LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Hammond, Michael (2015)
Publisher: Springer
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: HM, LB, B1
This paper is an exploration of the relevance of Habermas’s social theory for understanding meaning making in the context of shared online interaction. It describes some of the key ideas within Habermas’s work, noting the central importance it gives to the idea of communicative action - a special kind of discourse in which there is ‘no other force than that of the better argument’ and no other motive other than ‘the cooperative search for truth’. The paper then turns to the referencing of Habermas by educationalists in general and by supporters of online discussion in particular. It argues that a Habermasian perspective on meaning making is one in which participants strive for ‘genuine consensus’ by interrogating their own beliefs while actively engaging with opposing points of view. The value of this approach is that it introduces a concern for validity or truth into discussion of knowledge building and discriminates between emancipatory and strategic goals. While critics would argue that genuine consensus is not achievable, from Habermas we can better understand the importance of striving for such consensus.\ud
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Anderson, B. (2004). Dimensions of learning and support in an online community. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 19(2), 183-190.
    • Austin, R. (2006). The role of ICT in bridge‐ building and social inclusion: theory, policy and practice issues. European Journal of Teacher Education, 29(2), 145-161.
    • Bamber, J., & Crowther, J. (2012). Speaking Habermas to Gramsci: Implications for the vocational preparation of community educators. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 31(2), 183-197.
    • Barak, A., Boniel-Nissim, M., & Suler, J. (2008). Fostering empowerment in online support groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 1867-1883.
    • Barnett, R. (2004). The purposes of higher education and the changing face of academia. London Review of Education, 2(1), 61-73.
    • Barton, D. (2012). Participation, deliberate learning and discourses of learning online. Language and Education, 26(2), 139-150.
    • Beemer, J. (2006). Breaching the theoretical divide: Reassessing the ordinary and everyday in Habermas and Garfinkel. Sociological Theory, 24(1), 81-104.
    • Bonamy, J. & Haugluslaine-Charlier, B. (1995). Supporting professional learning: beyond technological support. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 11(4), 196-202. Boshier, R. (1990). Socio‐psychological factors in electronic networking. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 9(1), 49-64.
    • Boyd, G. (1996). Emancipative educational technology. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 25, 179-186.
    • Brookfield, S. (2005). Learning democratic reason: The adult education project of Jürgen Habermas. The Teachers College Record, 107(6), 1127-1168.
    • Butler, B., Sproull, L., Kiesler, S., & Kraut, R. (2002). Community effort in online groups: Who does the work and why?. In S. Weisband (Ed.) Leadership at a Distance: Research in Technologically Supported Work (pp.171-194). Oxford: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    • Cammaerts, B. (2009). Radical pluralism and free speech in online public spaces: the case of North Belgian extreme right discourses. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 12(6), 555-575.
    • Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming Critical. Education, Knowledge And Action Research. Lewes: Falmer.
    • Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., & Webb, C. (2000). Towards a communicative model of collaborative web-mediated learning. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 73- 85.
    • Chernela, J. (1997). The" Ideal Speech Moment": Women and Narrative Performance in the Brazilian Amazon. Feminist Studies, 23(1), 73-96.
    • Coco, A., & Short, P. (2004). History and habit in the mobilization of ICT resources. The Information Society, 20(1), 39-51.
    • Conole, G., & Dyke, M. (2004). What are the affordances of information and communication technologies? Research in Learning Technology, 12(2), 113 - 124.
    • De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M. et al. (2006) Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers & Education, 46 (1), 6-28.
    • Derry, S., Hmelo-Silver, C., Nagarajan, A., Chernobilsky, E., & Beitzel, B. (2006). Cognitive transfer revisited: Can we exploit new media to solve old problems on a large scale? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35(2), 145-162.
    • Dewey, J. (1922 / 2007). Human Nature and Conduct: An Introduction to Social Psychology. NY, USA: Cosimo.
    • Dunn, W. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (1998). Vygotsky's zone of proximal development and Krashen's i+1: Incommensurable constructs; incommensurable theories. Language Learning, 48(3), 411-442.
    • Englund, T. (2006). Introduction: Jürgen Habermas and education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(5), 499-501.
    • Eve, J., & Brabazon, T. (2008). Learning to leisure? failure, flame, blame, shame, homophobia and other everyday practices in online education. The Journal of Literacy and Technology, 9(1), 36-61.
    • Ewert, G. (1991). Habermas and education: A comprehensive overview of the influence of Habermas in educational literature. Review of Educational Research, 61(3), 345- 378.
    • Garrison, D. (2007). Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 61-72.
    • Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7-23.
    • Gillespie, A., Reader, T., Cornish, F. & Campbell, C. (2014). Beyond ideal speech situations: Adapting to communication asymmetries in health care. Journal of Health Psychology, 19(1), 72-78.
    • Gray, B. (2004). Informal Learning in an Online Community of Practice. Journal of Distance Education, 19(1), 20-35.
    • Gunawardena, C., Hermans, M., Sanchez, D., Richmond, C., Bohley, M., & Tuttle, R. (2009). A theoretical framework for building online communities of practice with social networking tools. Educational Media International, 46(1), 3-16.
    • Habermas, J. (1998). The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
    • Habermas, J. (2001). Why Europe needs a constitution. New Left Review, 11 (Sept/Oct): 5-26.
    • Habermas, J. (2005). Equal treatment of cultures and the limits of postmodern liberalism. Journal of Political Philosophy, 13(1), 1-28.
    • Habermas, J. (2006). Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Communication Theory, 16(4), 411-426.
    • Habermas, J., & Dews, P. (1992). Autonomy and Solidarity: Interviews with Jürgen Habermas. London: Verso.
    • Hansen, S., Berente, N., & Lyytinen, K. (2009). Wikipedia, Critical Social Theory, and the Possibility of Rational Discourse, The Information Society, 25(1), 38-59.
    • Harasim, L. (1996). Online education: The future. In T. Harrison & T. Stephen (Eds.), Computer Networking and Scholarly Communication in the Twenty-First-Century University. New York USA: SUNY Press.
    • Harasim, L. (2000). Shift happens: online education as a new paradigm in learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 3(1-2), 41-61.
    • Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative Learning through Computer Conferencing (pp. 117-136). Berlin: Springer.
    • Hiltz, S., & Turoff, M. (1978). The Network Nation: Human Communication via Computer. Reading, MA Addison-Wesley.
    • Hiltz, R., Coppola, N., Rotter, N., Toroff, M., & Benbunan-Fich, R. (2000). Measuring the importance of collaborative learning for the effectiveness of ALN: A multi-measure. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4(2-3), 101-119.
    • Hodgson, V., & Reynolds, M. (2005). Consensus, difference and 'multiple communities' in networked learning. Studies in Higher Education, 30(1), 11-24.
    • Lukes, S. (1982). Of gods and demons: Habermas and practical reason. In J. Thompson, & D. Held (Eds.), Habermas, Critical Debates (pp. 134-148). London Macmillan.
    • Mason, R., & Kaye, A. (1989). Mindweave: Communication, computers and distance education. Oxford: Pergamon.
    • Matsuda, P. K. (2002). Negotiation of identity and power in a Japanese online discourse community. Computers and Composition, 19(1), 39-55.
    • McConnell, D. (1994). Managing open learning in computer supported collaborative learning environments. Studies in Higher Education, 19(3), 341-358.
    • Murphy, M., & Bamber, J. (2012). Introduction: From Fromm to Lacan: Habermas and education in conversation. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 31(2), 103-107.
    • Nett, B. (2008). A Community of Practice among tutors enabling student participation in a seminar preparation. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 53-67.
    • Neuman, W., Bimber, B., & Hindman, M. (2011). The Internet and four dimensions of citizenship. In G. Edwards, L. Jacobs, & R. Shapiro (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook Of American Public Opinion And The Media (pp. 22-42).
    • Outhwaite, W. (2013). Bourdieu and Habermas: 'Linguistic exchange' versus 'communicative action'? A reply to Simon Susen. Social Epistemology, 27(3-4), 247-249.
    • Schrire, S. (2006). Knowledge building in asynchronous discussion groups: Going beyond quantitative analysis. Computers & Education, 46(1), 49-70.
    • Schwarz, B., & De Groot, R. (2007). Argumentation in a changing world. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2-3), 297-313.
    • Stahl, G. (2005). Group cognition in computer-assisted collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2), 79-90.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article