CCR 711: Pender, Post-techne
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

CCR 711: Pender, Post-techne

on

  • 432 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
432
Views on SlideShare
160
Embed Views
272

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 272

http://www.kristakennedy.net 272

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

CCR 711: Pender, Post-techne Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Pender: Post-techne CCR 711 ::: 9/3/13 Saturday, September 7, 13
  • 2. Hawk’s definitions of techne Saturday, September 7, 13
  • 3. What are the implications for the subjects relation to the object? Saturday, September 7, 13
  • 4. For the subject’s intention and agency? Saturday, September 7, 13
  • 5. For techne’s relation to kairos? tuche? Saturday, September 7, 13
  • 6. 1.Pender writes: “Hawk, unlike Biesecker, isn’t redefining techne in order to ‘do away with intention’. Rather, he wants to add ‘a layer of complexity beneath it’” (100). She’s quoting Hawk on page 383 where he continues on to claim that “it adds an ambient level of cognition. Both action and enaction, thus, become coreponsible.” How do you understand “action” and “enaction” to be functioning co-responsibly? What does that mean? Look like? Lets map it in relation to post-techne. Lindsey asks: Saturday, September 7, 13
  • 7. What does it mean to move this to the classroom? Saturday, September 7, 13
  • 8. Hawks references the work of Jim Henry which places “student bodies in specific institutional contexts” in order to support his call for teachers to place their students in an “institutional context and start remaking pedagogies specifically from/for those occasions” (389). 1.I appreciate Henry’s work as an example of Hawk’s call to remake pedagogies, but I still wonder what this looks like in terms of remaking pedagogy? Lindsey also asks: Saturday, September 7, 13
  • 9. 1.Furthermore, (and I am not contending for the instrumentality use of writing that Pender explained) how realistic is it for teachers to remake pedagogies continually? 2. How do these teachers, who already maxed out, make time to remake pedagogies—again and again and again? Saturday, September 7, 13