The nature of the relationship between teacher and learner in comprehensive e-learning process with an emphasis on ideas of Deleuze

Tari, N.; Zarghami, S.; Mahmoodnia, A.; Ghaedi, Y.

doi:10.22061/jte.2019.3988.1970

Document Type : Original Research Paper

Authors

Faculty of Psychology and Education, Kharazmi University, Karaj, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22061/jte.2019.3988.1970

Abstract

Background and Objectives: The aim of this research is study the nature of the relationship between teacher and learner in comprehensive e-learning process with an emphasis on ideas of Deleuze. With the expansion of e-learning, one of the important aspects of change in education is in the field of teaching and learning, including the relation between the teacher and the learner. In the analysis and evaluation of the nature of the relation and its role in human cognition, one of the post structuralist emerging paradigms is Deleuze's rhizomatic epistemology. In the area of Deleuze's ideas and electronic learning based on connectivism theory, separate researches have been done. However, what distinguishes this study from other studies is the assessment of the important fact that whether the new area which Deleuze names rhizomatic and by which means challenges the traditional relationships between the teacher and the learner in the tree system and deterritorializes can support the new atmosphere of electronic learning. Do these two accompany each other?
MethodS:The methodology of this study is philosophical analysis and deduction, which were used to answer the research question (What is the nature of the relation between the teacher and the learner in the process of e-learning?). The method of data collection is desk-documentation study. Based on concept analysis, valid understanding of the concept and a clear explanation of its relationship with other concepts was achieved. Moreover, based on deductive approach, the implications of the nature of the relation between the teacher and the learner according to Deleuze's ideas in the process of teaching - learning in e-learning was assessed. Then, these were analyzed philosophically. In other words, Deleuze's rhizomatic epistemological concepts and the related elements on the one hand and the concepts of electronic learning based on connectivism theory on the other hand were analyzed, interpreted and clarified. In the end, the proportion of relation in e-learning to Deleuze's rhizomatic relation was evaluated.
Findings: First, basic factors in rhizomatic epistemology of Deleuze were investigated. Based on the findings of this study, the essentialistic of the relationship between the teacher and the learner, according to Deleuze’s opinions, is rhizomatic. This means that it has features such as Interconnection and heterogeneity, pluralism, immigration, mapping, and non-indicative dissociation of rhizome, suggesting nonlinear, horizontal and non-hierarchical, fluid and fragile, decentralizing, spontaneous and molecular, dense and multiplexed, flexible and permeable relationships. Second, the nature of relationship in virtual learning process was illuminated
according to the principles of communication theory, which is the new theory of learning in the age of information and communication technology, communication in E-learning is a systemic and network communication that has nonlinear relationships among system components and network.According to this theory, E-learning is the process of network components communicating with each other. At the end, the nature of relationship virtual Learning in relation with, the nature of rhizomatic epistemology of Deleuze was examined Therefore, the orientation of communication in E-learning is in line with Deleuze's rhizomatic relationship.
Conclusion: Based on connectivism theory, electronic education is the very process of network elements connecting with each other. Thus, the direction of e-learning is aligned with Deleuze's rhizomatic relation. Thus, Deleuze's rhizomatic relationships with regard to the capabilities it holds, promises the ideal relationship between the teacher and the learner in the E-learning era and can serve as a model to address some of the challenges of the traditional educational system.

Keywords

20.1001.1.20080441.1399.14.3.3.5

Main Subjects

e-learning

COPYRIGHTS
©2020 The author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, as long as the original authors and source are cited. No permission is required from the authors or the publishers.

References

[1] Bagheri Noaparast K. [A second- order implici knowledge: Its implications for e-learning]. Journal of Elearning and digital media. 2014;11(6): 633-643.

[2]Zarghami S, deVries MJ. Ubiquitous learning and massive communication in MOOCs: Revisiting the role of teaching as a praxis. Ethics and Education. 2018; 13(3): 370-384.

[3] Dansei M. Dictionary of media and communications. NewYork: M.E Publishing; 2009.

[4] Semetsky I. [The problematics of human subjectivity: Gilles Deleuze and the Deweyan legacy]. Journal of Studies in Philosophy and Education. 2003; 22(2) : 211-225.

[5] Hosseini Shahroudi S. [Philosophical analysis and analytic philosophy]. Journal of Quranic Teachings. 2004; 4(12): 9- 57. Persian.

[6] Shorts EC. Forms of Curriculum Inquiry. New York: State University of Press Publishing; 1991.

[7] Shabani varaki B. [Critique of Methodology of Educational Research in Iran]. QuarterlyJournal of Education. 2006; 30(85): 12-42. Persian.

[8] Bagheri Kh, Attaran M. Philosophy Contemporary Education. Tehran: Mehrab ghalalm Publications; 1997. Persian.

[9] Peters M, Burbules NC. Poststructuralism and Educational Research New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing; 2004.

[10] Zaimran M. The Future of Philosophy: An Investigation in to Contemporary Philosophical Thoughts. Tehran: Nazar Pazian Publications; 2010. Persian.

[11] Marshall JD. Poststructuralism, philosophy, pedagogy.New Zealand: Kluwer Academic Publishing; 2006.

[12] Morss J R. Gilles Deleuze and the space of education: Poststructuralism, critical psychology, and schooled bodies.In: Marshall J D. (eds.) Poststructuralism, philosophy, pedagogy. Kluwer academic: Springer Science & Business Media; 2004. P. 85-97.

[13]Amiri M. [The Case of Gilles Deleuze: Deleuze of Vote and Works]. Journal of The Monthly Book of the Moon of Philosophy. 2008; 3(20): 3-31. Persian.

[14] Semetsky I. Deleuze, education and becoming. Rotterdam: Sense publishers, 2006.

[15] Hwu WS. Gilles Deleuze andJacques Daignault: Understanding Curriculum as Difference and Sense. In W. M. Reynolds & J. A. Webber (eds.) Expanding curriculum theory: Dis/positions and lines of flight.Mah wah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2004. p.181-202.

[16] Roy K. Teachers in Nomadic Spaces: Deleuze and Curriculum. New York: Peter Lang Publishing; 2003.

[17] Deleuze G, Guattari F. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia (Brian Massumi, Trans). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press Publishing; 1987.

[18] Deleuze G, Parnet C. DialoguesII. NewYork: Columbia Univerity Press Publishing; 2002.

[19] Salahshouri A, Imanzadeh A. A look at analytical and meta-analytic approaches in the philosophy of education. Hamedan: Bu-Ali Sina University Publications; 2011. Persian.

[20] Semetsky I. Nomadic Education: Variations on a Theme by Deleuze and Guattari. Rotterdam: Sense Publishing; 2008.

[21] Gough N. Shaking the tree, making a rhizome: toward a nomadic. geophilosophy of science education. 2010; 38(5): 625-654.

[22] Zaimran M. [Gilles Deleuze The Philosophy of Transformation and Distinction]. Journal of the Months of Literature and Philosophy. 2004; 9(80): 48-87. Persian.

[23] Colman FF. Rhizome, Deleuze Dictionary,Edited by Adrian Parr.Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Publishing; 2005.

[24]Deleuze G. Difference and Repetition (Paul Patton,Trans).NewYork: Columbia University Press Publishing; 1994.

[25] Malins P. [Deleuze, Guattari and an Ethico-Aesthetics of Drug Use]. Journal of Janus Head. 2004; 7(1): 84-104.

[26] Coolbrooke C. Gilles Deleuze (Routledge Critical Thinkers). New York: Routledge Publishing; 2001.

[27] Deleuze G, Guattari F. What is philosophy. New York: Columbia University Press Publishing; 1994.

[28] Bayne S. [Smoothness and Striation in Digital Learning Spaces]. Journal of ELearning. 2004; 1(2): 302-316.

[29] Ropers-huilman B. Feminist teaching in theory and practice: situating power and knowledge in poststructural classrooms. New York: Teacher College Publishing; 2008.

[30] Deleuze G. The Movement ــImage Trans. H. Tomlinson and B.Habberjam.Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press Publishing; 1987.

[31] Parker C D. A descriptive study to identify deterrents to participation in employer-provided e-learning. Capella University;2004.

[32] Ali Mosa A, Mahrin M.N, Ibrrahim R. [Technological Aspects of E-Learning Readiness in Higher Education: A Review of the Literature]. Journal of Computer and Information Science. 2016; 9 (1): 113-127.

[33] Igma A. [The Transition in the Educational System]. Journal of The Developmental Technique of Educational Technology. 2009; 25(206): 2-3. Persian.

[34] Peters M A. (2010). The Idea of Openness. In: M Peters, T Besley A Gibbons, B Žarnić , P Ghiraldelli.(eds.The Encyclopaedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory. Singapore: Springer; 2010.

[35] Saleem M M. An exploratory study of the implementation of computer technology in an american islamic private school. Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin-Madison Publishing; 2009.

[36] Ma L, Doug V, Christian W. [Will virtual education initiatives succeed?]. Journal of Information Technology and Management. 2000; 1(4): 209-227.

[37] Rezaee E, Nasri S, Azmard M. [The theory of communication learning and its application in the design of a university textbook]. Journal of Research and Academic Writing. 2011; 14(24): 81-94. Persian.

[38] Fenoglio P J. Pinball engagement and Connectivism: New understandings of learning in the 21st Century.2006.

[39] Massyn L. A framework for learning design in different modes of delivery in an adultlearning programme. Bloemfontein: University of the Free State Publishing; 2006.

[40] Siemens G, Tittenberger P. Handbook of emerging technologies for learning. Canada: University of Manitoba Publishing; 2009.

[41] Siemens G. Knowing knowledge. Vancouver, BC, Canada: Lulu Press Publishing; 2006.

[42] Ahmadi B. Critical Modernism and Principle. Tehran: Center Publications; 1994. Persian.

[43] Giroux HA. [Public Pedagogy and Politics of Resistance: Notes on a critical theory of educational struggle]. Journal of Educational philosophy and theory. 2003;35(1): 5-16.

[44] Berners-Lee T. Weaving the Web: The Past, Present and Future of the World Wide Web by its Creator. London: Orion Business Press Publishing; 1999.

[45] Raschke CA. The Digital Revolution and The coming of the postmodern university. London: Routledge Publishing; 2003.

[46] Gough N. [Shaking the tree, making a rhizome: toward a nomadic geophilosophy of science education]. Journal of Educational Philosophy and Theory. 2006; 38(5): 625 – 645.

[47] Zare sefat S, Dehghani M, Javadipour M. [Study of the mental container of high school students in teaching classes]. Quarterly Journal of Research. 2017; 5(2): 17-33. Persian.

[48] Ziba kalam mofrad F, Mohammadi H. [Comparative Study of Critical Thinking from the Viewpoint of Robert Anis and Henry Giroux, Regarding Its Use to Improve Teacher Education System]. Journal of Applied Psychological Research. 2014; 5(3): 19-38. Persia.