Screen Ontologies or Teaching the Virus a Lesson: A Few Things that Work in Online Education and a Few that Don’t

10.22492.ijcs.6.2.01

Author: Holger Briel, BNU-HKBU-UIC, China
Email: [email protected]
Published: January 26, 2022
https://doi.org/10.22492/ijcs.6.2.01

Citation: Briel, H. (2022). Screen Ontologies or Teaching the Virus a Lesson: A Few Things that Work in Online Education and a Few that Don’t. IAFOR Journal of Cultural Studies, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.22492/ijcs.6.2.01


Abstract

The recent global disruption in education due to the COVID-19 virus has led to a significant increase, if not an explosion, in education studies. Research into and application of digital pedagogical strategies in general and (vision-based) online teaching in particular have reached new heights. Many studies focus on the strengths of this new online education and, indeed, much of the data points to its success. However, other studies elicit slightly less positive data. The study at hand will take both of these scientific strands seriously and try to interpret them. This will be achieved in the first place through the analysis of a number of significant studies on online teaching and commenting on their methodologies and basic premises. Secondly, this will be achieved through a rendition of the author’s own teaching experience under COVID-19 conditions. Then one of the sine-qua-nons of online education will be examined, namely the screen, a central device left unaddressed by most other research. Using an ontological interpretative approach, the study will demonstrate why at least some of the promises of online education simply cannot be kept. Lastly, the study will list ways in which a thoroughly reflected approach to online education can nevertheless play an important role in preparing students for a post-screen and post-postdigital world.

Keywords

distance education, media philosophy, online education, screen studies


Note: Every effort was made to minimise any bias in the review process of this paper. Another editor, Dr Joseph Haldane, handled the double-blind peer review procedure independently of the editor and author of this paper.