(Re)Cadrer nos cadres: Architectonique, intertextualité et les savoirs sur l'éducation dans l'éducation en ligne
DOI :
https://doi.org/10.21432/cjlt28123Mots-clés :
Architectonique , Interdisciplinarité numérique , Intertextualité , Théorie de l'éducation en ligneRésumé
La pandémie de 2020 a renouvelé l'intérêt pour la technologie en tant qu'agent d'intégration dans l'enseignement supérieur. Cependant, les progrès de la technologie continuent de dépasser les savoirs concernant l’intégration dans l’Avancement des Connaissances en Enseignement et en Apprentissage (SoTL par ses sigles en anglais), même si l'éducateur américain Ernest Boyer l'a appréciée comme un domaine de recherche interdisciplinaire continue. Cet article de réflexion appelle à reconsidérer l'appréciation de Boyer de l'intégration en tant que convergence ou intertextualité. L'intertextualité et son équivalent numérique ou hypertextualité rendent opérationnelle l'éducation en ligne. Pourtant, ils sont souvent ignorés en tant que modes de convergence qui remettent en cause la disciplinarité. Ce paradoxe signale le besoin d'un discours et d'un cadre savants qui peuvent aider les éducateurs à (re)conceptualiser la nature intrinsèquement intégrative des connaissances et de l'éducation en ligne. Pour combler ce déficit dans le SoTL, cette méta-synthèse met en évidence l'architectonique de Peircean comme le paradigme qui recadre notre compréhension de la convergence et éclaire son actualisation dans le prototype de l'éducateur Canadien Terry Anderson pour la théorie de l'éducation en ligne. La logique architectonique enrichit ce modèle et fournit aux éducateurs en ligne un discours commun et un cadre interdisciplinaire qui feront progresser les savoirs sur l'intégration dans l'éducation en ligne.
Références
Alexander, B. (2020). Academia next: The futures of higher education. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Anderson, T. (2008). Towards a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed., pp. 45–74). Athabasca University Press.
Bakhtin, M. (1990). Art and answerability: Early philosophical essays by M. M. Bakhtin (M. Holquist & V. Liapunov, Eds., V. Liapunov, Trans.). University of Texas Press.
Barthes, R. (1989). The rustle of language (R. Howard, Trans.). University of California Press.
Bernauer, J. A., & Tomei, L. A. (2015). Integrating pedagogy and technology: Improving teaching and learning in higher education. Rowman & Littlefield.
Boyer, E. L. (1987). College: The undergraduate experience in America. Harper & Row Publishers.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Jossey-Bass.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. The National Academies Press.
Chandler, D. (2002). Semiotics: The basics. Routledge.
Chick, N. L. (2013). Difference, privilege, and power in the scholarship of teaching and learning: The value of humanities SOTL. In K. McKinney (Ed.). The scholarship of teaching and learning: In and across the disciplines (pp. 15–33). Indiana University Press.
Dennis, J. (2018). The intertextualist: Future teachers, past pedagogy, and dedifferentiation in multicultural education. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in Education, 7(1), 78–86. https://doi.org/10.32674/jise.v7i1.1062
Dennis, J. (2020a). The Kantian effect: Reconceiving the integration of knowledge in interdisciplinary theory. Journal of Interdisciplinary Sciences, 4(2), 1–14.
Dennis, J. (2020b). Languaging network learning: The emergence of connectivism in architectonic thought. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 21(3), 304–318. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v21i3.4718
Gazoni, R. M. (2016). Creative thinking in artificial intelligence: A Peircean account. In H. R. Arabnia, L. Deligiannidis, & M. Yang (Eds.), 2016 International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence (CSCI), Las Vegas, Nevada (pp. 537–540). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
Goffman, E. (1986). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Northeastern University Press.
Foucault, M. (2010). The archaeology of knowledge: And the discourse on language (A. M. S. Sheridan, Trans.). Vintage Books.
Halliday, M. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. Edward Arnold.
Hawkins, D. (1994). Constructivism: Some history. In P. Fensham, R. Gunstone, & R. White (Eds.), The content of science: A constructivist approach to its teaching and learning (pp. 9-13). The Falmer Press.
Holquist, M. (1990). Dialogism: Bakhtin and his world. Routledge.
Hovestadt, L. (2010). Beyond the grid: Architecture and information technology. Applications of a digital architectonic. Birkhäuser.
Hovland, K., Anderson, C., & Ferren, A. (2015). Interrogating integrative learning. Peer Review, 16/17 (4/1). https://www.aacu.org/peerreview/2014-2015/fall-winter/ferren
Huber, M. T., & Hutchings, P. (2004). Integrative learning: Mapping the terrain. The academy in transition. Association of American Colleges & Universities and The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Huber, M. T., & Morreale, S. P. (Eds.). (2002). Disciplinary styles in the scholarship of teaching and learning: Exploring common ground. American Association for Higher Education and The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Hutchings, P. (Ed.). (2000). Opening lines: Approaches to the scholarship of teaching and learning. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Hutchings, P., & Huber, M. T. (2008). Placing theory in the scholarship of teaching and learning. Art & Humanities in Higher Education, 7(3), 229–244.
Kant, I. (2007). Critique of pure reason (N. K. Smith, Trans.). (Rev. ed.). Palgrave Macmillan. (Original work published 1787)
Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2013). Missing: Evidence of a scholarly approach to teaching and learning with technology in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(3), 327–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2013.773419
Klein, J. T. (1996). Crossing boundaries: Knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities. University Press of Virginia.
Klein, J. T. (2005). Integrative learning and interdisciplinary studies. Peer Review, 7(4), 8–10.
Klein, J. T. (2010). Creating interdisciplinary campus cultures: A model for strength and sustainability. John Wiley & Sons.
Kristeva, J. (1986). The Kristeva reader (T. Moi, Ed.). Columbia University Press.
Landow, G. P. (2006). Hypertext 3.0: Critical theory and new media in an era of globalization. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Lemke, J. L. (1992). Intertextuality and educational research. Linguistics and Education, 4, 257–267.
Lemke, J. L. (2002). Travels in hypermodality. Visual Communications, 1(3), 299–325.
Manchester, P. (2003). Kant’s conception of architectonic in its historical context. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 41(2), 187–207.
McKeon, R. (1987). Rhetoric: Essays in invention and discovery (M. Backman, Ed.). Ox Bow.
McKinney, K. (2007). Enhancing learning through the scholarship of teaching and learning: The challenges and joys of juggling. Anker Publishing/Jossey-Bass.
Nelson, T. H. (1987). Computer lib/dream machine (2nd ed.). Tempus Books/Microsoft Press.
Orr, M. (2003). Intertextuality: Debates and contexts. Polity.
Parker, K. A. (1998). The continuity of Peirce’s thought. Vanderbilt University Press.
Peirce, C. S. (1887). Logical machines. The American Journal of Psychology, 1, 165–170.
Peirce, C. S. (1955). Philosophical writings of Peirce (J. Buchler, Ed.). Dover.
Picciano, A. (2019). Online education: Foundations, planning, and pedagogy. Routledge.
Schwab, K., & Malleret, T. (2020). Covid-19: The great reset. Forum Publishing.
Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2006). A theory of learning for the mobile age. In C. Haythornthwaite, R. Andrews, J. Fransman, & E. Meyers (Eds.). The Sage handbook of e-learning research (pp. 221–247). Sage.
Short, T. L. (2007). Peirce’s theory of signs. Cambridge University Press.
Watson, W. (1993). The architectonics of meaning: Foundations of the new pluralism. The University of Chicago Press.
Webb, A. S., & Welsh, A. J. (2019). Phenomenology as a methodology for scholarship of teaching and learning research. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 7(1), 168–181. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.7.1.11
Weimer, M. (2006). Enhancing scholarly work on teaching and learning: Professional literature that makes a difference. Jossey-Bass.
Werder, C. (2013). Navigating interdisciplinary riptides on the way to the scholarship of integrative learning. In K. McKinney (Ed.). The scholarship of teaching and learning: In and across the disciplines (pp. 240–252). Indiana University Press.
Witte, S. P. (1992). Context, text, intertext: Toward a constructivist semiotic of writing. Written Communication, 9(2), 237–308.
Téléchargements
Publié-e
Numéro
Rubrique
Licence
© Jeremy Dennis 2023
Cette œuvre est sous licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale 4.0 International.
Droits d’auteur
Les auteurs conservent le droit d'auteur et accordent le droit de la première publication de la revue avec le travail simultanément sous une licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d’Utilisation Commerciale 4.0 International (CC-BY-NC 4.0) qui permet aux autres de partager le travail avec une reconnaissance de la paternité de l'œuvre et la publication initiale dans ce journal.
