Ethical-Values Pedagogical Model

Open access

Abstract

This paper presents a pedagogical model that emerged during the design of an online Masters programme developed with the support of funding from the Erasmus multilateral programme. The authors are experienced in both the development and implementation of online learning, particularly values-based learning approaches in higher education, and are deeply committed to building alternate theoretical models that stimulate thinking about values-based learning within an online context. This pedagogical model thus represents an alternative theoretical resource for thinking about the role of ethical-values in learning. Garrison, Anderson and Archer’s (2000) Community of Inquiry Framework has been re-conceptualised and a new pedagogical model, titled the “Ethical-values Pedagogical Model”, has emerged. This model posits that a positive ethical-values presence is critical to sustaining teaching, social and cognitive presences and thus the lynchpin for the enablement of appropriate and meaningful cognitive experiences. The ethical-values bases of learners and educators effectively filter the way in which the cognitive experience is created and the manner in which the individual learner makes sense and/or constructs meaning within the learning environment. As such, the ethical-values bases of participants impact significantly on the teaching, social and cognitive presences within the learning environment. The presence of ethical-values that foster authentic, democratic and transformative learning experiences for the individual learner, communities of learners and educators is critical to the success of this Ethical-values Pedagogical Model.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and HigherEducation, 2(2-3), 87-105.

Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. The Internet and Higher Education, 13, 31-36.

Gomez, M. V. (2009). Emmanuel Levinas & Paulo Friere: The ethics of responsibility for the face-to-face interaction in the virtual world. International Journal of Instruction, 2(1). Retrieved August 22, 2012, from http://www.researchgate.net/publication/26571452_Emmanuel_levinas_paulo_friere_the_ethics_of_responsibility_for_the-Face-to-face_interaction_in_the_virtual_world

Hill, B. V. (1991). Values education in Australian schools. Hawthorn, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Holland, C., Mulcahy, C., Besong, F., & Judge, M. (2011). Report from Work package 3: EthicalValues Pedagogical Model. Unpublished. Erasmus Multilateral ICTeESD project.

Redecker, C., Ala-Mutka, K., & Punie, Y. (2010). Learning 2.0 - the impact of social media onlearning in Europe. Luxembourg: European Commission Joint Research Centre. Retrieved February 20, 2012, from http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC56958.pdf

Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan Page.

Salmon, G. (2004). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online (2nd edition). London: Routledge Falmer.

Thomson, P., Lingard, B., & Wrigley, T. (2012). Ideas for changing educational systems, educational policy and schools. Critical Studies in Education, 53(1), 1-7.

Ward, A., & Prosser, B. T. (2011). Reflections on cyberspace as the new “wired world of education”. Educational Technology & Society, 14(1), 169-178.

Zembylas, M., & Vrasidas, C. (2005). Levinas and the “inter-face”: The ethical challenge of online education. Educational Theory, 55(1). Retrieved February 25, 2011, from http://vrasidas.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/edth_5.pdf

Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability

The Journal of UNESCO Chair on the Interplay of Tradition and Innovation in Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) at Daugavpils University, Latvia

Journal Information


CiteScore 2018: 1.65

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.255
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.496

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 212 127 5
PDF Downloads 99 69 4