EDUCATION IN CONTEXT OF MEDIA SOCIETY

Media-logical Backgrounds of Educational-Cultural Change

The choice of educational media and – in general – the didactically motivated use of media in educational contexts depends, on the one hand, on the environment and social setting in which educational activities take place, the life circumstances and contexts from which teachers and learners come, not least on the technological, mediological quality of the media or media programs used, and, importantly, on the didactic logical intention and the methodology chosen for the relationship between teaching and learning. Accordingly, the possible criteria of quality can only be derived from the interplay of these factors and their critical observation, even if the focus of critical analysis and criteria determination is on the factor of media. Therefore, it makes sense to anchor the quality criteria of media-based education to the media used for this purpose, rather than solely referring to “the media” or “educational media” as if the media, understood as individual objects, played the decisive role, but rather to understand them as representing the entire media behavior, media use, and indeed the media context (cf. Debray 2003) of didactic events, including the aforementioned circumstances (environment, origin, social setting, organizational environment, etc.), concentrating on them. In them and in their use, the (structural, cultural, habitual, social, and practical) quality of education and educational programs is represented.

Intention and Framework:

The market for educational media offerings is now so diverse and varied in quality – Europe-wide – (cf. Heinemann et al. 2023) that it makes sense not only to conduct the discourse on quality or the professional quality debate in specialist or academic circles but also to bring the quality debate into the market to stimulate interest in qualified offerings in the production market itself. To do this, it requires, 1., criteria by which the market can orient itself, 2., mechanisms for mobilizing quality-interested competition, and 3., publicly relevant forums in which stakeholders (producers, manufacturers, providers) find recognition for their quality efforts. This mechanism has been and is being implemented in the Comenius Edumedia Award of the GPI (Society for Pedagogy and Information) now taking place for 25 years (cf. Mikuszeit 2017).

However, the entire context is subject to structural as well as cultural change: media change, societal change, cultural change, technological change with all the facets implied in these processes, which become virulent in the course of universal trends (cf. Krotz 2008): such as globalization, migration, digitization, generational change. The processes of change as well as their social, cultural, and symbolic phenomena do not proceed as self-contained trends but are meant, mediated, and interpreted to each other from their cultural-anthropological foundation as a cultural-logical principle of all that exists: what is, is due to its change over time. However, the principle of change – and this needs to be explained – is not an attribute of the object (of media, society, education, etc.), but (and therefore culturally) of observation (cf. Schmidt 2003: 47 ff.).

This claim of a cultural-theoretical and somewhat anthropological engagement (cf. Schütz 2003, Henkel 2019) with the possibility of determining criteria for the quality of educational media and the question of how to deal with the associated phenomena of change may surprise in the context of an evaluation-oriented project, but it is considered necessary – within the framework of the scientifically justified claim and the associated responsibility and justification for the validity of orientation – because in the context of competition and market advantage, one tends to be satisfied too quickly with superficial, superficial, and banal solutions. Therefore, the following text attempts to illuminate the background of the change in criteria on a theoretically overarching and generalizing, especially cultural-anthropological level (cf. Zapf / Zipperle 2014), as far as they play, and because they play a role often overlooked in the analysis of media didactic practice in determining the quality of educational media or the use of media in educational contexts. As much as it seems practically necessary to adapt media-based didactics to the pace of technological, especially digital change, it is equally necessary to align the criteria for deciding on media use in transactional teaching and learning contexts not only with their technological relief or digital finesse, but also with humanitarian and societal logical values. In this sense, perception should not be directed towards individually identifiable criteria, but towards underlying connections that socially humanistically underpin the suggestions offered in the specialist literature for media and/or digital-didactic practice. This orientation owes itself to a project addressing the question of quality criteria for media-contemporary education in the face of the debates and efforts for digital humanism conducted all around, in political competition. Where in this context a role is attributed to humans, in this text, therefore, “us” is spoken of.

The Depth Dimension of the Metaphor of Change:

Everything that is, is real, or rather, reality based on and due to our shared observation (cf. Schmidt 2003, Berger/Luckmann 1972). “The world” is not an independent object facing us but the metaphorical description of the internal and remembered connections that we construct logically through observation. It is important to us that we use or recognize a logic that we find coherent. Observing means creating order or measuring against logics of order. But even this logic is not an attribute of individual objects but the characteristic of observation and the efforts of how we organize (contextualize) individual objects, events, occurrences, and actions in relation to each other so that they make logical sense or are measurable in such a sense. Thus, the term “change” is a construction deemed coherent from the observation of time and from the time of observation, held to be logically ordered and possible, semantically and socially bindingly held in the descriptive metaphor of change. As with other descriptive metaphors, their logic is oriented towards norms (change as a construct of normative logic), experience and experiment (change as a construct of empirical logic), and practicality (change as a construct of practical logic).

The aim of this abstract outline of the category “change” is not a philosophical end in itself, but an epistemological effort to explore the depth dimension of a concept that we use naturally to determine the structural change from the observation of the surface as a change of the observed objects and thereby overlook that it is not the objects that change, but that it is attributable to the will and desire, the ability and necessity, the permission or omission of the logic of observation, as well as how we change them, in order to recognize sense in the observation of changing contexts (Bernhardt 2021, Heidegger, 1977). Thus, the question of the meaning of such context-based contextualization arises from this cosmos described as observational logic. Knowing that this contextualization does not grow from the dung of an individual observation but is illuminated in the communicative, discursive, or dialogical (cf. Schmidt 2003) exchange, the wide horizon of the interpretations of being and becoming, thus of existence and change, makes it epistemologically possible and necessary to perceive the interpretation of the meaning of human existence in the ability, responsibility, and competence (competence) for (his) individual observation (thoughts) to be included in and derived from the social construction of reality. Philosophical interpretations of the meaning and the relationship embedded in this concept of utility, aesthetics, and ethics (cf. Edmair 1968 ) of the construction of reality enabled in the social format of communication (cf. Watzlawick 1974, Berger/Luckmann 1972) abound in the context of cultural anthropology and existential philosophy, from Heidegger (1977) to Flusser (1998), from Foucault (2001) to Bourdieu (1974).

Thus, a structurally designated change (structural change) becomes a culturally relevant interpretation of change (a “model of reality”) – cf. Schmidt 2003: 38), because it is not about the what but about the how of observation, in line with cultural studies: culture is how we do, think, observe something. The object of culturally defined observation is not the object itself but the observation of the object and how we connect it with other objectifications. How we think about the world and by which criteria we evaluate our thinking determines the logic of the assignment of our observation. Everything that is, we make into a case (the event into history) through our observation, albeit with communicatively negotiated contextualization. The often superficially described structural change has many facets due to its often overlooked cultural depth dimension and is reflected in many more or less organized areas of society: in economy, politics, media, science, and education. In these areas, the processes of societal change become evident in their structural orders, but the actual change lies deeper: in the observation of values and value interpretations of human existence implicitly and explicitly contained in these structures. Change, even, perhaps especially in its technological form, is to be interpreted anthropologically as a cipher of the observation of existence in the dimensions of time and history. This becomes particularly evident in structural media change. Media, not understood as a tool for or mechanism of communication, but as a language model (mediality) of communalization and socialization of the observation of everything that is conceivable and observable beyond the perceptual range of the individual or the milieu, in order to assure oneself that what is relevant to me/us is what I/we consider to be real, and/or true, can be considered or maybe should be considered.

Change and transformation become subjectively and individually clear (interpretable, perceptible, observable) in the context of relationships and bonds, which, depending on the changing mediality of mutual understanding of the intended, manifest themselves as changes in the (criteria of) patterns of relationships (structural, cultural, symbolic). The societal change – depicted in the patterns of their mutual understanding about themselves (media trends in communication) – oscillates, as often described, analyzed, and interpreted in the social sciences (cf. Bauer 2014: 281 ff.), in our contemporary history between the value of social or societal bonds and the increasingly socially recognized patterns of life of individuality and diversity. These stand as a cipher for (equally) rational and in this sense also educational values of emancipation, authenticity, spontaneity, creativity, intuition, arbitrariness, judgment, self-responsibility, self-control (cf. Thome 2018). These replace or relativize order-typical rational values of adaptation to institutional authorities or order specifications (socialization in the pattern of taking a role / playing a role) (cf. Hurrelmann 2012) in sometimes sharply toned debates. The discourse on generation-specific (“new”) values of and in changing lifestyles is reflected not only, but especially in the characterization of the X-, Y-, or Z-generation. At the same time, the mechanisms of social recognition, trust, responsibility, and their social control in these structures (pattern of order for the distribution and determination of responsibility, ability, skill, responsibility – in summary: competence) in structures of participation and participation culturally-normatively defined for the long term. The structures addressed here are rituals of social practice oriented towards acceptance and adherence: communication, social interaction, mutual understanding (transaction).

Education in the Environment of the Media Society:

Education has and plays a special role in this process, often interpreted in conventional theories of development as the – alongside the familial – second (shaped in organization and institution) pillar of socialization (cf. Hurrelmann 2012). It can be understood as a knowledge-conscious, individually and socially marked sphere of learnable, substantively learned, and for the elevated quality of life relevant (conscious and knowledgeable) observation of the world, in order to form the consciousness (self-image and to insorporate world knowledge in the context of ethically and aesthetically charged images of reality) responsibly images or reality. Education is – also and particularly because of the socio-communicative mode in which it occurs – a socially relevant site for the construction and appropriation of reality, once as the social pattern of teaching and learning, and secondly as the habitus of the practice of what one has learned and acquired. Thus, education becomes a profession and, in practice, the profession becomes a project of education. Understood in this way, education is not simply the accumulation of knowledge (content), but a sustained exercise in thought, reflection, and criteria-conscious (critical) observation and perception of noteworthy, relevant knowledge (cf. Bauer 2017).

Intention and Framework:

The Depth Dimension of the Metaphor of Change:

Thus, the question of the meaning of such context-based contextualization arises from this cosmos described as observational logic. Knowing that this contextualization does not grow from the dung of an individual observation but is illuminated in the communicative, discursive, or dialogical (cf. Schmidt 2003) exchange, the wide horizon of the interpretations of being and becoming, thus of existence and change, makes it epistemologically possible and necessary to perceive the interpretation of the meaning of human existence in the ability, responsibility, and competence (competence) for (his) individual observation (thoughts) to be included in and derived from the social construction of reality. Philosophical interpretations of the meaning and the relationship embedded in this concept of utility, aesthetics, and ethics (cf. Edmair 1968) of the construction of reality enabled in the social format of communication (cf. Watzlawick, Berger/Luckmann…) abound in the context of cultural anthropology and existential philosophy, from Heidegger (1977) to Flusser (1998), from Foucault (2001) to Bourdieu (1974).

Change and transformation become subjectively and individually clear (interpretable, perceptible, observable) in the context of relationships and bonds, which, depending on the changing mediality of mutual understanding of the intended, manifest themselves as changes in the (criteria of) patterns of relationships (structural, cultural, symbolic). The societal change – depicted in the patterns of their mutual understanding about themselves (media trends in communication) – oscillates, as often described, analyzed, and interpreted in the social sciences, in our contemporary history between the value of social or societal bonds and the increasingly socially recognized patterns of life of individuality and diversity. These stand as a cipher for (equally) rational and in this sense also educational values of emancipation, authenticity, spontaneity, creativity, intuition, arbitrariness, judgment, self-responsibility, self-control (cf. Thome 2018). These replace or relativize order-typical rational values of adaptation to institutional authorities or order specifications (socialization in the pattern of taking a role / playing a role) (cf. Hurrelmann 2012) in sometimes sharply toned debates. The discourse on generation-specific (“new”) values of and in changing lifestyles is reflected not only, but especially in the characterization of the X, Y, or Z generation. At the same time, the mechanisms of social recognition, trust, responsibility, and their social control in these structures (pattern of order for the distribution and determination of responsibility, ability, skill, responsibility – in summary: competence) in structures of participation and participation culturally-normatively defined for the long term. The structures addressed here are rituals of social practice oriented towards acceptance and adherence: communication, social interaction, mutual understanding (transaction).

Education in the Environment of the Media Society:

To integrate images of reality in a rational, responsible, and world-conscious manner into the framework of both individual and socially attentive life design is the essence of education. Education is, due to its social-communicative mode, a socially relevant space for the construction and acquisition of reality. Firstly, it serves as the social pattern of teaching and learning, and secondly, as the habitus of practicing what has been learned and acquired. This approach turns education into a profession, making the profession itself a project of education. Understood in this light, education is not merely the accumulation of knowledge (content) but a sustained exercise in thinking, reflection, and criteria-conscious (critical) observation and perception of meaningful and relevant knowledge.

Embedded in this framework, education, including training, is oriented toward the values of sustainable communication (understanding, mutual understanding, reciprocity, transversality of perspectives, and diversity of interpretations of reality). It is a socially organized and describable construct within action contexts. On the one hand, it habitually recalls cultural memory and, on the other hand, aims to prevent potential forgetfulness of the future. Sustainability, in this sense, becomes an indispensable characteristic of education. Education not aligned with the sustainability of knowledge has, at best, minimal educational value.

To meet such ambivalent demands of education, spanning time yet remaining time-conscious, it must, on the one hand, acknowledge crises, challenges, demands, and opportunities, as well as the mechanisms of time. On the other hand, it must perceive trends, often culturally influenced, in a manner that incorporates the implied and yet concealed needs, desires, or undefined intuitions of contemporary societal worldviews into its portfolio.

Education remains a category of social classification. This is intertwined with societal structures and the patterns of societal bonding formed within these structures. The binding element entails the character of social control, which can vary in stringency. Societies can thus be characterized differently based on their binding mechanisms, such as family societies, milieu societies, knowledge societies, education societies, or media societies.

While the metaphor of family or milieu societies corresponds to interdependence and relative dependency, knowledge and education societies depict a picture of competition and intellectual independence. The metaphor of the media society suggests that individualized media usage loosely connects people in patterns of convenience, randomness, and arbitrariness, while also enabling a worldview extending far beyond the boundaries of one’s own metaphorical language space, thereby largely attenuating the reach of social control.

In light of these shifts, education must embrace a role beyond traditional teaching and learning models. It needs to encompass media literacy, social competence, and communicative competence. Education should foster autonomy, self-organization, and self-competence, while also embracing diversity and cultural pluralism.

The emergence of the media society underscores the importance of media literacy in education. It reshapes societal norms and values, decentralizing authority and empowering individuals. However, navigating this digital landscape requires critical thinking and ethical reflection. Ultimately, education serves as the cornerstone of societal evolution, adapting to changing communication patterns and technological advancements. It must balance tradition with innovation, fostering a sense of responsibility and cultural awareness in an increasingly interconnected world.

Media Change and Education Society:

Following the principles of change mentioned so far, one can summarize here once again: societal change as a whole can be interpreted as the changing pattern of mediality in society over time, which becomes noticeable and recognizable in the alternating fashions of structuring patterns of communication, as they occur in the interest of the most binding construction of reality and are historicized in relevant discourses. A society that sees the value of education as the principle in which both society and the individual find themselves in the context of efforts towards binding interpretations of themselves, arriving ultimately where they are located – interpreted consciously in terms of values – takes education and educational patterns (learning, observing, understanding, perceiving, recognizing, knowing, distinguishing, deciding) as the characteristic criterion and as the value event through which they are referred to each other, connected to each other, and responsible for each other. In this sociological context, education is to be understood both as a process (event) and as a status (visibility, cultural and social capital), as subjectively as socially recognized, as both a private and a public good, which is as good privately as it is publicly recognized, and subjectively as valuable as it is socially oriented. This calls for accessibility, for low-threshold access, for the most generous interpretation of scope without class-based distinctions.

These criteria, but not only these, can be deduced from the observation of societal change, although in a society aware of itself through the mode of media (media society), they are not simply achievable at the drop of a hat due to the (technological) autonomy of the media and media mechanisms. Perhaps even there, science is less helpful than one might expect. Perhaps because in all its transdisciplinary connections and quantitative-analytical efforts, it watches more than it intervenes. Perhaps also because the education system does not sufficiently free itself from technologically promising solutions for media usage phenomena that not only affect everyday society but also problems relevant to sustainable education: I mean the mindset focused on technology and feasibility, accumulation and possession, outcome and success, competition and advantage of knowledge, which favors those already engaged and excludes those whose motivation is still unclear and not awakened. Perhaps the conditions of institutional education are too narrow to muster the courage to swim against the current of societal complacency and to set a educational canon beyond regulations, which sets the competencies of communication and sociability, of education as a habitus of consciousness, and thus simply equates sociability with the accumulation of knowledge.

It is no secret that all societies, not only but especially because of the changing communication patterns in the context of media usage and the criteria stressed therein, are in crisis mode. The socially practiced logic of communication as the culturally, aesthetically, and ethically circumscribed social practice of constructing reality is being structurally reshuffled and culturally reinterpreted. The crisis is essentially a crisis of societal discourse of a digitally turned society, according to some media sociologists (Marian Adolf 2024): society suffers from “the upheavals of digital media change.”

This seems to be the culmination of a change that has been going on for many years and is constantly outdoing itself, which, because it is technically executed there, is possibly attributed too quickly to the media, as if they were the cause of the problem. This can be claimed if one attributes the functionality (toolness, affordability, and usability) of communication to “the media.” However, if one – reversing the assumed relationships – attributes the functionality of “the media” to “communication,” thus understanding the media logic of socio-communicative practice as a characteristic of the mediality of time and society, then the phenomena of crisis accompanying the change are not to be attributed to the – very much to be critically evaluated – use of the media, but to the crisis-ridden patterns of communication of temporal consciousness and sociality.

Educational Media: Spheres of Criteria Determination

The evaluation of the quality of education in the context of didactically oriented media contexts “must” as education in general, however, in a specific setting, orient itself towards the criteria of the meaning triangle of mutually referenced criteria of utility, aesthetics, and ethics (cf. Bauer…). The determination of the quality of the educational-media-didactic context must identify the distinguishable spheres of educational events or educational effects and take into account that these nameable spheres are interrelated (cognitive, mental, cultural, habitual, social, and practical) and are also synchronized with the competence-relevant values (skill, ability, responsibility, motivation, and responsibility).

• Cognitive Sphere: Educational media provide a level of knowledge enrichment, knowledge storage, knowledge interpretation, and knowledge differentiation based on their illustrative nature, techniques of visualization, and the didactically possible interplay of differentiation and decision-making, which is not to the same extent given in the pattern of “only” personal mediation. All patterns of literacy must be included here, knowing full well that literacy is grounded not only in knowledge but also in awareness of knowledge and in the reasonable-competent or competence-conscious application of knowledge. This is already the transition to the next sphere (knowledge, consciousness).

• Mental Sphere: Educational media can represent events in stories and discourses in narratives due to composition and design, which address emotions and mentality in such a way (e.g., identification with narratives) that the emotional or emotive character becomes motivation for perception, retention, imitation, and recall (consciousness, motivation, responsibility).

• Cultural Sphere: Education in the transactional mode of media usage, often apostrophized as “use of media” too technologically and strategically, creates a broad framework of consciousness of values, evaluations, and perspectives of observation and interpretation that critically comments on, enriches, and diversifies the respective cultural orientation (ability, awareness).

• Habitual Sphere: Media-based education, one can assume, influences the habitual orientation, the habitual profile, which is sometimes stimulated in the form of imitation (“mimesis”) or experimentation (experiment) of attitudes addressed in the composition of media stories. Education (as mentality and attitude) is convincing when it takes into account the careful design of social interaction through attitude (responsibility).

• Social Sphere: In the mode of a didactically staged media environment (especially with active and productive media use), social situations can be staged in which knowledge, experiences, opinions, and intentions are brought into a social setting in which the effects, consequences, and results of differentiations and decisions can be observed and evaluated according to socially relevant criteria (responsibility).

• Practical Sphere: The knowledge introduced and its evaluations for consciousness, attitude, and social orientation within the framework of educational processes can be explored on the basis of media technology and media usage so that action and application strategies for practical situations can be derived (skills, abilities).

It is necessary to make a distinction here between professional educational media and those that are not primarily intended for didactic use but whose educational potential becomes apparent due to their topic or design. Every form of practical didactics, especially but not only the didactic practice based on the use of media (educational media), should be aware of the differently pronounced characteristics of media. In teaching and in any other environment of instruction, training, or knowledge transfer (e.g., in adult education), one does not only use (designated) educational media but also those that are not meant as educational media (specifically for use in an educational context) but have educational value due to their content, narratives, design, or composition (especially for education in the context of their use). In this context, it must be borne in mind that people, especially young people, are accustomed to a culture of media usage that differs from traditional or conventional media usage due to everyday use of social media. However, this can also mean that media patterns commonly used in everyday life (media patterns) are integrated into educational or instructional contexts, can and should sometimes be integrated to build a didactic bridge between individual life worlds and systematic/system-bound education.

That is to say, to recall Pierre Bourdieu’s concept in this context (cf….), to enable educational gain as social or cultural capital based on the stimulation of one’s own, individual, and subjectively perceived competence, which is not acquired by one in opposition to the other, but with the knowledge of maximizing opportunities through structurally established mechanisms of mutually enabled and expected cooperation and mutually granted trust. The character of the social-societal context follows a new model: within the media society, the societal character is not shaped in the character of the family, not in the character of the milieu or the educational institution, but in the character of indefinite relationship and distance, of temporal difference, of randomness and arbitrariness of encounter and mutual perception via the widely individualized use of media. This character of the media society must be further deepened.

Media Society and Media Change:

The increasing individualization of media usage has already been discussed. Nevertheless, in order to conclude the topic of change, specifically the socially relevant media change and the resulting change in the criteria for determining the quality of media in an educational context, it should be reiterated: Even if this highly individualized pattern of sociability often does not extend beyond “just” being a neighborhood based on mutually granted favor, as Charles Taylor (2002) calls it the typical pattern of a “next-to-next society”. Mutual perception, mutual respect, and mutually granted responsibility do not follow the mentality of institution and communal obligation, but the mediality of society: randomness, arbitrariness, and variability of encounter make them more arbitrary, fleeting, less burdensome, more susceptible to side effects, less sustainable, and less resilient and, where the inclination already exists, also less committed to truth or reality. Or alternatively viewed: These values are at least on the checklist of new social environments as challenges that a media society must face. This can also be understood as a challenge and chance of an open society (cf. Bernhardt 2012) – even if it is far from being successful. In this context, calls for a paradigm shift in school education become understandable: from the technical paradigm of knowledge accumulation and knowledge qualification to the human paradigm of socially conscious knowledge. In this logic, knowledge is not power as authorization of domination, elitism, or class evaluation, but competence as the basis for responsibility towards oneself and towards the possible other.

In this sense, “media” are the entire social “apparatus” of the mediality of communication and society, indeed the actual societal event, and also the entire transactional and transindividual context of processing (transpersonal appropriation, understanding) the possible interpretations of perception and observation of possible events with the aim of making “a real” story (contextualized event) (social construction of reality). The role of “the media”, especially their structural change, should not be underestimated in the context of this logic (mediology): they not only reflect fashions but also fulfill a forward-looking function by setting signs of and for future ways of societal life in their (technological as well as theme-specific) trends. They announce, usually in the pattern of crises, challenges, burdens, and opportunities. In these medial-social contexts, prophetic perspectives of the interpretation of existence and the construction of reality become apparent: in them, expectations, intuitions, hopes, and fears of possible futures are announced in the model – not of predicting, but of forecasting, indeed of critical (criteria-conscious) present perception. The change of the outer (extrinsic, structural, cultural, symbolic) shape (patterns of action, everyday rituals, technology, mechanisms) is a sign gesture (cf. Heidegger 1977) of the intrinsic (existential) interrelated and complementing and thus changing horizons of meaning of life in finite time.

References:

Bauer, Thomas A: (2014): Kommunikation wissenschaftlich denken. Perspektiven einer kontextuellen Theorie gesellschaftlicher Verständigung. Wien: Böhlau

Bauer, Thomas a. (2017): Wissensverständigung in der Mediengesellschaft. Theoretische Skizze zur Mediologie gesellschaftlichen Lernens. IN: Bauer, Thomas A:/Mikuszeit, Bernd H: (Hrsg.):Lehren und Lernen mit Bildungsmedien. Grundlagen – Projekte – Perspektiven – Praxis. Frankfurt-Bern-Brüssel: Peter Lang, S. 15 – 48

Bauer, Thomas A. (2018): Der Mensch, er selbst und sein Selbst im Universum der Medien. Zur Mediologie der Musterbildung von Werten am Beispiel des Selfies. IN: Verwiebe, Roland (Hrsg.): Werte und Wertebildung aus interdisziplinärer Perspektive. Wiesbaden: Springer, S. 97-116

Berger, Peter L:/Luckmann, Thomas (1972): Die gesellschaftliche Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit. Eine Theorie der Wissenssoziologie. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch

Bernhardt, Johanna (2021): Wandel – eine bessere Welt ist möglich. IN: Abenteuer Philosophie, Nr. 162, w.w.w. treffpunkt philosophie.de

Bourdieu, Pierre (1974): Zur Soziologie der symbolischen Formen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp

Debray, Régis (2003): Einführung in die Mediologie. Bern: Haupt

Edmair, Alois (1968): Horizonte der Hoffnung. Eine philosophische Studie. Regensburg: Pustet

Flusser, Vilém (1998): Kommunikologie. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch

Foucault, Michel (2001): Die Ordnung des Diskurses. Frankfurt am Main :Fischer Taschenbuch

Heidegger, Martin (1977): Sein und Zeit. Niemeyer Tübingen.

Heinemann, Alisha/Karagasoglu, Yasemin/Linnemann, Tobias/Rose, Nadine/ Sturm, Tanja (Hrsg.) (2023): Entgrenzungen. Beiträge zum 28. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Erziehungswissenschaft. Berlin-Toronto: Barbara Budrich / DGfE

Henkel, Anna (2019): Digitalisierung der Gesellschaft. Perspektiven der reflexiven Philosophischen Anthropologie auf gesellschaftlichen Wandel durch Digitalisierung. IN: Burow, Johannes/Daniels, Lou-Janna/Kaiser, Anna-Lena/Klinkhamer, Clemens/Kulbatzki, Josefine/Schütte, Yannick/Henkel, Anna (Hrsg.): Mensch und Welt im Zeichen der Digitalisierung. Perspektiven der Philosophischen Anthropologie Plessners. Baden -Baden: Nomos

Hurrelmann, Klaus (2012): Sozialisation. Das Modell der produktiven Realitätsverarbeitung. Mit online-Materialien. Wiesbaden: Beltz

Krotz, Friedrich (2008): Kultureller und gesellschaftlicher Wandel im Kontext des Wandels von Medien und Kommunikation. IN: Thomaß, Tanja (Hrsg.): Medienkultur und soziales Handeln. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften

Mikuszeit, Bernd H. (201): Comenius Edumedia Award und Comenius Bewertung. Erfolgreiche Förderung exemplarischer digitaler Bildungsmedien. IN: Bauer, Thomas A:(/Mikuszeit, Bernd H. (Hrsg.): Lehren und Lernen mit Bildungsmedien. Grundlagen – Projekte – Perspektiven – Praxis. S. 323 – 329

Schmidt, Siegried J. (2003): Geschichten & Diskurse. Abschied vom Konstruktivismus. Reinbeck bei Hamburg: rowohlt

Schütz, Alfred / Luckmann, Thomas: Strukturen der Lebenswelt. Konstanz: UVK

Szudra, Ute (2017): Innovatives Lehren mit digitalen und analogen Bildungsmedien für die minderheitenpolitische Bildung. IN: Lehren und Lernen mit Bildungsmedien. Grundlagen – Projekte – Perspektiven – Praxis. S. 221 – 242

Taylor, Charles (2002): Die Formen des Religiösen in der Gegenwart. Frankfurt/M: suhrkamp

Thome, Helmut (201 8): Werte und Wertebildung aus soziologischer Sicht. IN: Verwiebe, Roland (Hrsg.): Werte und Wertebildung aus interdisziplinärer Perspektive. Wiesbaden: Springer, S. 47-78

Watzlawick, Paul/ Bavelas, Janet/ Jackson, Don D. (1974): Menschliche Kommunikation. Formen, Störungen, Paradoxien. Wien: Huber

Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1963): Tractatus logico-philosophicus. Frankfurt: suhrkamp

Zapf, Stefan/ Zipperle, Mirjana (Hrsg.) (2014): Sozialer Wandel. Herausforderungen für Kulturelle Bildung und Soziale Arbeit. Wiesbaden: Springer

Leave a Reply Cancel reply