“技术不可避免地涉及权衡”:社会研究标准中的技术框架

IF 2.5 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Theory and Research in Social Education Pub Date : 2022-03-11 DOI:10.1080/00933104.2022.2042444
Daniel G. Krutka, S. Metzger, R. Seitz
{"title":"“技术不可避免地涉及权衡”:社会研究标准中的技术框架","authors":"Daniel G. Krutka, S. Metzger, R. Seitz","doi":"10.1080/00933104.2022.2042444","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT We live in an era of rapid technological change. Not only must citizens contend with social problems presented by new and more invasive technologies, but they must also make sense of older technologies that can be viewed as natural to the world. We sought to answer the question, how is technology included and framed in K–12 content social studies standards? Through coding, we identified 984 references where students are expected to learn about technology in the K–12 social studies standards of 10 states. Overall, the standards showed a preference for broad labels and neutral or positive framing, with technology often serving as a vehicle to explain social phenomena or economic growth. Production technologies were most frequent, but there was wide variance in the particular technologies referenced by each state. Even when technology was referenced, it often was not the primary focus of the standard’s content. Standards rarely framed technology with critical perspectives for inquiry into collateral, unintended, and disproportionate effects. We draw on technology criticism to offer a technoskeptical framework that educators and scholars can use to question narratives of technological progress and encourage collateral thinking about the consequences of technologies for human societies.","PeriodicalId":46808,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Research in Social Education","volume":"50 1","pages":"226 - 254"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“Technology inevitably involves trade-offs”: The framing of technology in social studies standards\",\"authors\":\"Daniel G. Krutka, S. Metzger, R. Seitz\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00933104.2022.2042444\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT We live in an era of rapid technological change. Not only must citizens contend with social problems presented by new and more invasive technologies, but they must also make sense of older technologies that can be viewed as natural to the world. We sought to answer the question, how is technology included and framed in K–12 content social studies standards? Through coding, we identified 984 references where students are expected to learn about technology in the K–12 social studies standards of 10 states. Overall, the standards showed a preference for broad labels and neutral or positive framing, with technology often serving as a vehicle to explain social phenomena or economic growth. Production technologies were most frequent, but there was wide variance in the particular technologies referenced by each state. Even when technology was referenced, it often was not the primary focus of the standard’s content. Standards rarely framed technology with critical perspectives for inquiry into collateral, unintended, and disproportionate effects. We draw on technology criticism to offer a technoskeptical framework that educators and scholars can use to question narratives of technological progress and encourage collateral thinking about the consequences of technologies for human societies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46808,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Theory and Research in Social Education\",\"volume\":\"50 1\",\"pages\":\"226 - 254\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Theory and Research in Social Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2022.2042444\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theory and Research in Social Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2022.2042444","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

摘要我们生活在一个技术日新月异的时代。公民不仅必须应对新的、更具侵略性的技术带来的社会问题,而且还必须理解对世界来说是自然的旧技术。我们试图回答这样一个问题,技术是如何被纳入和构建在K-12内容社会研究标准中的?通过编码,我们确定了984个参考文献,期望学生在10个州的K-12社会研究标准中学习技术。总的来说,这些标准显示出对宽泛标签和中立或积极框架的偏好,技术往往是解释社会现象或经济增长的工具。生产技术是最常见的,但各州引用的特定技术差异很大。即使引用了技术,它也往往不是标准内容的主要焦点。标准很少用批判性的视角来构建技术,以探究附带的、意外的和不成比例的影响。我们利用技术批评提供了一个技术怀疑论框架,教育工作者和学者可以利用这个框架来质疑技术进步的叙事,并鼓励对技术对人类社会的后果进行附带思考。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“Technology inevitably involves trade-offs”: The framing of technology in social studies standards
ABSTRACT We live in an era of rapid technological change. Not only must citizens contend with social problems presented by new and more invasive technologies, but they must also make sense of older technologies that can be viewed as natural to the world. We sought to answer the question, how is technology included and framed in K–12 content social studies standards? Through coding, we identified 984 references where students are expected to learn about technology in the K–12 social studies standards of 10 states. Overall, the standards showed a preference for broad labels and neutral or positive framing, with technology often serving as a vehicle to explain social phenomena or economic growth. Production technologies were most frequent, but there was wide variance in the particular technologies referenced by each state. Even when technology was referenced, it often was not the primary focus of the standard’s content. Standards rarely framed technology with critical perspectives for inquiry into collateral, unintended, and disproportionate effects. We draw on technology criticism to offer a technoskeptical framework that educators and scholars can use to question narratives of technological progress and encourage collateral thinking about the consequences of technologies for human societies.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Theory and Research in Social Education
Theory and Research in Social Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
30.80%
发文量
36
期刊最新文献
The Nakba in Israeli history education: Ethical judgments in an ongoing conflict Pulling back the curtain: A practical, approachable, and pragmatic new book on teaching history through inquiry Resources for practice: Claiming space for relationships in the classroom Getting critical with compelling questions: Shifts in elementary teacher candidates’ curriculum planning from inquiry to critical inquiry “They created segregation with the economy”: Using AI for a student-driven inquiry into redlining in the social studies classroom
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1