Towards a Phenomenological Understanding of Web 2.0 and Knowledge Formation

Education Inquiry

Volumn 2, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 537-549

  Fleischer, Håkan ^a  

^a School of Education and Communication   (Sweden)

Author keywords

epistemology, Web 2.0; knowledge formation; Martin Heidegger; phenomenology

Indexed keywords

EID: 84861198029     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20004508     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3402/edui.v2i3.21998     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Alerby, E., & JOrunn, E. (2006). Lärandets konst: betraktelser at' estetiska dimensioner i kiran-det (The art of Learning: Aesthetic dimensions of Learning). Lund: Studentlitteratur.
2. Bell, A. (2009). Exploring Web 2.0: second generation internet tools - blogs, podcasts, wikis, networking, virtual worlds, and more. Georgetown, Tex.: Katy Crossing Press.
3. Buber, M., & Kaufmann, W. A. (1996). land thou/Martin Buber; a new translation with a pro-logue “I and You” and notes by Walter Kaufmann (1. Touchstone ed.). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
4. Cammaerts, B. (2008). Critiques on the participatory potentials of Web 2.0. Communication, Cul-ture 8z Critique, 1 (4), 358-377.
5. Dreyfus, H. L. (1991). Being-in-the-world: A commentary on Heidegger's being and time, divi-sion I. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
6. Fleischer, H. (under revision). What Is Our Current Understanding of One-to-One Computer Projects: A Systematic Narrative Research Review.
7. Fuchs, C. (2010). Class, knowledge and new media. Media, Culture & Society, 32 (1), 141-150. Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time. New York: Harper & Row.
8. Heidegger, M. (1988). The basic problems of phenomenology (Rev. ed.). Bloomington, Ind: Indi-ana Univ. Press.
9. Heidegger, M. (1992). History of the concept of time: prolegomena (1. Midland book ed.). Bloom-ington: Indiana Univ. Press.
10. Heidegger, M. (1993). Basic writings: from being and time (1927) to The task of thinking (1964). San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.
11. Holcomb, L. B. (2009). Results & lessons learned from 1:1 laptop initiatives: A collective review. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 53 (6), 49–55.
12. Husserl, E. (1973). Experience and judgment: Investigations in a genealogy of logic. Evanston: Northwestern Univ. Press.
13. Ihde, D. (2002). Bodies in technology. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
14. Johnson, L., Levine, A., & Smith, R. (2009). The 2009 Horizon Report. Austin: The New Media Consortium°. Document Number)
15. Kim, J. (2001). Phenomenology of digital-being. Human Studies, 24(1/2), 87–111.
16. Kroksmark, T. (2010). The stretchness of learning: The digital mystery of learning in one-to-one environements in school [Lärandets stretchadhet: Lärandets digitala mysterium i En-till-En miljöer i skolan]. Didaktisk Tidskrift, 20 (1), 1–22.
17. O'reilly, T., & Battelle, J., (2009). Web Squared: Web 2.0 Five Years On. Retrieved 09.01.2010 from http://www.web2summit.com/web2009/public/schedule/detailho194
18. Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2008). Born digital: Understanding the first generation of digital na-tives. New York: Basic Books.
19. Penuel, W. R. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38 (3), 329–348.
20. Ruin, H. (2005). Kommentar till Heideggers Varat och tiden (Comments on Being and Time). Huddinge: Södertäms högskola.
21. van Dijck, J. (2009). Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content. Media, Culture & Society, 31 (1), 41–58.
22. Veen, W., & Vrakking, B. (2006). Homo zappiens: growing up in a digital age. London: Network Continuum Education.