimir y Liberar. Crítica sociológica de la educación y de la cultura contemporánea. Madrid: Akal.
  • MAINER, J. (2009). La forja de un campo profesional: pedagogía y didáctica de las ciencias sociales en España (1900-1970). Madrid: CSIC.
  • MARIN, L.; MASSCHELEIN, J. y SIMONS, M. (2017). Page, text and screen in the university: Revisiting the Illich hypothesis. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 50. 1, 49-60. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2017.1323624
  • MUMFORD, L. (2020). Técnica y civilización. Logroño: Pepitas de Calabaza.
  • PINAR, W. (2019). Educationalization as technologization. En BRUNO-JOFRÉ, R. (ed.). Educationalization and its complexities. Religion, politics and technology (pp. 239-253). Canadá: University of Toronto Press.
  • SENNETT, R. (1997). El artesano. Barcelona: Anagrama.
  • STONE, L. (2006). From Technologization to Totalization in Education Research: US Graduate Training, Methodology, and Critique. Journal of Philosphy of Education, 40, 4, 527-545. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9752.2006.00530.x
  • TRÖHLER, D. y ROHSTOCK, A. (2014). “From the Sacred Nation to the Unified Globe: Changing Leitmotifs in Teacher Training in the Western World, 1870-2010”. En BRUNO-JOFRÉ, R. y JOHNSTON, J. S. (eds.) (2014). Teacher Education in a Transnational World (pp. 111-130). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
  • WORLD BANK (2011). Learning for all. Investing in People’s Knowledge and Skills to Promote Development. Washington DC: World Bank.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet