WHY IS UNDERSTANDING OUR PHILOSOPHIES IMPORTANT?
簡介：為何理解哲學是重要的?
Existing and emerging e-learning technologies are having intense,immediate, and disruptive transformations on education systems (Archer,Garrison & Anderson, 1999);
現有的和新興的數位學習科技對於教育系統轉變上是強烈的、直接和破壞的。
nowhere is the impact felt more than on the practitioners who teach. More specifically, education has moved into a third decade of profound change in how courses and programs are designed and delivered.
沒有任何東西會比學生所感受到的更強烈，更具體來說，在教育上，課程設計和傳達的劇烈轉變已經進入第三十個年頭。
During this time, many new possibilities have become apparent, but also many new challenges.With the rise of e-learning technologies in all sectors of education,there has been one most frequently asked and investigated question: Has e-learning delivered on its promises?
這段期間，很多新的可能性和挑戰也逐漸冒出頭。隨著數位學習科技應用在教育的各種地方，有許多常被問及的問題：數位學習有保障嗎?
Leaders in the field of education have argued that e-learning technologies can effectively respond to accelerating global competition (Daniel, 2000), increase the quality of learning experiences (Garrison, 2002), remove situational barriers(Bates, 2005), and be more cost effective (Twigg, 2003).
教育領域的領導者為數位學習科技能有效地提昇全球競爭力、提升學習經驗品質、移除情境障礙和更符合成本效益爭論著，
In an effort to provide evidence for the promises forwarded by e-learning advocates,
interventions and explorations into the use of e-learning technologies have been conducted.
為了替數位學習的倡導者的承諾提供證據，數位學習科技使用的介入和探索被進行著。
Based on these investigations, commonly cited advantages of e-learning technologies include an ability to provide justin- time learning; increased access; removal of time, place and situational barriers; cost effectiveness; greater accountability; increased interaction; provision of future employment skills for students; and effective support for lifelong learning.
基於這些研究調查，數位學習普遍的優勢包含了提供即時學習、獲得增加、去除時間空間的障礙、成本效益、更多的解釋、提高互動；提供學生未來就業的技能；有效提供終生學習；
As e-learning has become more pervasive, however, expressions of uncertainty,concern, and scepticism have also emerged.
隨著數位學習越來越普及，然而，不確定的表達、擔心和懷疑也同時出現。
The growing lists of concerns include commercialization of teaching; lack of face-time between students and teachers; techno-centric models prioritized over face-to-face culture; devaluation of oral discourse/discussion practices;
這些擔心包含了商業化的教學；師生缺乏面對面的時間；科技中心模式優先於面對面文化；實務上口頭論述/討論的減少；
centralization of decision-making and service provision; concerns that complex and deep learning cannot be satisfactorily achieved without real-time classroom experience; increased technological and pedagogical uniformity; surveillance options that violate privacy policies; recontextualization of established cultural practices, such as education as a cultural discourse; and concern about the growing digital divide and downloading of costs to students.
決策集中和服務提供；擔心沒有即時課堂經驗，無法滿足過於複雜和深入的學習；擴大科技和教學方法統一；控管項目違反隱私政策；語言回歸限定了文化習俗，像是教育就是一種文化話語；擔心逐漸擴大的數位落差和學生下載費用
When this kind of schism between opinions occurs, it can be useful to step back, reflect, and consider the nature of the disagreement.
當這種意見發生分歧的時候，退後一步、反思、考慮意見分歧的本質或許有用，
If we reflect on our own as well as others’ opinions about both technology and education through a philosophical lens, it is possible to become aware that these kinds of differences can be reduced to perspectives on philosophies-in-practice.
如果我們反思自己和他人透過哲學影像的科技和教育的意見；有可能察覺實務哲學上的各種差異能透視而減少
Draper (1993) asserts that an examination of our opinion, or philosophy-in-practice, is more than an academic exercise.
Draper (1993)聲稱意見的檢驗，或實務中的哲學，比一場學術活動來得有幫助
Our philosophy determines how we perceive and deal with our preferred teaching methods – which includes how (or if) we choose and use e-learning technologies.
我們的理念決定如何看待和處理較好的教學方法－包含如何選擇和使用數位學習科技。
WHY IS KNOWING OUR PHILOSOPHIES-IN-PRACTICE IMPORTANT?
為何理解實務哲學是重要的？
At present, education at all levels is to a great extent minimally regulated in terms of what will be taught, how it is taught and, in particular, what role e-learning technologies play.
目前，在各級教育在大程度的規範和小程度控管下怎麼被教導，如何教，特別是數位學習科技所扮演的角色。
Individual teachers, schools, colleges,and/or faculties often determine the content and scope of what they will teach, then choose methods or strategies, instructional materials,and the e-learning technologies they believe will best help the learners to gain new knowledge, skills, and/or attitudes.
老師、學校、大學或學院經常個別決定教學的內容和範圍，然後選擇方法或策略、教材和認為對學習者數取新知識、技能和態度最有幫助的數位學習技術，
As such, educators have the freedom as well as the responsibility to set learner expectations and to determine the purpose and outcomes of the learning activities (Zinn,1990) – which includes a decision on the use of e-learning technology.
因此，教育工作者有負責設定學習者期望和決定學習活動目的和結果的自由度－包含決定使用數位學習科技
These decisions are embedded in our philosophical views about both education and technology; underlying these views is our interpretation of the world and our actions within it.
這些決策根植於我們教育和科技的哲學觀點，我們的解讀和行動解讀這些基本觀點
As such, knowing our philosophical views is important.
因此，了解哲學觀點是重要的
And yet, many educators’ philosophies are often unrecognized and rarely expressed, though they may be understood implicitly (Elias& Merriam, 1980).
然而，儘管隱含地了解，很多教育者的理念往往得不到承認和表示，
More importantly, educational practices concerned with using and choosing e-learning technologies could be conducted more effectively if basic philosophical differences were understood.
更重要的是，假使能了解基本哲學差異，教育實務關心使用和挑選數位學習科技可以更有效地建構，
Differences over the benefits of e-learning technologies are linked to differences over the ends our educational purposes are to achieve(Kanuka & Kelland, forthcoming).
區分數位學習好處和區分最終的教育目標是連結的，
For example, the debate over whether or not we need to prepare our learners for a pervasively networked world revolves around what types of persons we expect our education systems to produce.
舉例來說，辯論是否需要為網路世界每個角落任何類型的學生製造一個我們期望的教育系統，
When considering the interrelationship of philosophy and the choices we make about e-learning technologies, it is important to be aware that philosophy inspires our activities and gives direction to our practices.
在考慮到哲學和我們選擇的數位學習科技的相互關係時，重要的是有激勵活動和給予實務上指導認知的理念，
Specifically, when we are aware of the philosophies of teaching and technology, we can then articulate our own personal philosophy.
具體來說，當我們意識到教學和科技的理念，我們可以說出自己的個人理念。
Knowing our personal philosophy helps us to understand why we act and think the way we do about using e-learning technologies, as well as why others think and act the way they do about e-learning technologies.
了解自己的個人理念可以幫助我們理解為何使用數位學習科技的行動和思考方法，和其他人為何使用位數科技的行動和思考方式。
Moreover, knowing our own and others’ philosophies provides us with the ability to understand the consequences of our technological choices,as well as the effect that our philosophical orientation has on our learners.
此外，了解自己和他人的理念提供我們了解技術選擇的結果的能力，以及哲學取向對學習者的影響
Further, it can facilitate effective communication with others when we can explain not only what we are doing, as well as why (Draper, 1993;Darkenwald & Merriam, 1982; Zinn, 1990).
再者，當我們能解釋要做什麼和為什麼要怎麼做時，可以促進跟其他人有效的溝通
The following sections of this chapter describe the philosophical orientations of teaching and technology, and discuss how our views of e-learning technologies are grounded in our philosophy-in-practice.
本章各節描述教育和科技的哲學取向，和討論在實務哲學上數位科技普及的看法
Our beliefs about teaching and technology guide our practice and, as such,
understanding our beliefs can result in informed practices where we can articulate not only what we are doing, but why.
教學和科技信念指導實務，也因此，了解信念會造成我們在非實務上做了什麼和為何要這麼做
WHAT IS A PHILOSOPHY OF TEACHING AND TECHNOLOGY?
教育和科技的哲學為何？
A philosophy of teaching and technology can be defined as a conceptual framework that embodies certain values from which we view the many aspects of education (Zinn, 1990), including the field of e-learning.
教育和科技的哲學可以定義為一種從教育各種面向中體現一定價值的概念架構，包含數位學習領域
A philosophy of e-learning technology is necessary because too often educators
are concerned with what to do with e-learning technologies without examining sufficiently why they should do it (Draper, 1993; Elias& Merriam, 1980).
數位學習科技哲學是必要的，因為教育者往往關心要使用數位科技做些什麼卻缺乏充分研究為何需要這麼做，
Embedded in our opinions on e-learning technologies are views on the (non) neutrality of technology.
科技(非)中立的觀點是深植於我們數位學習的意見，
The debate over technological neutrality revolves around whether or not technologies are neutral and whether or not biases can arise only from the ways in which technologies are used by teachers and students – or whether biases can occur through the technologies themselves.
爭論科技中立圍繞著技術是否中立，不論這個偏差是否提升，單從教師和學生使用科技的方法－因為科技本身會產生偏差
An analogy to contextualize and bring relevance to views on the neutrality of technologies can be gained from the catch phrase, “People kill people, not guns.” A comparable catchphrase in the field of e-learning might be, “Educators reshape education, not technologies.
一個比喻來脈絡畫，並帶來相關科技中立的觀點可以得到這段話"殺死人的是人，不是槍"，類似在數位學習領域的標語可能是"改造教育的是教育工作者，不是數位科技"，
” Many educational technologists agree with Jonassen (1996),who asserts that “carpenters use their tools to build things; the tools do not control the carpenter. Similarly, computers should be used as tools for helping learners build knowledge;they should not control the learner”(p. 4).
很多教育技術人員同意Jonassen (1996)提出”木匠使用工具建立事物，但工具不會控制木匠”的那個人，電腦應該做為工具來幫助學習者建立知識，而不應該控制學習者
While Jonassen’s argument sounds solid in its rationale, media theorist Marshall McLuhan (1964) suggests otherwise.
雖然Jonassen的論點聽起很有道理，媒體理論家 Marshall McLuhan (1964)卻不這麼認為
Specifically, even though the neutrality of a tool speaks to our common sense with respect to the ways in which tools are used, McLuhan and Fiore (1962) maintain that media can profoundly transform society and the human psyche.
具體來說，即使中立工具以任何形式表達出我們的常識，McLuhan and Fiore (1962) 認為媒體可以深刻地改變社會和人的心靈
McLuhan also made famous the aphorism, “The medium is the message,”giving pause to the assumption of the non-neutrality of technology.
McLuhan 說了著名的格言"媒介即是訊息"，終止了科技中立的假設
Building on the assumption of the non-neutrality of technologies,Chandler (1996) postulates that media shapes our experiences, and it does so in part through its selectivity.
建立科技是非中立的假設，Chandler (1996)假設媒體形成經驗，當中挑選的部分也是如此
In particular, Chandler asserts that when we interact with media, we act and are acted upon, use and are used.
特別是，Chandler 宣稱當我們和媒體互動，行動並執行，用且被用
In this respect, we can use the work by Brent (2001) to illustrate the changes caused by technologies when we look at this through the lens of a gestalt perspective, where certain elements of the learning process are brought to the foreground while others are moved to the background.
在這方面，我們可以藉由Brent (2001)所做的來舉例，當我們透過鏡頭透視，學習過程必然因素被帶到前景而其他被帶到背景時，科技所造成的改變
Consistent with McLuhan’s and Brent’s views, Postman (1993) maintains that, “embedded in every tool is an ideological bias, a predisposition to construct the world as one thing rather than another,to value one thing over another, to amplify one sense or skill or attitude more loudly than another” (p. 13).
Postman and McLuhan hold definitive views about the non-neutrality of technology.
Postman and McLuhan 對於科技中立抱持著明確地看法。
Others, such as Ihde (1979)and Dahlberg (2004), adopt moderate views of technological determinism,or a“nonreductionist” orientation.
其他像是Ihde (1979)and Dahlberg (2004)，採用科技決定論的觀點，或是"非教育家"導向。
Ihde, for example, suggests that the use of instruments both amplifies and reduces human experiences.
舉例來說，Ihde建議放大工具的使用且減少人為經驗
Similar to mainstream philosophies of education (e.g., Zinn, 1990;see also Elias & Meriam, 1980), when we use the purposes of technology as the basis for organizing the philosophical literature, it becomes apparent that there are different and opposing perspectives.
類似的主流教育理念 (e.g., Zinn, 1990;see also Elias & Meriam, 1980)，使用科技做為組織哲學文獻為基礎的理念，很顯然有不同和反對的觀點
Educators who choose and use e-learning technologies should be knowledgeable about the philosophies of teaching, as well as the multidimensionality of technological determination, and be reflexive about the limits of their activities in both areas.
教育者選擇和使用數位學習科技應該具備教育哲學的知識，和科技判斷的多層面，並反思這兩個領域的活動限制
OVERVIEW OF PHILOSOPHICAL ORIENTATIONS
哲學導向的概述
Knowledge of philosophical orientations provides us with insights into the nature of the use of e-learning technologies.A philosophy of teaching and technology is essential for answering e-learning questions, and their relationship to other activities within the education sector.
哲學導向的知識提供我們使用數位學習科技的本質見解，
為了回答數位學習問題，教和科技的哲學和與教學部門的活動關係是必要的，
Of course,these kinds of technologically-related concerns have recurred throughout
the decades; indeed, some have even persisted over the centuries.
當然，這類和技術相關的問題已經重覆發生好幾十年，事實上，有的甚至持續了好幾個世紀
The common thread of persistent technological debates in the field of education
is that they have tended to have varying implicit assumptions about the basic nature of an education.
在教育領域持續科技辯論的兩個共同思考，多半具有基於教育本質的不同假設
It is apropos for those of us concerned with education to at least attempt to address the principal concerns and issues that are currently being put forward; such efforts can help legitimize and give direction to the growing field of e-learning.
這對關係教育的我們是適切的，至少試圖解決主要問題和當前的議題；如此的努力可以幫助合法化和給予不斷成長的數位學習領域指引，
The following sections in this chapter outline the differing philosophical orientations for teaching and technology.
以下章節大剛的各部份區分不同教學和科技的哲學導向
As you read the philosophies presented, you may want to ask yourself which philosophy you find yourself most in agreement with, especially regarding their aims and values.
當你讀到這些被提出的理念，你應該想問問自己哪個哲學和你發現的最一致，特別在於目標和價值
PHILOSOPHIES OF TECHNOLOGY
科技的哲學
In regard to e-learning technology, there is a tendency to orientate ourselves to one of three orientations (Dahlberg, 2004). The first position is referred to as uses determinism.
關於數位學習科技，傾向以三種面向來定位，第一種稱之為使用決定論
This view pertains to the instrumental the uses of technological artefacts and, correspondingly, the uses effects on technological artefacts and society.
這個觀點涉及科技產品的有效使用，相對地，科技產品和社會的使用效果，
The second position is referred to as technological determinism.
第二個定位稱之為科技決定論，
This view focuses on the forms and effects that technological artefacts have on uses and society. The third position is referred to as social determinism.
這個觀點著重於科技產品使用和社會的形式和效果，第三個稱為社會決定論，
This view asserts that social contexts and cultures affect forms and uses of technological artefacts.
此觀點稱為社會背景文化影響科技產品使用型式，
Following is a broader discussion of each orientation.
以下更廣泛討論各個面向
Uses Determinism
使用決定論
In its simplest sense, this position emphasizes technological uses and focuses on the ways in which we use technologies within learning and teaching transactions.
簡單地來說，此一論調強調科技使用並專注於使用資訊科技在教學轉換上的方法
In this approach, technologies are perceived as neutral tools and are simply devices that extend our capacities.
這這個方法下，科技被視為是拓展我們能力的中立工具和裝置
As users,we determine the effects of technological artefacts.
做為使用者，我們可以確定科技產品的引響力，
Scholars commonly associated with this orientation include Fiske (1987), Harrison and Stephen (1999), Katz and Rice (2002), Sudweeks, McLaughlin and Rafaeli (1998), Garramone, Harris and Anderson (1986), Ebersole(2000), and Welchman (1997).
In educational technology, we see this view expressed by Jonassen(1996) and Clark (1994).
在教育科技上，我們看到 Jonassen(1996) and Clark (1994)所表達的觀點，
As noted in the introduction, Jonassen asserts that “carpenters use their tools to build things; the tools do not control the carpenter.
正如緒論所摘錄的，Jonassen聲稱"木匠使用工具建造；工具不會控制木匠"
Similarly, computers should be used as tools for helping learners build knowledge; they should not control the learner” (p. 4).
相同地，電腦應該是做為幫助學習建構知識的工具；而不是控制學習者
This view is consistent with the seminal writings of Clark (1983; 1985),who argues that our uses of instructional strategies are the active ingredient in effective learning, not the technology.
這個觀點是一致性開創的作者克拉克(1983；1985)，認為用教學策略是有效學習的主動因素，而非數位科技
In his writings, Clark claims, in part, that technologies are “mere vehicles that deliver instruction but do not influence student achievement any more than the truck that delivers our groceries causes changes in our nutrition” (1983,p. 445).
在他的著作， Clark說，在某種程度上，技術是"純粹提供指令的車輛，但比其他提供雜貨導致改變營養的卡車來說更不影響學生成績"
Such views assert that the technological artefacts we use for educational purposes (e.g., course management systems) are neutral tools, able to serve the aims and objectives of agents (e.g., educators)
employing them.
就這樣的觀點而言，我們用來達到教育目的電子產品(例如課程管理系統)是中立的工具，能夠勝任代理人(如教育者)的目的和目標
This perspective is certainly not new, emerging as a response to the pessimism of the Frankfurt School.
這顯然不是新的觀點，逐漸成為悲觀回應的Frankfurt學派
Indeed, today the majority of e-learning technologists would likely state that this is their view of the role of e-learning technology within the learning process.
事實上，大多數數位學習專家指出，這很可能是他們認為數位學習科技在學習過程中所扮演的角色
This view is appealing – especially in North America – because it asserts that, as individuals, we have control and autonomy over the technology (Morley 1989).
這個觀點很有吸引力－特別在北美－因為它聲稱，每個人，我們都有科技的控制和自主權
Dahlberg (2004) observes that this should be of little surprise, given that American communications studies has been significantly influenced by the liberal pluralist uses and gratification model that developed in response to effects traditions.
Dahlberg (2004)認為不需要太過驚訝，因為美國傳播學被自由多元論者，使用針對影響傳統所發展的模式給大大地影響了
While appealing in many respects, uses determinism can result in a number of contradictions and problems when educators hold this perspective in a singular fashion (Dahlberg, 2004).
雖然許多方面有吸引力，但當教育者特別流行持有這些觀點，使用決定論會導致大量的矛盾和錯誤
In particular, viewing e-learning technology as a neutral tool assumes that there is a technological fix for an educational problem.
特別是，數位學習科技是中立工具觀點假定是教育問題的技術修復
This instrumentalist line of thinking assumes that technologies exist without social or political origins,and that uses and users are the causal agents in the production of social action (Lacroix & Tremblay, 1997) – often celebrating unconstrained consumer sovereignty, and resulting in instrumentalism and/or structuralism(Golding & Murdock, 2000).
The problem with instrumentalism is that there is an inclination to place emphasis upon the intentionality of agents, with an unbalanced focus on the interactions between the actors and the technologies.
工具主義有一種把重點擺在代理意圖的傾向的問題，不平衡的專注在使用者和科技的互動
As a result, educators tend to narrowly focus on the role of agents and disregard the broader social structures and/or technological artefacts’ effects on the learning outcomes, leading to explanations that overemphasize the power and autonomy of actors.
因此，教育者往往狹隘地專注於代理者的角色，而忽略了更廣泛的社會架構和科技產品在學習成果上的影響，導致過分強調行動者權力和自主的解釋，
The belief that individual actors have complete control over the effects of a technological artefact is a misguided and naïve assumption.
這個獨立個體有完全控制科技產品影響的信念是誤導而天真的假設
“Such an assumption overlooks the structuring of actions by technological systems and neglects the social ‘embeddedness’ of these systems and their users” (Dahlberg, 2004).
這樣的假設忽略了行科技系統和動結的構化，以及忽略社會'植入'這些系統和使用者
Social Determinism
社會決定論
In this perspective, educators are concerned with the integration of technological artefacts within social systems and cultural contexts.
從這個角度來看，教育者關心的是科技產品在社會系統和文化背景的融合，
This perspective emphasizes the way our uses of technologies are affected by the social structures and the social construction of technological artefacts.
這個觀點點強調我們使用科技的方式受到社會結構和科技產物的社會建構影響，
Educators holding this view are concerned about the ways that social and technological uses shape the form and content of the learning experiences.
持有此觀點的教育者關心社會和科技使用塑造學習學習經驗形式和內容的方法
Scholars commonly associated with this orientation include Golding and Murdock (1997), Mosco (1996), Garnham (1990), Woolgar(1991a; 1991b; 1996; 2002), and Schiller (1999).
Many e-learning futurists and pundits fall within this perspective, such as Larry Ellison (chair and CEO of Oracle Corporation), Peter Drucker (author of The Effective Executive and Management Challenges for
the 21st Century; recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President George W. Bush; and featured on the front cover of Forbes Magazine), and Jaron Lanier (virtual reality pioneer).
許多數位學習學者和專家屬於這個論點
All of these suggest a looming breach of monopoly for providers of education should they not respond to accelerating globalization and increasing competition.
他們都建議隱約違反，教育的壟斷提供者不應該促使全球化且擴大競爭
Typically, the solution presented is a move to technologically innovative and consumer-oriented education.
通常情況下，解決方案是創新科技的步驟和消費者導向的教育
Peter Drucker, in an interview with Forbes Magazine (1997), claims that social changes will result in the physical presence of universities ceasing to exist within ten years.
Peter Drucker，宣稱社會改變會導致實體大學在十年之內消失，
One might even imagine a Darwinian process emerging, with some institutions consuming their competitions in hostile takeovers.
甚至可以設想出現一些機構為了競爭惡意收購的達爾文過程，
These views rest upon the way technology is socially embedded and constituted.
這些在方法之上的觀點，科技是社會化的植入與建構
In particular, social choices shape the form and content of technological artefacts (Dahlberg, 2004).
特別是，社會挑選科技產品的內容和型式
As with uses determinism, however, social determinism has logistical issues that are difficult to resolve.
如同使用決定論，然而，社會決定論有邏輯上的問題難以解決，
Specifically, this orientation can lead to flawed understandings of educational technology, if developed without reference to user agency or material limits (Dahlberg).
具體來說，假使沒有參考使用者媒介或教材限制，這種傾向會導致有缺陷地理解教育科技
The line of reasoning in this orientation – that technologies embody social choice – negates a multifaceted understanding of the place of agency in technological development.
這個傾向的推論－科技包含了社會選擇－否定了當地機構科技發展多面向理解，
Many of the pundits and futurists cited above have an inaccurate view of the power of social context and its ability to impact education.
許多專家和學者引述社會背景和衝擊教育能力的不確定觀點，
Social contexts do not simply manipulate education systems at will.
社會情境不會如我們所願簡單地操作教育系統而已，
In our everyday lives,there is a dynamic mutual shaping between the social, technology, and users’ environments.
在日常生活中，社會、科技和使用者環境是動態且互相塑造的。
Technological Determinism
科技決定論
Within this orientation, technologies are viewed as causal agents determining our uses and having a pivotal role in social change.
在這個方向，科技被視為導致代理人決定使用並在社會變革中具有關鍵性的角色
Scholars most commonly associated with this orientation include Dubrovsky,Kiesler and Sethna (1991), Sproull and Kiesler (1986), Argyle (1996),Spears and Lea (1994), Marcuse (1941), Habermas (1970), Bell (1973),Lyotard (1984), Baudrillard (1983), Castells (1999), Gates (1995), Pool(1983), Toffler and Toffler (1994), Heidegger (1977), Postman (1993),and Marx (1997).
The label technological determinism has tended to have a negative connotation that educational technologists who hold this view regard technology as a distracting and potentially even harmful component of education systems.
標籤科技決定論有消極的意義 ，教育科技人員持有忽略科技是會讓人分心且教育系統潛在有害成分的觀點
The origin of technological determinism is connected to a Marxist class analysis, which views technology as an instrument of dominance by the advantaged class over others.
科技決定論的起源和馬克思階級分析連接，將科技視為憑藉著階級優於他人的優勢儀器，
Within the field of education, this historical view led to a belief that technology could be a means towards the end of oppressing students – with Technics and Civilization (Mumford, 1934) as one of the first pieces of literature to make this analysis.
在教育領域，歷史觀點引導認為科技可以是壓迫學生的最後手段
By the 1960s, Mumford was joined by other critics –such as Landgon Winner (1977), Albert Borgmann (1984), and Don Ihde (1979) – responding to the changing political climate of the day.
During this period, Marcuse (1964) and Foucault (1977) were also influential critics of the role of technological determinism and the formation of modern hegemonies (Feenberg, 1999).
During this period, Marcuse (1964) and Foucault (1977)也是科技決定論具有影響力的角色並構成現代領導權(Feenberg, 1999)
More recently, some educators such as David Noble have been labelled as technological determinists.
更早之前，一些教育家如 David Noble被列為技術決定論，
Noble and colleagues (Noble,1991; Noble, Shneiderman, Herman, Agre, & Denning, 1998) have written extensively on the relationships between distance-delivered e-learning and de-professionalization of the academy.
Noble和同事(Noble,1991; Noble, Shneiderman, Herman, Agre, & Denning, 1998)撰寫大量的遠距學習和學院去專業化關係
These scholars are concerned about the erosion of academic freedom, and thus they are aggressive critics arguing that the expansion of distance-delivered e-learning as a leading-edge movement to commercialize education will work to deprofessionalize faculty members and erode academic freedom (e.g.,Noble, 1998).
這些學者擔心學術自由的腐蝕，因此他們積極批評辯論
Other prominent scholars who have on occasion fallen into this category include Erich Fromm (1968), Marshall McLuhan (1962),Neil Postman (1993), Hubert Dreyfus (2001), and Jean Baudrillard(1983).
These scholars question modern technologies and many condemn technology for disseminating an onslaught of incoherent and fragmented trivialities to the world at the expense of engagement, reflectivity, and depth.
這些學者質疑現代化科技並不斷零碎的事情攻擊和散播來責備科技，
They also argue that modern technologies and growing neoliberalism are creating a rising capitalistic climate that includes politicaleconomic interests such as comodification, commercialization, and corporatization of education.
他們還認為現代化科技不斷成長的新自由主義，造成資本主義的興盛，包含商業化和企業化的教育
The assumption underpinning these views is that technology determines our uses and impacts society – in a negative way.
支持這個觀點的假設為－科技負面定決定使用和衝擊社會
Although not often given the label of technological determinist, scholars who view technology as influencing our education systems in positive ways also hold the same assumption that technology determines our uses and impacts society, but in a beneficial way.
雖然不是經常被列入科技決定論者，視科技正面影響教育系統的學者持有相同假設，科技是以有利的方式決定使用和社會衝擊
In the area of e-learning, for example, Garrison and Anderson (2003) assert that educational technologies can transform the learning experiences in positive ways, resulting in increasing the quality of learning experiences.
在教育領域，舉例來說，Garrison and Anderson (2003) 宣稱教育科技能正向轉變學習經驗，造成學習經驗品質提升
Other positive views presented in the literature include the opinion that e-learning communication tools facilitate the development of argument formation capabilities, increased written communication skills,
complex problem-solving abilities, and opportunities for reflective deliberation
(Abrami & Bures, 1996; Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2001;Hawkes, 2001; Winkelmann, 1995).
期他在文獻上的正面觀點包含 數位學習通訊工具增進論點形成能力的發展，提高書面表達能力，綜合解決問題能力和反覆研究的機會
The rationale underpinning these beliefs rests on the assumption that the technologies (e.g., asynchronous text-based Internet tools which have a time lag when communicating) provide the inherent potential to effectively facilitate higher levels of learning.
支持這些剩餘信念的基本原理假設科技(如有時間延遲的非同步文本網路工具)提供固有的效用幫助高階學習
For example, Lapadat (2002) argues that with asynchronous text-based Internet technology, learners have the means to compose their ideas and thoughts into a written form of communication.
舉例來說，Lapadat (2002)認為非同步的文字基礎網路科技，學習者可以利用工具來寫字溝通，撰寫自己的創意和想法，
This, according to Garrison and Anderson, provides learners with the ability to critically reflect on their views, which is necessary for higher-ordered learning.
為此，根據 Garrison and Anderson，提供學習者反思意見的判斷能力，對於高階學習來說是必要的
In regard to educational systems, Archer, Garrison, and Anderson (1999) have written about disruptive technologies, arguing that technologies are a catalyst of change, resulting in the need for educators and institutions to adapt and/or transform.
基於關心教育系統，Archer, Garrison, and Anderson (1999)有寫關於分裂的科技，認為科技催化改變，導致教育者必須適應和轉變，
The assumption here is that the effects of technical change are inevitable and unquestioned.
這裡的假設是科技改變的影響是毫無疑問且不可避免的。
As these examples illustrate, both advocates and opponents of e-learning believe that e-learning technologies determine the uses and the agents.
這些例子說明了，數位學習的支持者和反對者都相信數位學習決定了使用和代理
In less bi-polar positions, this orientation also asserts that the effect of new media (e.g., social software) has influenced post-modern ideas.
在不到極端的定位，這種倒像還說，新媒體的影響（如社會軟體）影響後現代觀念
Poster (1997), for example, puts forth the notion that the Internet has instantiated new forms of interaction and power relations between users, resulting in significant social impacts.
Poster (1997)，舉例來說，提出網路具體化使用者間新的互動模式和權力關係之觀點，造成重大的社會衝擊
Nguyen and Alexander(1996) assert further that the Internet has produced new realities in our everyday lives.
Nguyen and Alexander(1996)進一步說到網路在日常活中已產生新的實體
Technological determinism is also consistent with much of the existing technology theory, perhaps most notably, McLuhan’s(1964) “the medium is the message” slogan, as well as the idea of the
world now being a global village.
科技決定論也符合大部分的科技理論，或許最明顯的McLuhan’s(1964) "媒介即時訊息"標語，和現在是地球村的概念，
These views are representative of the cultural products of mass media and agents of socialization and political indoctrination, and correspond with the social impact of technology literature that emphasizes the transformations caused by technologies acting on society.
這些觀點是大量媒體下的文化產物和社會化代理和政治教化，符合科技社會衝擊文獻強調的科技作用在社會下的轉變
Theorists of post-industrialism and post-modernity also view technology as a causal agent, having a central role in social change(Dahlberg, 2004).
Lyotard (1984) and Baudrillard (1983) likewise argue that technology is instrumental in the development of the post-modern condition.
Lyotard (1984) and Baudrillard (1983)同樣認為科技是後現代化發展狀態的工具
Within the field of education, de Castell, Bryson, and Jenson(2002) express concerns that e-learning technologies result in yet another form of cultural colonization, resulting from curricular development designed to mimic the cognitive styles of recognized experts.
在教育領域，Castell, Bryson, and Jenson(2002)擔心數位學習科技造成不斷地文化殖民，造成課程發展設計模仿知名專家的認知模式，
An understanding of the impact of technology on educational systems is important for educators to know and recognize.
了解科技在教育系統的衝擊是對教育者來說了解和組織來說重要的，
As with the other technological orientations, however, an overemphasis on the impact of technology on the learning process can lead to problems when there is a lack of recognition of the social and user embeddedness of technology.
如同其他科技取向，然而，當缺乏社會認可和用戶嵌入技術，過份強調科技在學習過程的衝擊會導致問題
Without question, there is a significant effect of e-learning technology on modern education, including, as Chandler (1996) notes, the numerous unanticipated consequences – which should not be underestimated.
毫無疑問的，數位學習在現代化教育有重要的影響，包含，如Chandler (1996)所示，大量沒有料想到的推論－不該被忽視，
Likewise, Winner (1977) asserts that technological artefacts may embody affirmation, but may also become a betrayal.
同樣地, Winner (1977)說科技產品會具體證實，但也可能洩密，
There is little doubt that education is increasingly being encompassed by e-learning technologies and that they increasingly shape the way we think and learn.
毫無疑問，教育正不斷地被數位學習科技涵蓋，且不斷塑造我們思考和學習的方式
Nevertheless,this impact is not as independent of human control as the techno-utopian,techno-cynic, techno-zealot, and techno-structuralism theorists indicate(Boshier & Onn, 2000).
然而，影響不會被獨立的個人所控制，如是科技理想者、科技保守者、科技狂熱者、科技建構主義理論家所示。
Accounts from such theorists either reify reductive consequences or claim too much for what is increasingly a shift in the growing use of e-learning technology in education.
為數位學習科技在教育上不斷使用的轉變，理論學家減少推論和宣稱太多
This one-dimensional view of technology suffers similar logistical problems with the uses- and social-determinist orientations.
此科技忍受相同使用和社會決定論者導向的一維觀點
Educators positioning themselves from a one-dimensional view of the impact of technology perceive the properties of a particular technology as having the ability to predetermine educational outcomes.
教育家定位從科技衝擊的一維觀點中察覺到個別科技的特性有預測叫學成果的能力
Little, if any, attention is given to the effects of educational, social, and historical forces that have shaped both educational systems and educational technologies.
很少，如果有的話，關注教育、社會和歷史的力量對塑造教育系統和教育科技的影響
沒有留言:
張貼留言