Scholarlink

This chapter conducts an ethnographic retrospective that follows in the wake of the debate about GAI technologies and basic academic skills. The task is to rediscover everyday issues and show how student and teacher groups navigate between prohibited cheating, recognized summary and written reports. The task is also to go back in time and revive situations where basic academic skills are up for debate and marked by students as important test actions. For close analysis, examples from previous field studies conducted at IT- High Schools and the Technical University of Denmark, DTU (Borgnakke, Læringsdiskurser og praktikker. Akademisk Forlag, 2005; Borgnakke, Nye læringsstrategier i de gymnasiale uddannelser: Casestudier i It-klasser og projektarbejde (Gymnasiepædagogik) (Vol. 59). Institut for Filosofi, Pædagogik og Religionsstudier, 2007) are used. The examples of learning processes come from fieldwork and material collections from the project-organized study environments at Aalborg University (Borgnakke, Procesanalytisk teori og metode: Pædagogisk feltforskning, Bd. 1 [Educational field research, Vol. 1], 1996a; Borgnakke, Procesanalytisk metodologi, Bd. 2 [The methodology of process analysis, Vol. 2]. [Thesis & Akademisk Forlag, Danmarks Universitetsforlag], 1996b). At the same time, the Dewey-inspired statement ‘Learning by doing’ in this chapter functions as an ethnographic analytical basic statement that harmonizes with the inspiration from Oskar Negt. The examples have been chosen and collected for the sake of this book’s analytical strategy. In Chap. 5, a strong I-Chat reported on machine learning. And KB followed Chat into the machine room. This chapter is the contrast. The analysis is situated in the learning room of strong I/we students and maintains exemplary conflict situations and learning processes. In this respect, the chapter’s analyses do not simply claim a practice standpoint, but exemplify a lived and experienced learning practice, which GAI technologies cannot set the agenda for in the future, but on the contrary must necessarily fit into.

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

In the Midst of Learners’ Practice: Ethnographic Retrospective on the Forbidden Cheating, Recognized Summary and Written Reports

  • 章节

  • 发表日期：

    2025年

查看全文
  • Karen Borgnakke

摘要

This chapter conducts an ethnographic retrospective that follows in the wake of the debate about GAI technologies and basic academic skills. The task is to rediscover everyday issues and show how student and teacher groups navigate between prohibited cheating, recognized summary and written reports. The task is also to go back in time and revive situations where basic academic skills are up for debate and marked by students as important test actions. For close analysis, examples from previous field studies conducted at IT- High Schools and the Technical University of Denmark, DTU (Borgnakke, Læringsdiskurser og praktikker. Akademisk Forlag, 2005; Borgnakke, Nye læringsstrategier i de gymnasiale uddannelser: Casestudier i It-klasser og projektarbejde (Gymnasiepædagogik) (Vol. 59). Institut for Filosofi, Pædagogik og Religionsstudier, 2007) are used. The examples of learning processes come from fieldwork and material collections from the project-organized study environments at Aalborg University (Borgnakke, Procesanalytisk teori og metode: Pædagogisk feltforskning, Bd. 1 [Educational field research, Vol. 1], 1996a; Borgnakke, Procesanalytisk metodologi, Bd. 2 [The methodology of process analysis, Vol. 2]. [Thesis & Akademisk Forlag, Danmarks Universitetsforlag], 1996b). At the same time, the Dewey-inspired statement ‘Learning by doing’ in this chapter functions as an ethnographic analytical basic statement that harmonizes with the inspiration from Oskar Negt. The examples have been chosen and collected for the sake of this book’s analytical strategy. In Chap. 5, a strong I-Chat reported on machine learning. And KB followed Chat into the machine room. This chapter is the contrast. The analysis is situated in the learning room of strong I/we students and maintains exemplary conflict situations and learning processes. In this respect, the chapter’s analyses do not simply claim a practice standpoint, but exemplify a lived and experienced learning practice, which GAI technologies cannot set the agenda for in the future, but on the contrary must necessarily fit into.