Advertisement

The Postmodern Dialogue and the Ethics of Digital Based Learning

  • David Kergel
Chapter

Abstract

The article discusses the ethics of digital learning. Starting point is a postmodern understanding of communication and the dialogue as idealimage of postmodern communication. The dialogue can be considered as postmodern ethics in communicative practice. Such a communicative practice is defined by a `decentral´ and `polydirectional´ dimension of communication. Web 2.0 tools provide the media-structure to realize a digital based postmodern dialogue. Formulated the other way round: the media structure of Web 2.0 tools bears ethical implications: The polydirectional and decentral structure of Web 2.0 media enables a postmodern dialogue – one might speak of the ethical implications of Web 2.0 tools. Consequently, E-Learning 2.0 which bases on Web 2.0 tools bear ethical implications. For the E-Learning practice, one challenge is, to transfer such theoretical reflections into learning-scenarios, which meet the requirements of a postmodern dialogue. As a proposal for such an transfer from theory-to-practice, a best practice example for a Web 2.0 based learning-scenario will be provided.

Keywords

E-Learning 2.0 Web 2.0 Dialogue Postmodern thinking Communication Polydirectional Constructive feedback 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Al-Rodhan, N. R. F., & Stoudmann, G. (2006). Definitions of globalization: A comprehensive overview and a proposed definition. Doi: 10.1.1.472.4772&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
  2. Aronowitz, S., & Giroux, H. A. (1991). Postmodern education: Politics, culture, and social. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  3. Baudrillard (1972). Requiem for the Media. URL: http://shmacek.faculty.noctrl.edu/Courses/MediaCritSyllabusSPR2_files/19-baudrillard-03.pdf. Lasst accessed: 3 May 2017.
  4. Copp, D. (2006). Introduction: Metaethics and normative ethics. In D. Copp (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ethical Theory (pp. 3–35). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  5. Dalsgaard, C. (2005). Pedagogical quality in e-Learning. Eleed 1(1). URL: https://eleed.campussource.de/archive/1/78. Last accessed: 3 May 2017.
  6. Downes, S. (2005). E-Learning 2.0. E-learn-magazine 1(10). URL: http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=articles&article=29-1. Last accessed: 3 May 2017.
  7. Habermas, J. (1984). Theory of communicative action. Boston: Beacon PressGoogle Scholar
  8. Harvey, D. (2000). The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. Hoboken: Wiley & sons.Google Scholar
  9. Jones, C. (2015). Networked Learning – An Educational Paradigm for the Age of Digital Networks. Wiesbaden: VS Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Kelly, U. (2014). Studying Dialogue – Studying Dialogue – Some Reflections. Journal of Dialogue Studies 1(1), 51–62.Google Scholar
  11. Kergel, D. (2014). Forschendes Lernen 2.0 – lerntheoretische Fundierung und Good Practice. In O. Zawacki-Richter, D. Kergel, N. Kleinefeld, P. Muckel, J. Stöter, & K. Brinkmann (Eds.), Teaching Trends 14. Offen für neue Wege: Digitale Medien in der Hochschule (pp. 37–50). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  12. Kergel, D. (2015a). Exclusion Ethics: Towards an `Episteme-critical´ Approach. In J. Pelkey & L. G. Sbrocchi (Eds.), Semotics 2014. Yearbook of the Semiotic Society of America (pp. 379-387). Toronto: Legas.Google Scholar
  13. Kergel, D. (2015b). Semiotics of Western Education. In P. Trifonas (Ed.), International Handbook of Semiotics (pp. 1185-1197). Heidelberg: VS Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Kergel, D. (2015c). Strategien zur Qualitätssicherung für ein forschendes Lernen mit digitalen Medien. In Hamburger eLearn Magazin 14, S. 18-21. URL: https://www.uni-hamburg.de/elearning/hamburger-elearning-magazin-14.pdf. Last accessed: 31 May 2017.
  15. Kergel, D. & Heidkamp, B. (2015). Forschendes Lernen mit digitalen Medien. Ein Lehrbuch. #theorie #praxis #evaluation. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  16. Koo Hok-chun, D. (2002). Quality education through a post-modern curriculum. Hong Kong Teacher’s Centre Journal 1, 56-73.Google Scholar
  17. Lehr, C. (2012). Web 2.0 in der universitären Lehre. Ein Handlungsrahmen für die Gestaltung technologiegestützter Lernszenarien. Boizenburg: Vwh.Google Scholar
  18. Lyotard, J.-F. (1979). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Martin, M., & Noakes, M. (2012). Fostering a Web 2.0 Ethos in a Traditional e-Learning Environment. Electronic Journal of e-Learning 10(3), 283-292.Google Scholar
  20. Newton, L. (2013). Ethical decision making: Introduction to cases and concepts in ethics. Heidelberg: VS Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Nykanen, H., Riis, O., & Zeller, J. (2013). Theoretical & applied ethics. Aalborg: Aalborg Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
  22. O’Reilly, T. (2006). Web 2.0 Compact Definition: Trying Again. URL: http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/12/web-20-compact.html. Last accessed: 3 May 2017.
  23. Plato (1899). Dialogues of Plato. Containing the apology of Socrates, Crito, Phaedo and Protagoras. New York: Colonial Press.Google Scholar
  24. Şahin, M. (2012). Pros and cons of connectivism as a learning theory. International Journal of Physical and Social Sciences 2(4), 437–454.Google Scholar
  25. Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning 2(1), 3-10.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Habitussensitive Teaching and LearningHAWK HildesheimHildesheimGermany

Personalised recommendations