How can educators contain the power of the system?

How can we design, teach and manage within online environments to strengthen the lifeworld and contain the power of the system? Poster(1995), writing within the context of the newly emerging Internet of two decades ago, warns us about the dangers posed by the US government to its citizens civil rights and freedoms(1995). He astutely notes that the Internet might prove to be a bulwark for the battle between the lifeworld and the system(1995). Writing in a pre-Wikipedia era, he remarks that as scholarly works are read, challenged and rewritten by their readers on the internet, so too will the political authorities, representing the system, be similarly challenged and see their authority undermined by their citizens(1995).

We can see Poster’s thoughts reach their logical conclusion in the events of the Arab Spring, where the lifeworld, using internet-based social media applications such as Twitter, Facebook and Skype, seriously and often fatally undermined the power of the system. They were a liberating force for grass-roots democracy in authoritarian regimes.Social media networks offer a new form of collaboration for students which also challenge the traditional power relationships. Social media networks can similarly strengthen the education lifeworld but the education system won’t change without a fight.

If students are n ot to be viewed as mere numbers, cogs in the institutional machine, then Gouthro’s (2006) suggestion to throw open the parameters of educational best practice for discussion, has great merit. She states that “communicative action provides mechanisms that can be utilized to develop more critical, participatory, and democratic approaches towards learning” (Gouthro, 2006). This building of community amongst learners involves personalizing content and support to the needs of the student by engaging them on several levels. The system will need to change in order to accomodate the lifeworld’s demands.

Jennifer Sumner (2000), examines the challenges distance education faces in changing its tradition from serving the system to being focused on supporting the lifeworld. The traditional one-way transmission of knowledge from instructor to students should be changed to a more interactive, web-conferencing based model where learners can communicate freely with both the instructor and each other. Learners should be allowed to challenge and criticize each other in a public realm but this will need to be carefully modelled for learners.

In an era where the lifeworld gains leverage against the system and thus where traditional authority is increasingly challenged, is the empire fighting back? Jorgensen (2001) notes that Internet laws, content-based license terms for Internet Service Providers, government laws and regulations all point to the system gaining more control over content. China restricts the internet sites its citizens have access to. The US snoops on what its citizens are posting and keeps records. Is this necessary? Is this desireable? Are having regulations and laws essential on the internet? Are they there only for the system or do they also protect the rights of the lifeworld? In terms of online courses, many universities do not have clear guidelines on what is or isn’t acceptable content or what students may or may not post to discussion forums, etc. This will need to be addressed, the sooner, the better, for with freedom, also comes responsibility.

With all of the above in mind, perhaps a wise conclusion is that when designing, teaching, and managing within online environments one must always be cognizant of maintaining balance between the lifeworld and the system. In the best case, the needs of both will be met.

Lakeland(1993) states that “education… should produce graduates who can see the connections between individual and social well-being, and balance the two.” Aper(2010) states “The balance lies in allowing the rational goal-seeking of the system to guide the lifeworld of the colleges and universities in being responsive to the larger needs of society and the lifeworld work of the colleges and universities to maintain the human and humane environment in which individuals and their experience are valued and cultivated. Policymakers, the general public, and educators must find their common values, which lie in the devotion to the cause of meaningful education.”

References

 Jennifer Sumner (2000): Serving the System: A critical history of distance education, Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 15:3, 267-285

Aper, J. (2010). Quality in higher education: Systems and lifeworlds in collision. International Education, 40(1), 55-67. Retrieved from: http://trace.tennessee.edu/internationaleducation/vol40/iss1/6

Lakeland, P. (1993). Preserving the lifeworld, restoring the public sphere, renewing higher education. Cross Currents, 43(4), 488-503. Retrieved from http://www.crosscurrents.org/lakeland2.htm

Jorgensen, R.F. (2001). Internet and freedom of expression. Retrieved from http://www.ifla.org/files/faife/publications/ife03.pdf

 Gouthro, P. (2006). Reason, communicative learning, and civil society: the use of Habermasian theory in adult education. The Journal of Educational Thought, 40(1), 5-22. Making the link to education.

Poster, M. (1995). CyberDemocracy: internet and the public sphere. University of California, Irvine.
Addresses Habermas in the new era of the Internet.