EDCP 601A Doctoral Seminar
David Murphy
December 5th, 2012
Being Within the Technology Paradox
Ted Aoki has given many insights to the study of curriculum and education,
some of which are useful to gain a deeper understanding of educational technology.
His writings encourage the careful and thoughtful process of trying to understand
how technology can assist and/or interrupt the important project of education.
Although questions of technology has been debated by many prominent theorists
(e.g. Heidegger, 1977; Gadamer, 1982), Aoki brings particularly insightful
perspectives to these debates. He entices us to linger on themes that listen to how
technology should benefit human needs. It is this insight that reveals a paradox
between our technophilia and our humanity. The following themes are a sample of
the ideas Aoki presents in his writings between 1978 and 2003.
THEME 1 – Understanding the Essence of “Computer Application”
A recent headline in our local newspaper reads: “Technology ignites a passion
for learning in kids and teachers” (Bramham, 2012). The specifics of the technology
seem irrelevant compared to what this type of statement reveals about the
seductive hold technology has on our imagination. The idea is that technology has
an incredible potential to solve our educational challenges, it ignites our passion
with possibilities. This is what Aoki (p. 153) refers to, in Heideggarian terms, as
“standing reserve,” a stockpile of resources ready for the potential of solving
utilitarian ends. The idea that educational technology has, for the last 50 years,
repeatedly not always lived up to its potential does not seem to diminish our
infatuations with the latest developments. Aoki makes the pointed distinction that
1
EDCP 601A Doctoral Seminar
David Murphy
December 5th, 2012
the true essence of technology is not in its instrumental (a tool to extend human
specified means and ends) or anthropological (technological use as a human
activity) definitions but in its potential, in other words as standing reserve. Our
interaction with the essence of technology as a stockpile of possible solutions
becomes all-encompassing, displacing other ways of encountering and
understanding the world and ourselves. Aoki describes this situation as dangerous
because the essence of technology can replace our understanding of our own
essence, loosing our ability to encounter ourselves authentically. This insight, from
1987, is especially prescient in the context of the ubiquity of social media and near
constant device-based interaction that has become evident since. The headline
above illustrates how there is a inclination to believe in technological solutions to
our problems, based on potential rather than outcomes or evidence.
Aoki refines our understanding of technology in educational situations by
examining the applications of computer technologies. On the surface, computer
applications are rather unproblematic. Computers were designed to be applied to
tasks, therefore it seems natural and logical that the technical act of applying the
technologies to specific educational situations should pertain, such as using math
education software. However, generalized meanings that are embedded in the
technology are implied on to the specific situation, in this case the way a student
learns math is assumed and already programed into the software. The assumption
here is that the end result (learning math) is implicitly understood so the
application of technology follows this understanding in a linear and reproductive
way (reproducing general understanding to specific situations). In this instrumental
2
EDCP 601A Doctoral Seminar
David Murphy
December 5th, 2012
process application has replaced understanding, and reduces the possibility for
individual human interaction and adaptation. By applying we assume that people
are learning. Computer applications separate application and understanding;
however, Aoki suggests (following Gadamer) that application and understanding are
inseparable and require interpretation as a hermeneutic problem. This suggestion
of interpreting and understanding both the specific and the general requires a
reevaluation of generalized meanings for every specific location of application. The
general and the specific come together in a “fusion of horizons” (p. 155) to create
one phenomenon. This hermeneutic approach is a daily experience for good
teachers (cyclical alternation between general lesson plan and specific individual
attention) but it is much less intuitive and much more difficult to incorporate it into
technological applications.
This exploration of technologies, applications, and understanding illustrates
one of Aoki’s recurrent themes, which is the mindfulness to listen to what is right in
a given specific situation. The instrumental approach that tries to generalize
applications of education (in technology and in teaching methods) cannot be this
mindful. In order to design technological applications, general assumptions must be
made, which inherently reduces the possibilities of individual adaptation. In
response to this Aoki proposes (p. 156) a hermeneutic approach that specific and
general ways of understanding should inform each other in iterative cycles.
3
EDCP 601A Doctoral Seminar
David Murphy
December 5th, 2012
THEME 2 – Spaces in-between
Throughout Aoki’s work there is a recurring concept of “indwelling in a zone
between” curriculum-as-plan and curriculum-as-lived (e.g. pp. 159, 201, 231, 273-4,
321,423, 449). One of the ideas behind this concept is that curriculum policymaking,
development, implementation, and evaluation come from a linear, industrial model
that is instrumentally reductive of the multiplicity of lived curricula that teachers
and students experience. The education systems that legislate, control and evaluate
the activities of teachers cannot (and should not) address the complexity and human
quality of the teacher-student relationship, which is essential to teaching and
learning. Aoki asks us to surmount the reductionism and instrumentalism of the
curriculum-as-plan and to be open to the dialectic, non-linear, lived realities that are
understood in the practice of teaching but have not yet been articulated. It is this
inarticulate nature of curriculum-as-lived that creates a tension for teachers
between what they know as good teaching and what they must adhere to in the
institutionalized curriculum-as-plan. This space between, Aoki suggests, is an
“extraordinarily unique and precious place” where students and teachers gather
(p.164). This statement reflects a careful and mindful approach to every unique
interaction between teacher and student, which is the foundation of good teaching
The tension between the single curriculum-as-plan and the multiplicity of
curriculum-as-lived is amplified when considering the implementation of
educational technology. The promise of technological solutions for the challenges of
curriculum is as ahistorical as it is seductive. This promise has been repeated for
more than half a century (pp. 151 & 236) with slide projectors, language labs,
4
EDCP 601A Doctoral Seminar
David Murphy
December 5th, 2012
educational TV’s, computers, and various ‘smart’ devices that require enormous
resources (for their purchase and also for the time and labour to apply them) but all
have ended up in storeroom mausoleums. There is a constant belief that the ‘new’
technology will, this time, achieve its goals. Educational technology is the epitome of
instrumental reductionism in curriculum. Most educators are not qualified to
program or develop educational technology so they are relegated to the role of
implementers of the predetermined ends and means designed into the technology.
Furthermore, the seductive nature of new technology (see the Bramham headline
cited above) masks the underlying imperative of control over the process of
teaching and its evaluation. The combination of educational technology’s
instrumental reductionism and this being screened by its seductive allure makes the
critical analysis of it simultaneously crucial and elusive.
Consider the case that Norm Friesen (2011) makes regarding the development
of simulations, specifically for dissection lessons, but can be said for all types of
technologically mediated curricula. Virtual (technological) learning is ultimately
experienced as a relatively repetitive and simplistic interaction with the keyboard,
monitor and mouse, which creates a “discontinuous and disposable” (p. 195)
relationship between the subject and its context. This decontextualization of the
learning environment is, perhaps, less important for teaching abstract concepts such
as math problems but the potential for the development of rich learning
environments that features social interaction and other forms of encounter is
reduced. The concept of “brilliance” (p. 196) is used to describe the virtual
experience when all task-irrelevant elements have been removed and only the
5
EDCP 601A Doctoral Seminar
David Murphy
December 5th, 2012
aspects of explicit relevance remain. This allows for flow, transparency and specific
learnability, which are important to instructional design. However, it is both the
experiences of brilliance and the inconvenience, encumbrance and confinement of
reality together that are essential to education. Friesen (p. 199) suggests that
opacity, disruption and upheaval need to be studied as learning experiences but are
mutually exclusive to the systematic instrumental process of educational technology
design. This argument is contested by Sørensen (2011) who tries to be more
favorable to digital technology but misses the point that the unique complexity of
our self/world encounters can never be fully replaced with technical simulation. As
Friesen (p. 199) says: “Experiences that are emphatically embodied, mediated
affectively and viscerally, are intrinsic to what it is to know, to learn and to educate.”
The lived embodied experience of teaching and learning can never be completely
replaced by virtual educational simulations.
THEME 3 – Technology as Instrument
Ted Aoki was working as chair of the Department of Secondary Education at
the University of Alberta when he learnt that the jazz trumpeter Bobby Shew was
coming to campus as a visiting scholar at the music department. Aoki took this
opportunity to ask Shew to come to a curriculum seminar and respond to two
questions: 1) When does an instrument cease to be an instrument? 2) What is it to
improvise? What is improvisation? By asking these questions of a musician (whom
he respects) Aoki is demonstrating how uninspiring and dead music would be if
held under the same constraints that educators can be when they adhere to the
6
EDCP 601A Doctoral Seminar
David Murphy
December 5th, 2012
instrumental, predictive curriculum-as-plan. This subtle and clever analogy between
learning and music has a powerful resonance. It shows how a disembodied,
technological system of teaching that rewards faithful implementation of the
curriculum is ultimately dehumanizing. Musicianship is more than techniques,
instruments and scores; it exists when these elements are combined with the body
to “become as one in a living wholeness.” (Shew as quoted in Aoki, 2005, p. 368).
Teaching can be as inspiriting as good music when teachers become improvisers
rather than implementers and thoughtful to the life and experiences of their
students and themselves.
Bobby Shew’s trumpet is a technology that allows him to produce music. Can
educational technology work similarly to teach? Although it might not be as easy to
identify educational instruments as musical ones, a clue to the answer is in Shew’s
response to the first question Aoki posed to him, which was: “When music to be
lived calls for transformation of the instrument and the music into that which is
bodily lived.” (Shew as quoted in Aoki, 2005, p. 369). What this tells us is that if a
technology can help produce a genuine embodied human experience then we may
consider it as an instrument. However, this is often a matter of application rather
than the technology itself. Take for example the headline mentioned above, igniting
passion can be motivational to learning but is this passion due to the enthrallment
of the ‘new’ or does the technology truly have the possibility to express that which is
bodily lived. A new technology has the potential to become an instrument of
learning if it can facilitate open-ended human expressions like telling stories or
making art and music. Examples of this exist where technology is used to help create
7
EDCP 601A Doctoral Seminar
David Murphy
December 5th, 2012
projects or environments that reflect the complexity and individuality of our
encounters in lived reality (e.g. Irwin & O’Donoghue, 2012; Grauer, Castro, & Lin,
2012). Technology can be an educational instrument but it takes the careful learning
and practice, such as playing a musical instrument, to go beyond the applications
embedded in the technological design and find the possibilities for true human
expression.
THEME 4 – Ethos
“The technological ethos permeates everyday existence and orders the agenda
of daily life in schools.” (Aoki, p. 236)
The term ethos is understood as describing the underlying beliefs that form an
ideology but it can also be used to refer to the power music has to influence the
listener’s emotions, actions, and even their morals (Gouzouasis, 2010). The way
Aoki uses the term seems to include both these meanings. The themes of sound and
music are referred to in much of Aoki’s writings and the intention can be thought of
as a departure from the ocularcentric orientation of modernism (Jay, 1988) to a
deeper understanding that includes the auditory. Hearing is a more contextual way
of perceiving than vision (Truax, 1992; Truax & Barrett, 2011) so that the attention
to listening expands our understanding of curriculum beyond the linear reductionist
approach of control to include the multiplicity of possible individual contexts.
The preceding quote is warning us that we need to be aware of how ethos
informs ideology and becomes the accepted and unquestioned way to proceed. Even
in a time of critical reflection of modernism a technological ethos (with its hidden
8
EDCP 601A Doctoral Seminar
David Murphy
December 5th, 2012
instrumental and reductionist influence) can permeate our daily life. The seductive
nature of technology goes deeper than its convenience and appearance, as Pinar
(2012, p.4) states, “it is the salvational potential of technology – its promise of
progress…” that we revere. Indeed it is the link between political liberalism and
technology, the idea that our freedom is linked to the progress of science, that
George Grant identifies as the root cause of our increasingly homogenized society
(Pinar, 2012, p.5). The irony in this situation is that our quest for individual freedom
leads us to dependence (enslavement) to the continual consumption of
technological products. This plays out in our pedagogical situation by shifting the
discussion from the development of individuals to the acquisition and
implementation of the tools. According to Aoki, in this shift we lose our ability to
hear “the call of Being, so caught up are we with the matter of the essence of
technology” (p. 396). This truly is a situation to be wary of; while we perceive and
desire progress through our technological consumption we are actually losing what
it is to be human.
Understanding the ethos of education technology also requires an
understanding of its origins. The computer, which is a central component to much of
the educational technology in use today, cannot be considered a “culturally neutral
technology” because of its origins and how tied it is to our desire for social progress
(Bowers, 2001, p.126). Computers were designed and developed to address military
and business applications. In the 1940’s the term “computers” referred to
individuals (almost all female) who calculated artillery firing tables or accounting
records, sitting in rows, reporting to a central controller (Zandvliet, 2006, p.17). The
9
EDCP 601A Doctoral Seminar
David Murphy
December 5th, 2012
pressure from the Second World War to increase the computational power of these
“computers” lead to the development of machine computing systems that are
inherently more complex but essentially have the same basic architecture that has
been perpetuated unconsciously into educational technology (Zandvliet, 2006,
p.25). An example of this is the computing lab, a dominant artifact of educational
technology since the 1990’s, which replicates its militaristic origins. The design of
the educational teaching lab (rows of computers facing a central teaching computer)
demonstrates the priority of technological influence over pedagogical concerns. For
example this design (which is remarkably similar all over the world) is structured to
facilitate power and data to be run to the computers rather than to allow for
collaboration or interaction between students and teachers. Added to this is the
corporate influence of promoting the need for a computer for each student,
resulting in the requirement of enormous resources (of money, space, and time)
allocated to computer labs that were of unproven pedagogical value. If our desire for
progress and our fear of “falling behind” do order our agendas in our schools
perhaps a closer understanding of the technological ethos behind these desires and
fears might allow us to make decisions more related to education. Decisions that are
made with a slower more ethical approach.
THEME 5– Attunement and Watchfulness
Aoki uses the concept of attunement to describe a listening with care, as well
as the bringing into of a harmonious and responsive relationship. The term implies a
soniferous or musical element as well as the engagement or interaction with the
10
EDCP 601A Doctoral Seminar
David Murphy
December 5th, 2012
situation – a relationship. Attunement is more than observation because it involves
not only the awareness of a situation but also the ability to adjust (tune) to what is
required. Aoki uses the concept in combination with touch and tact to describe a
more deeply conscious sensitivity to “our own being as teachers” (p. 164).
Attunement implies dynamic responses and sensitivities at all levels education, not
just in teaching but in the understanding of curriculum as well.
To use this concept of attunement in the context of teaching technology we
need to first be attuned to the needs of the situation. Again we hear the recurring
refrain of the specific informing the general, the practice informing the theory, the
curriculum-as-lived informing the curriculum-as-planed. Technology can be attuned
to specific pedagogical applications but not in a wholesale manner. If a technology
cannot be altered to fulfill the needs of an individual learning situation then it brings
with it preconceived outcomes and instead the situation itself becomes altered. This
is when a technology ceases to be an instrument and becomes an impediment to
learning.
Aoki describes watchfulness in an autobiographical vignette describing a
teacher watching as the Japanese students are ‘relocated’ away from his class. In a
moving and profound way this story tells of a single moment that defines what
pedagogical watchfulness means. The watchfulness of a teacher is an extension of
the bond of parental trust, to allow no harm to come to the student, to hope that the
student will do well. This bond of trust is essential to the constellation of
relationships that come from the student – teacher relationship (i.e. parent –
teacher; school – teacher; society – teacher; etc.). As Aoki says, “good teachers are
11
EDCP 601A Doctoral Seminar
David Murphy
December 5th, 2012
more than they do; they are the teaching” (p. 196). Trust is the foundation that
teaching is built upon. We trust the school systems to only accredit trustworthy
teachers and we instill upon our children that teachers are people we can trust.
However, an individual student’s trust is developed through the tacit watchfulness
of the teacher, giving them a sense of protection and freedom that allows them to
learn.
A deep understanding of watchfulness is necessary for teachers to perceive,
interpret, and attune the often subtle agendas embedded in teaching technology.
Virtual environments and communication technology present challenges to the
watchful role of a teacher. It is often difficult to assess let alone regulate some of the
activities students can be involved in using technology. How can teachers watch
over and protect students if they are unfamiliar with the environments they are
engaged in? Does the computer become a curtain between the teacher and the
student? These questions go beyond the pedagogical advantages of virtual
environments and relate back to the foundations of trust. If teachers are uncertain
of their students’ engagement with environments and activities it is more difficult to
be watchful and to be entrusted.
Pedagogical advantages to virtual environments have been promoted (Han,
2010, 2011) but the speed in which these environments are being developed
compared to the understanding of their complex multisensory influence seems
mismatched. The rapidly changing environments that have become commonplace
allow little time for reflection as to their perception or how they are used by
individual students to construct meaning. As Han (2011) points out there are many
12
EDCP 601A Doctoral Seminar
David Murphy
December 5th, 2012
layers of interpretation, and possibilities of misinterpretation, that exist in virtual
environments but what she fails to emphasize are the risks that arise when teachers
invite students into these environments. There are the risks to the students of
misinterpretations or exposure to inappropriate or incorrect material but there is
also a risk to the trust that has been built historically, socially and institutionally if
our watchfulness as teachers in virtual environments becomes unclear.
THEME 6 – Hidden Curriculum
Aoki (p. 357) reflects on his teaching in a grade 1 class with the reading primer
“We Work and Play” and concludes that the hidden curriculum within that
seemingly innocuous text was an ethic that prioritizes work and separates it from
play. This simple example demonstrates the way hidden curriculum incorporates
ethical and moral perspectives into seemingly unrelated teaching material. The way
this plays out in virtual environments can be much more complex and difficult to
analyze. Hidden curriculum in virtual environments is discussed by Han (2011) as
something that can be revealed and negotiated by promoting visual culture or visual
studies to students so they can understand these environments. Although, visual
literacy is a very important skill, it by its self is unable to address the hidden
curriculum in virtual educational environments. There is potential to motivate
learning through the didactic aspects of virtual environments but when so much of
this technology has been originally developed either for militaristic or commercial
purposes (Edgerton, 2006; Smith, 2010), the question of its hidden curriculum is of
great concern. Educational applications of technology (especially computer based
13
EDCP 601A Doctoral Seminar
David Murphy
December 5th, 2012
virtual environments) are more of an afterthought or a reconfiguration of systems
that were designed to entertain or advance military and corporate endeavors.
Attempting to understand the hidden curriculum within these systems necessitates
reflection of their their original design objectives. This is part of a complex and
uncertain task that educators must assume if they are to be watchful over their
students. The top down structure of technological development does not allow
environments that are diverse enough to match the plurality of students’ individual
needs, wants, and desires.
~
The paradox…
The fact that technology has permeated so many aspects of contemporary life,
and in the context of the themes mentioned above, we are presented with a paradox.
How can we continue the human, individually specific task of education in an
environment that is increasingly technologically mediated? We desire and covet the
progress and freedom that technology promises but in order to get this we have to
give up some of our individuality and sovereignty. The paradox of technology exists
because it is not simply a matter of making choices; the imbedded legacies of
technological development are so entwined in our culture that resistance is futile,
adaptation and mitigation are all that is left. Rejecting technology would be to reject
our culture.
The idea of a paradox existing with our relationship to technology has been
suggested in economics, questioning the return on investment with technology
14
EDCP 601A Doctoral Seminar
David Murphy
December 5th, 2012
(Solow, 1987), and in philosophy, questioning the very foundation of our
understanding about it. Andrew Feenberg (2010) develops a philosophical
foundation that can be used to interpret the paradoxical relationship that has
developed between our educational aspirations (from Aoki) and our technological
desires. Part of this foundation is that we wrongly understand technology as tools
that are separate from us when in fact technology is determined by the meanings we
give it. Feenberg (2010, p. 15) lists ten paradoxes that detail common
misunderstandings that stem from our experiences with technology:
1. The paradox of the parts and the whole: The apparent origin of complex
wholes lies in their parts but in reality the parts find their origin in the
whole to which they belong.
2. The paradox of the obvious: What is most obvious is most hidden.
3. The paradox of the origin: behind everything rational there lies a forgotten
history.
4.The paradox of the frame: Efficiency does not explain success, success
explains efficiency.
5. The paradox of action: In acting we become the object of action.
6. The paradox of the means: The means are the end.
7. The paradox of complexity: Simplification complicates.
8. The paradox of value and fact: Values are the facts of the future.
9. The democratic paradox: The public is constituted by the technologies that
bind it together but in turn it transforms the technologies that constitute it.
10. The paradox of conquest: The victor belongs to the spoils.
What is suggested with this list is that the meaning and purpose of technology
is social, not technical. It is a human construct that reflects who we are and will
determine our future. He is also suggesting that if we (we being everyone involved,
not just corporations and technical professionals) don’t reflect upon our
relationship with technology then we will not be in control of our destinies. This is a
crucial concern for education because, as Aoki suggests, the elusive nature of
teaching is not a programmable set of skills or actions it resides in the human
15
EDCP 601A Doctoral Seminar
David Murphy
December 5th, 2012
relationships and interactions. If we do not reflect on this we risk loosing what it is
to be human.
Feenberg’s list can be applied to the Bramham (2012) article mentioned in the
beginning of this paper to emphasize how little philosophical reflection is involved
in our choice to support technology in the classroom. No mention of the origins of
the technology or how its development relates to educational success, how we
determine values or how our interaction with it changes us. Only the persuasive and
seductive language of progress that creates the reality of resource allocations in
schools and ultimately effects the way teaching is done.
The paradox that technology creates in education may well be one of the most
difficult struggles teachers face in the future. The economic forces that control the
implementation of technology in education are enormous and if teachers want to
maintain any control over how they interact with their students a deeper
thoughtfulness will be required. Corporations that create and supply technology will
not allow a market as large as our education system to be unexploited. Furthermore,
once children have been indoctrinated into a technological education environment
they become lifelong consumers. The suggestions of Aoki are particularly helpful
here for creating a philosophy that allows the being within this paradox,
maintaining the human individuality of every relationship encountered in the
process of teaching.
16
EDCP 601A Doctoral Seminar
David Murphy
December 5th, 2012
A LINGERING NOTE
As I wrote this paper I kept meaning to include more positive aspects of
technology but some how the specter of technological determinism kept my
optimistic comments at bay. As a teacher, musician, and media producer I use
technology daily to create and communicate. I was a technologist for ten years
responsible for acquiring and supporting teaching technology for hundreds of
students and teachers. I am still considered to be “the tech guy” in my institution.
Why so critical? Perhaps it is because I am a father and I can see how the obsessive
nature of technology robs me of personal time with my daughter. It could also be
because I see in my students increasing isolation due to “social” media or because it
makes me sad to think that young people might be more concerned with the
representation of their lives (e.g. on Facebook) rather than their experience of life.
Ultimately, I think there is enough positive reportage of technology. Rather, what is
needed is more reflective thought about how we might manage to not lose ourselves
as we move forward. Technology has changed the game and we must, as educators,
develop the awareness of what this means in order to be watchful of our students
and prepare them to be in control of their destinies.
The advantages of technology for education might be in how it has an
equalizing effect on the control of information. The idea that Paulo Freire (1970)
developed of the “banking” model of education, where students store deposits of
information delivered from the authority of the teacher, breaks down if every
student has unlimited access to the information. This provides the potential for the
critical consciousness that can be transformative for students, teachers and society.
17
EDCP 601A Doctoral Seminar
David Murphy
December 5th, 2012
Reading the works of Ted Aoki has inspired in me the faith that the true
project of education is the development of self-aware, engaged, transformative
participants in our world. Education is part of a “complicated conversation” (Pinar,
Reynolds, Slattery, Taubman 1995, p. 848) that must now include a reflective
nuanced understanding of technology and our relationship to it (as if the
conversation was not complicated enough already). This requires teachers and
students to engage with technology, not necessarily by using it but by developing an
understanding of how it shapes our world, our interactions, and what roll we might
play in shaping it. I was moved by the humanistic perspective Aoki puts into every
aspect of his work and I think he has defined for me what it is to be an educated
person. He says, “an educated person, first and foremost, understands that one’s
way of knowing, thinking, and doing flow from who one is. …a being-in-relationwith-others, and hence is, at core, an ethical being” (p. 365). This quote allows for
both the individual and the social being to be engaged, but also it emphasizes how
we must truly know who we are before inviting a student to participate in the
project of education.
These last words I will leave to Ted Aoki (p. 362) but his inspiration has, for
me, started new branches of ongoing conversations:
“Teaching is a tactful leading out – leading out into a world of possibilities…”
18
EDCP 601A Doctoral Seminar
David Murphy
December 5th, 2012
References
Aoki, T. (2005). Curriculum in a New Key: The Collected Works of Ted T. Aoki. Pinar,
W. & Irwin, R. (Eds.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bowers, C. A. (2001). Educating for Eco-Justice and Community. Athens: GA:
University of Georgia Press.
Bramham, D. (2012, November 20). Technology ignites a passion for learning in kids
and teachers. The Vancouver Sun. p. A9.
Edgerton, D. (2006). The Shock of the Old: Technology and Global History Since 1900.
London: Profile Books Ltd.
Feenberg, A. (2010). Ten paradoxes of Technology. Techné: Research in Philosophy
and Technology. 14(1). 3-15.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. [New York]: Herder and Herder.
Friesen, N. (2011). Dissection and Simulation: Brilliance and Transparency, or
Encumbrance and Disruption? Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology.
15(3). 185-200.
Gadamer, H. (1982). Reason in the Age of Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gouzouasis, P. (2010). An ethos of music education in the 21st century: A (im)
possibility? Presented at: May Day Group 22nd Colloquium. Montclair State
University. Montclair, NJ. June 17-20, 2010.
Grauer, K., Castro, J.C., Lin, C. (2012). Encounters with Difference: Community-based
new media programs and practices. Studies in Art Education. 53(2). 139-152.
Han, H. C. (2010). Revealing the didactic character of imagery in a 3d animated
virtual world. Journal of Virtual Studies, 1(1). pp. 19-24.
Han, H. C. (2011). Second Life, a 3-D Animated Virtual World: An Alternative
Platform for (Art) Education. Art Education. pp. 41-46.
Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology. In The question
concerning technology and other essays (pp. 3-35). New York: Harper
Textbooks.
Irwin, R. L., O’Donoghue, D. (2012). Encountering Pedagogy through Relational Art
Practices. International Journal of Art & Design Education. 31(3). 221-236.
19
EDCP 601A Doctoral Seminar
David Murphy
December 5th, 2012
Jay, M. (1988). The Rise of Hermeneutics and the Crisis of Ocularcentrism. Poetics
Today. 9(2). 307-326.
Pinar, W. F., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P. G., Taubman, P. M. (1995). Understanding
Curriculum. New York: Peter Lang.
Pinar, W. F. (2012, July 13). The First Task of Thought in Our Time. Paper presented
to the University of British Columbia - Simon Fraser University Institute on the
Recurring Questions of Technology, held on the UBC campus.
Smith, R. (2010). The Long History of Gaming in Military Training. Simulation &
Gaming. 41(1). 6-19.
Solow, R. (1987, July 12). We’d better watch out. New York Times Book Review. P. 36.
Sørensen, E. (2011). Comment on Norm Friesen’s
“Dissection and Simulation:
Brilliance and Transparency, or Encumbrance and Disruption?” Techné:
Research in Philosophy and Technology. 15(3). 206-208.
Truax, B. (1992). Musical Creativity and Complexity at the Threshold of the 21st
Century. Journal of New Music Research. 21(1). 29-42.
Truax, B. & Barrett, G. W. (2011). Soundscape in a context of acoustic and landscape
ecology. Landscape Ecology. 26(9). 1201-1207.
Zandvliet, D. B. (2006). Education is Not Rocket Science: The Case for Deconstructing
Computer Labs in Schools. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
20