Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Curriculum Development for E-Learning: A Conceptual Framework

2012, Problems of Education in the 21st Century

https://doi.org/10.33225/PEC/12.39.63

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to develop a conceptual framework for curriculum for e-learning. The conducted he conducted research is �ased on two dialecticall�� intertwined pillars. The theoretical pillar consists of the rich critical �ased on two dialecticall�� intertwined pillars. The theoretical pillar consists of the rich critical rich critical tradition of inquir�� into the relationships �etween technologies and human �eings in wide social conte�ts the relationships �etween technologies and human �eings in wide social conte�ts from Frankfurt School onwards. The practical pillar consists of Dahl�erg's main strands of Internet research-Uses Determination, Technological Determination and Social Determination (2004). Blending the theoretical and the practical pillar, it is shown that the discipline of e-learning consists of Ha�ermas's three main spheres of human interests, t��pes of knowledge and research methods-the technical, the t��pes of knowledge and research methods-the technical, the-the technical, the the technical, the practical, and the emancipator�� (Tinning, 1992). The conducted research does not include e�plorations research does not include e�plorations of epistemological �asis for com�ining various theoretical frameworks and research methodologies. For this reason, its results cannot �e applied to scientific research without further ela�oration. In order to e�pose students and practitioners to the true structure of the discipline of e-learning, however, results of this research can �e confidentl�� applied in practical fields from curriculum development to polic�� making.

FAQs

sparkles

AI

How do current e-learning curricula address technological advancements?add

The paper suggests that existing e-learning curricula often focus heavily on technology implementation, which can result in missed educational opportunities. For instance, it found that curricula predominantly center around information and communication technologies rather than evolving pedagogical frameworks.

What impact does pedagogical approach have on e-learning effectiveness?add

Research findings indicate that a technology-driven pedagogical approach limits the educational potential of e-learning environments. For example, Laurillard argues that this approach has led to the loss of touch with educational realities, hindering potential innovations.

What are the main strands of internet research relevant to e-learning?add

The paper identifies three main strands: uses determination, technological determination, and social determination. Each strand offers distinct insights into the interactions between technology and society, significantly impacting e-learning's development and application.

How does social determination influence e-learning access and ownership?add

Social determination highlights the critical issues of access and ownership in e-learning, illustrating how entrenched power relations can exacerbate educational inequities. The research underscores that 10-20% of a population might have limited internet access, restricting educational opportunities.

What is the significance of transdisciplinary research in e-learning?add

The study emphasizes that transdisciplinary research offers a more unified methodology, promoting dialogue across various disciplines. This approach can potentially enhance e-learning frameworks by transcending traditional disciplinary boundaries.

References (14)

  1. anderson, t., elloumi, f. (2004). Theor�� and Practice of Online Learning (1 (1 st ed.). canada, athabasca: canada, athabasca: athabasca university. bates, a. W. & sangra, a. (2011). Managing Technolog�� in Higher Education: Strategies for Transforming Teaching and Learning. san francisco: Jossey-bass higher and adult education. baudrillard, J. (2006). baudrillard on the new technologies: an interview with claude thibaut. retreived January 7, 2012 from http://www.egs.edu/faculty/baudrillard/baudrillard-baudrillard-on-the-new-http://www.egs.edu/faculty/baudrillard/baudrillard-baudrillard-on-the-new- technologies.html. carr, W., & Kemmis, s. (1986). Becoming Critical: Education, Konwledge and Action Research (1 st ed.). Great britain, basingstoke: taylor & francis ltd. castells, m. (2001). The Internet gala���: reflections on the Internet, �usiness, and societ�� (1 st ed.). oxford: oxford university press. oxford university press.
  2. cohen, s. m. (2012). aristotle's metaphysics. in e. n. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Enc��clopedia of Philosoph��. retrieved January 7, 2012 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/. January 7, 2012 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/.
  3. dahlberg, l. (2004). internet research tracings: towards non-reductionist methodology. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 9(3).
  4. diamond, l. (2010). liberation technology. Journal of Democrac��, 21(3), 69-83. drucker, p. f. (1999). beyond the information revolution. The Atlantic, 10. fairclough, n. (2007). critical discourse analysis in transdisciplinary research. in r. Wodak & G. Weiss (eds.), Interdisciplinarit�� in CDA. london: macmillan. feenberg, a. (2003). What is philosophy of technology?. retrieved January 7, 2012 from http://www. retrieved January 7, 2012 from http://www. January 7, 2012 from http://www. http://www. http://www. sfu.ca/~andrewf/komaba.htm. fejes, a., & nicoll, K. (2008). Foucault and Lifelong Learning: Governing the Su�ject (1 st ed.). london: routledge. foucault, m. (1972). The Archeolog�� of Knowledge (1st ed.). london: routledge. heidegger, m. (1977). The Question Concerning Technolog�� and Other Essa��s. new york, london: Garland publishing, inc.
  5. howe, K. r. (2001). Qualitative educational research: the philosophical issues. in V. richardson (ed.) Hand�ook of Research on Teaching.Washington, dc: american educational research association, 201-208. howe, K. r. (1988). against the Quantitative-Qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard. Educational Researcher, 17(8), 10-16.
  6. Kahn, r., & Kellner, d. (2007). paulo freire and ivan illich: technology, politics and the reconstruction of education. Polic�� Futures in Education, 5(4), 431-448.
  7. Kuhn, t. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. chicago: university of chicago press.
  8. Jandric, p., & boras, d. (2012). Critical e-learning: Struggle for Power and Meaning in the Network Societ��. Zagreb: ff press & the polytechnic of Zagreb. problems of education in the 21 st century Volume 39, 2012
  9. ISSN 1822-7864
  10. Jandric, p. (2012). the diffusionist model of e-learning development. to be published in The Enc��clopaedia of Philosoph�� of Education. laurillard, d. (2008). technology enhanced learning as a tool for pedagogical innovation. Journal of Philosoph�� of Education, 42(3-4), 521-533.
  11. mackay, h., maples, W., & reynolds, p. (2001). Investigating the information societ��. london: routledge. pal, s. K., & Ganguly, c. (2010). e-learning strategy for development of Knowledge economy. International Journal of Advanced Networking and Applications, 2(2), 507-513.
  12. prensky, m. (2001). digital natives, digital immigrants. MCB Universit�� Press, 9(5). sale, J. e. m., lohfeld, l. h., & brazil, K. (2002). revisiting the Quantitative-Qualitative debate: implications for mixed-methods research. Qualit�� & Quantit��, 36, 43-53.
  13. teo, c. b., & Gay, r. K. l. (2006). a knowledge-driven model to personalize e-learning. Journal on Educational Resources in Computing, 6(1). tinning, r. (1992). reading action research: notes on Knowledge and human interests. Quest, 44(1), 1-14.
  14. Van dijk, J. (1999). The Network Societ�� (1 st ed.). london: saGe. london: saGe. london: saGe. Zemsky, r., & massy, W. (2004). Thwarted innovation: What happened to e-learning and wh��. pennsylvania: the university of pennsylvania.