self-socialization in the context web 2.0

SELF-SOCIALIZATION IN THE CONTEXT WEB 2.0 Jasmina Arsenijević1, Milica Andevski2, Jovana Pražić3 1

Faculty of Pre-School Teacher Training in Kikinda (SERBIA) 2 Faculty of Philosophy in Novi Sad (SERBIA) 3 Faculty of Management in Novi Sad (SERBIA) [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Abstract The Internet opens the access to media offers that can be individually formed more than other mass media, so we must wonder how to learn new individual methods of dealing with media offers and whether the altered media forms affect the processes of media socialization. These possible impacts will further be viewed as forms of self-socialization. The concept of self-socialization can be put into various contexts of previous studies of socialization, if it is, as always, aimed at the independence of subjects. Socialization theories can be distinguished by the way in which they measure the aspects of self-socialization and socialization that is realized by some other person (teacher, parent, peers). The more we adopt direct external possibilities of impact, instructions and intervention on subject, the more processes of socialization realized by another person are emphasized. In contrast to this, the more we emphasize the processes of self-organization, self-regularization and self-constructiveness, the more we have the aspects of self-socialization in mind. Relationship between self-socialization and the use of media, i.e. media competence, is not new, and in the broad field of examining the mass communication it is described and discussed in details. The subjects are not, as various studies oriented towards reception show, passively and helplessly left to media impacts, but they independently handle media offers. This aspect of media socialization could be performed step by step, according to studies of the media aimed at media coercion and effects. Precisely in the field of socialization in dealing with the new media, we can now indicate to the fact that new generations are increasingly being left to themselves and, therefore, they have been socializing on their own. The use of media as self-socialization, means that those who are socialized, they manage the choice of media and media content, relatively autonomously decide on time and place of accessing the media and independently construct the meaning of media content in reception process, which is also reflected by independent development of meaning. This also refers to the aspect of interactivity of the new media, i.e. individual disposition with media content. From this it follows that: possibility of intervention and organization for users increases the autonomy in handing the media. Unlike the older, as it is frequently said, the younger generation claims more value to determining, all by itself, which media content, when and in what form it will handle. The new media set the task to media pedagogy to think about assumptions, processes and terms of adopting media competence. That could happen through the discussion about the relationship 1 between interactivity of new media and self-socialization . Key words: new media, self-socialization, media pedagogy, media competence, Internet.

1 MEDIA COMPETENCE AND SELF-SOCIALIZATION IN THE CONTEXT OF WEB 2.0 As in many other areas of scientific research of media, the research and theories of new media and the Internet communication have had to struggle with the problems of narrow-mindedness and abridgment. On one side a fast development of new possibilities of communication through computer is developing, which are closely related to new technological achievements and new forms of the media (for this dimension of the new media, there has been and there still is an expression Web 2.0, signifying the quality of participation and generating of offers for the users on the Internet. On the 1

This paper is a result of a research conducted within the Project Digital media technologies and socially educational changes (Project no. 47020), which is implemented with the financial support of the Ministry of Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia for the period 2011-2014.

Proceedings of EDULEARN11 Conference. 4-6 July 2011, Barcelona, Spain.

006065

ISBN:978-84-615-0441-1

other, in many scientific works on the Internet communication an awareness is growing that the media possibilities of participation and creation must not be identified with their realization and consummation (by the users), but that there gapes a huge gap. For the dimension of capability and readiness to really use new possibilities of the media, there is a central concept of the media competence or media literacy (Arsenijevic, Andevski, 2010: 146) which should be considered as a basic process of mobile learning within the new media. Adoption of the contents offered by the new media through their estimation and filtering becomes important foundations of literacy in the era of knowledge because “the main problem of todays, information era is not possession, but interpretation and filtering of the information due to the great availability and often overbooks” (Arsenijević, 2009). The issues of the media competence can be observed together with the process of „E-Learning“ within new media, and in that sense a connection between the media competencies and new media has to be clarified, first of all the relation of the possibilities opened through the new media and the potentials realized in practical handling with the new media. The difficulty in explaining this connection is that it is related to two broadly spread expressions, unclearly defined: the competence, i.e. the media competence and Web 2.0. As always in the science, time is necessary for the development and new relations to be perceived and to be contemplated on. If in the context of Web 2.0 it is said “the normative reference point for promotion of the media competence should be increase of the quality of life in the scientific society” (Gapski/Gräßer 2007: 11), then it is certain to come across a general acceptance- but, likewise, it is hard to disprove the fact that it is not clear what is thought by this: In the first place it is about describing new developments with regards to Web 2.0, in order to gradually clarify the relation of new forms of media communication and the corresponding new competencies, and then of their further implications related to the users of the virtual space (opening of the issue of self-socialization). In the hey-day of fast and almost interminable changes when all has to remain open and speculative, the basis of relation of the media competence in the context of Web 2.0 should be clarified from the media-sociological standpoint. The center of gravity will not be on concrete determination of key qualifications for handing the new media, but on the question how to conceive the processes of learning and socialization in handling the new media, thus the consideration on some of the basis necessary to process the questions of adoption of new competencies in handling the new media (Andevski 2009a; 2009b). The starting point of our analysis will be widely spread concept of the media competence, by which various capabilities and skills are described and primarily in the form of the static results of learning. This problem, found more in collecting the results of learning than in the process of learning is general problem of the competencies theory. It is far easier to define the meaning of the media competence than the way they are adopted. The processes of adoption of the media competence are found today under the altered conditions of increased “interactivity” of the new media. Thereto the expression Web 2.0 can be placed in the context of this change of media and a more accurate determination of the interactivity of the new media. For scientific research of the media it is important to separate the questions of the media form and thus opened possibilities from the question of a concrete way of dealing with these possibilities. The new media open to the users increased possibilities of intervention, cooperation and feedback. Herein the Internet encyclopedia Wikipedia can be especially mentioned as a primary example of the interactive communication space for production, organization and transfer of information and knowledge. Against a too much optimistic apprehension on the good new media, that would far more than the mass media enable and enhance active involvement of the participants, the interactivity potential must be brought into connection with the real realization of this potential: that is how also in the case of Wikipedia a relatively small number of active authors stands opposite to many recipients (those who only read, i.e. use the contents). Unfortunately, this tendency can also be found in the other areas of Web 2.0. A great change associated with the media relates to a possibility of individual ways of acting with the media offers. This kind of change of media relates to increasingly stronger drift of the process from socialization performed by some other person to self-socialization. The process of self-socialization in handling the new media is necessary to be analyzed through different, occasionally given social contexts, and with it concrete contents and results of the media competence in the context of Web 2.0 should be less described and certain aspects of the question how is in this context the media competence being adopted should be more considered. As well as in the field of socialization through mass media, three levels have to be differentiated and associated: 1. the influence of the media form,

006066

2. the potentials of the recipients autonomy and interpretation and 3. the meaning of different social contexts of using the media.

1.1. The Media Competencies The concept of the media competence is drawn through in various ways through a pile of analyses and debates in different fields: not only in science (Biology, Linguistics, Sociology, Psychology and Pedagogic), but also in politics, law or economy (Gapski 2001). It is understandable that the concept thus becomes unclear and multi-meaningful and that is why it should be specified what the concept implies in the certain context. Thus, in this paper, we will firstly generally analyze the concept of the competence. Unlike the term of the media competence, a broader term competence has a longer history. The development of the theories on competence can bi divided into three phases: 1. linguistic definition of the competence term during 70-ties if the XX century, 2. its introduction into various theories of development and socialization and 3. its usage in the analyses of socialization and society during the 80-ies. The researches turned to the theories on competences are facing many difficulties. Already at the correct meaning of the term competence, divided into three mentioned phases, there have been many obscurities. In social sciences, the term competence is usual compared to the performance from Noam Chomsky Linguistics (Chomsky 1972: 14): language competence according to Chomsky represents the intuitive knowledge of the rules disposed of by the subjects. The performance includes the limiting factors of the language usage. A language competence is described by the grammar of a language. When children are learning a language, they have to dispose of the generative grammar, i.e. the method, “(...) how to generate the adjusted grammar from the given primary language data” (Chomsky 1972: Thereto it is about the inborn, individual predispositions found at the synchronous level. As distinct from it, in the structurally-genetic theories on the competence, the central issue is the constructive adoption of the universal competencies. It is about the theories of adoption of general cognitive, social and moral competencies according to the tradition of Jeana Piageta. The basis of this tradition is constructivism, strictly hedging off from Chomsky’s nativism. He thinks that subjects in an active process of construction firstly construct the structures of their own inner world, as well as the inborn and social outer world. Therewith, general subjective competencies are formed which are not created in a nativistic manner, as is at Chomsky’s, but in a constructivist manner: precisely this circumstance means a significant alteration if the competence term in the second phase of its development. From synchronous construct the competence becomes the diachronic, narrowly associated with the intrasubjectve processes of construction. Structural-genetic theories of competence do not include the processes of learning and development so much, but they make structurally-analytical descriptions of the stadiums of cognitive, social and moral development (Sutter 1994). The focusing on the intrasubjective constructions with the acceptance of the term competences changes into sociological research of socialization. Besides “the linguistics turn” in social sciences, the structural-genetic theories of competence have induced Jürgena Habermas to take over the term of competence in the theory of associating the socializing and social-theoretic –perspectives. At the socializing-theoretical level it is about connecting sociological theory of creation of I-identity with psychological theories of cognitive, social and moral development (among other with those of Piage, Selman and Kohlberg) (Döbert et al. 1980). Thereto, the "guide" was the opinion that the subjects develop their competencies in the social interactions. Habermas in this context speaks about the competence of the roles, competence of interaction but also on the communicative competence (Habermas 1995). Subjective competences are always adopted within development of the communicative competence, and it again as a prerequisite has constant participation in the communication processes. Therewith the developmental-psychological relation between subjective and social structures is reversed: The processes of social interactions are those that accelerate and organize the process of subjective competencies generation. The mentioned researches of the competence theories have been subjected to various critiques and herein we should remind on at least three. They oppose developmental and socialization-theoretical taking over the competencies term: The concept of competence is firstly nativistic, synchronously and individually used and thus it is not suitable for this taking-over. According to Chomsky, by the concept

006067

of competence only the nature of intuitive knowledge of the language rules is described, and not its adoption. In this sense the competence is a biologically based, static concept. This first general point can be classified along with the following two points: secondly, associated with the competence concept are special problems of the methods because the performances are only directly empirically available and out of these data one has to indirectly draw conclusions on the competencies. The competencies theories in the end remain speculative (Damon 1984: 67). Namely, when the differences between the assumed competences and performances arise that can be perceived empirically, abundance of problems ensues, which especially comes to the expression in the empirical study on morality by Lawrencea Kohlberga (1984). Based on the stadium of psychological development, various factors determining performances, which accelerate or hinder the transformation of the supposed competencies, have had to be investigated. However, in this way the theory of competence cannot be empirically refuted by itself. Habermas (1995) and Kohlberg (et al. 1983) have clearly admitted that the central theoretical comprehensions cannot be modified only on the basis of theoretical considerations. Thirdly, the subjective strategies of adoption, but primarily the social conditions of the subject’s educational development cannot be explained by the theory of competence. Finally, the static concept of the competence is used in the context of theory of adoption. This has lead to it, because it has dealt with structural-analytical descriptions of the assumed competences and thus of the results of learning and not of the processes and contexts of learning, i.e. of adoption of competences (Sutter 1994). These skeptical objections to the theories of competence established in the 70-ties and 80-ties, help so that at determination of the concept of the media competence old mistakes do not repeat, especially that it is not limited only on the results of individual processes of learning. Further, one should neither neglect social conditions as well as the process dynamics of development and socialization in the media competences field. The point is in the following: One or the other media competences can be advocated, however is it by that something reasonable and valid advocated will be shown only when it would be possible to explain when and under what terms the advocated competencies are formed. In this way there comes to the empirically comprehensive concept of the media competence without loosing from the insight the inevitable limits of this concept. If we go back one step and consider the concepts of the media competence, then they, according to Baacke (1999) and Theunert (1999) can have very different meanings (Sutter/Charlton 2002): •

Understanding the media: the media competence can be related to understanding the media offers.

•

Managing the media: the media competence can be related to the skill of managing the media devices.

•

Using the media: the media competence can elate to the effective usage of the media in solving the school and business tasks. It can also be expressed in the capability that by the help of the media spare time is planned and enjoyed in.

•

Creating the media: the media competence can be related to composition of the media offers.

•

Estimating (evaluating) the media: The media competence can finally relate to the media system's functions. The media competence in this sense implies the ability to comprise the social relations and estimate (evaluate) one’s own acting under the normative and ethical aspects.

These general media competencies play a central part in the context of Web 2.0 and in that sense the role that the altered forms of the new media have in forming the media socialization as a type of adopting of the media competence is significant. If it is generally unclearly determined and if the individual moments are subject to the forming, then the processes of self-socialization would have to play a more and more important part, so that herein we will deal more with the interactivity in the context Web 2.0 and with the theory of self-socialization.

2

WEB 2.0 AND THE NEW MEDIA INTERACTIVITY

The debate on Web 2.0 can be placed into the context of an extensive discussion on that is new in the new media and how to describe it in an appropriate manner. Thereat, the important function has the comparison with the old, established mass media, among which the television is the main media of one-sided firm of communication without any feedback information, without the interactive connection between the media actors and recipients. The mass communication flows unifiedly and with only a little of the feedback information (Luhmann 1996: 11). The success of the mass media system

006068

consists in spreading the one-sided communication throughout the entire society, flowing from the sender to the interminable circle of heterogeneous and anonymous addressants, making the scattered audience. Unlike the mass media which are not interactive, the new media due to the new technological possibilities are marked as “the interactive”, signifying the change from the mass media without any feedback into the media opening various possibilities of intervention, organization and feedback. The new forms of technologically opened media communication are signified as “the interactive”, namely as the new media interactivity (Sutter 2008): Herein it is about the new possibilities of the feedback information and organization for the users, directing the analyses of the new media forms of communication towards the comparisons with direct face-to-face interactions (Neuberger 2007; Rörig 2006). There are two approaches to the new media being analyzed within the media competences theories. The first approach relates to the problems of the media forms and endeavours to describe the forms of the media communication appropriately. The second approach does not analyze the new technical development and the forms, but subjective perceptions of the new media and the ways of handling them (Bucher 2004). The new forms of the Internet communication open firstly the individual approaches to the media’s offers and secondly the increased individual possibilities of intervention and organization. From the recipients that are observing, the people become the users that create and organize the text. There are new paths of information, communication and amusement. In the area of information especially striking are the spaces for communication of the type “wiki” and primarily the Internet encyclopedia Wikipedia (Mehler/Sutter 2008). This communication area offers to the users’ possibilities of participation of extremely low threshold, in principle all of them can cooperatively write, correct the texts, and actively update them. In contrast to the function of generalization in the area of the mass media, it is striking here that the texts are spreading but they are also always changeable. Unlike books, offering the identical texts, Wikipedia offers-always only potentially-alterable texts. It is surprising that Wikipedia, despite all the possibilities of organization, and therewith of distraction and misuse, provides quality information, therewith using the possibilities of participation much less than the possibilities of reception. In the area of communication there have appeared various forms of chats, forums, blogs, platforms on which the participants leave the information on themselves and they also use this information for organizing many things in their everyday life. Generally, the boundary between the private and public has become permeable when choosing between the restrained, business and personal, namely selfinsinuating access to the Internet. In the area of amusement there are the worlds of games or the artificial worlds such as “Second Life”, wherein people meet in order to play and collectively create the artificial worlds. Naturally, the mentioned areas of information, communicative exchange and amusement cannot be separated clearly; moreover there are overlapping. It is logical (but only for a start) to describe the development directions as shifting and disintegration of the boundaries, especially of those between the producers, i.e. authors and the recipients, i.e. users and of those between the private and public. The media sociology attempts to clarify such aspects of the new forms of media communication. Herewith, besides generally known possibilities of feedback, intervention and organization, other specific features should also be mentioned: Such as the participants’ anonymity and with it associated depersonalization of communication (Krämer 2000). In the Internet communication it is often about, not the relations between the concrete persons perceiving, identifying as persons, but it about the intertextuality, about the connections between the texts. The written form of the text in communication creates unbridgeable difference towards an oral speech, in so much as the users are not interacting with persons, but with the texts, i.e. symbolic representations. Individuals become symbolic representations. In the context the chat, estimated as a highly interactive, looses its virginity. Conversations that are lead in writing with regards to the synchronization of the share can approach to the social interactions, but the technological enabling and transfer of communication can always be perceived (Beißwenger 2005: 82; Tipp 2008). Even when the written inputs in the instant messaging systems appear directly on the addressants’ screens, the instantaneous reception of the communication is not certain, the addressants cannot deal with composing their own input. What in oral speech (and also in telephone conversations) leads to an incomprehensible cacophony, it is here a normal appearance: the simultaneous production of statement. The procedure of statement and the processes of reception, i.e. understanding as well as the additional communication are separated and herein the communicative

006069

technology stringently becomes striking. When the contingency and non-transparency of the communication are increased in this way, different flows can occur for more individuals participating in the chat. Here it is only about explaining on the example on which observations and analyses would rest upon the debate on the media competence in the context of Web 2.0 from the media-sociological standpoint. Besides the problem of the media form, at studying of the new media the subjective perceptions and ways of the users’ actions can be chosen as the starting point. The new media interactivity and their importance arise primarily from the practical handling by the users. But what does it really mean? The share of the active producers is relatively small: Three quarters of the weblogs users is only searching for information. In the case of Wikipedia, this ratio is even more expressed, which is certainly surprising to many: Only 6% of the users has at least once wrote an article or added information, similarly as with the video-portals. The number of the users is disproportionately small, apparently the additional value for many users is not the possibility that they actively participate on the net themselves, but that they can passively consume the attractive contents. The possibility of the new communication should not be observed only on the level of the media form and subjective perception and usage, but in the given social contexts as well. The new possibilities of the online communications and online groups are “wrapped into” the social contexts and regarding their advantages and disadvantages, they depend on these contexts. “If the interaction within the online-group is connected into the social network, existing also in the offline-world, then it is called social embedding of the online-interaction into the networks of the offline world” (Matzat 2005: 176). The implantation plays the central part in organizing and improvement of the online-interactions. Herein the typical problems are the possibilities of control or also building trust. For solving such problems it is often helpful to additionally use the possibilities of the direct interactions outside the Internet. The processes of learning and adoption of the competencies based on the Internet depend on the social conditions that can be organized and formed.

3

SELF-SOCIALIZATION IN THE CONTEXT OF WEB 2.0

If we want to explain how the interactivity is realized in relation of the new forms of the media and their usage, we come to the conclusion that the Internet, far more than the mass media, opens the approach to the media offers: the approach that cans bi individually molded. Thus, the following question can be posed: how do these new individual manners of conduct are learned with the media offers? And whether the changed forms of the media have influence on the processes of the media socialization? If we should observe the influences, they would have to be in the field of view as the increased importance of the self-socialization. The general term of the self socialization can be put into different contexts of the so far research of the socialization, if it is, as always, aiming towards the ready independence of the subject. The more direct outside possibilities of the influence, instruction and intervention on the subject are adopted, the more the processes of socialization performed by the other party are emphasized. Opposite to it, the more processes of self organization, self regulation and self-constructivity are emphasized, and the more are the aspects of self socialization taken into the account. The relation of the self socialization and the usage of the media competence are not new and in the broad field of research of the mass communication it is described and discussed in detail (Fromme et all. 1999). The subjects are not passively and helplessly abandoned to the influences of the media (as various research turned to the reception show), but they individually and independently manage the media offers. This aspect of the media socialization would have to be deduced step by step towards the research of the media directed to the media compulsion and effects. Conducting with the media depends on the external context and rests upon the subjective assumptions. The new generations in their socialization have to first adopt the cognitive, language and social skills in order to be able to further handle the media. Managing the media is determined by the social conditions and biographical situations. The recipients perceive the media offers in relation to the personally relevant themes and certain problems. The recipients, more or less consciously, relate their own life situation with the media offers. Precisely in the area of the mass media the constructivist theories of the media socialization see numerous possibilities for the new generations themselves or in cooperation with other people independently manage the process of reception and handling the media. The theories of self socialization can be based on the general perception that the possibilities and demands that the building of one's own personality independently forms to the development

006070

(Hurrelmann 2002). Precisely in the socialization field in handling the new media can be pointed now that the new generations are more left to themselves and thus they are increasingly self socializing (Fromme et all. 1999). “The usage of the media as selfsocialization means that”, according to Süss (2004: 67) formulation, “those who are socializing manage themselves the choice of the media and media contents, relatively autonomously decide on the time and place of the media and independently construct the meaning of the media contents into the process of reception”. As we can see, this is partially formulated for conducting towards the mass media: wherein it is about the reception of the given contents, the meaning of which is independently developing. But partly we can see also that it relates to the aspect of interactivity of the new media as well: the individual disposal of the media contents. When discussing about the interactivity of the new media it clearly results that the possibility of the intervention and the organization increases the autonomy of the users in managing the media. Unlike the old, as it is often said, the younger generation places greater value to itself determine by which media offers it will handle, when and in what form (Andevski, 2009b). Is it herewith that the far fetching change of the media with the basic changes of the usage habits is being associated in the long run, remains yet to be seen. The young become older and it is possible that they gladly discuss about the mass media in a completely traditional way. Apart from it, the increased interactivity of the new media standing available as the potential still does not mean that this potential changes anything. Until the subjects in their media socialization use the interactive possibilities of the new media, the more will they overcome the processes of the selfsocialization, because they have at their disposal the earlier determined guidance. If the general basis and conditions of E-Learning in the context of Web 2.0 are viewed, it becomes clear that herein it is about the case which is demanding and full of assumptions, which is probably possible to be realized only in special areas of the scientific education at universities. “E-Learning 2.0” means that these who learn by themselves create the environment for learning and the work ambience. For this not only the appropriate competencies are necessary, but also the immense motivation. We will have to see whether such highly motivated active users of the new media make a limited group, with certain areas of “E-Learning 2.0” attached to it, and whether the relation of the active and passive users in the future will change in the direction of the active ones. We will also find out how and to what extent will those that are learning change the usage of the given contents into the personal configuration of the learning environment. The example of Wikipedia from the area of communication based on the Internet can be used for the first estimation of such possible developments. Here one should ask a question what is it that motivates the users to actively participate in the cooperative production of the texts, correction of the texts and related to it the processes of investigation and discussion. These motivations are obviously relatively slightly developed, considering the total number of the users, and yet for many people it is surely interesting and as much beneficial to actively participate in such a space for communication. That is how for the students it can be a great stimulus that through active participation in collaborative “work spaces” on the internet they escape from the fetters of the lectures in their classrooms that are determined by the space and time. In large areas for communication, such as Wikipedia, one can gain the status of expert with the corresponding reputation and privileges. Herein primarily the intrinsic motives of the users play a great role: One is happy about solving a problem, conflicts, collective improvements, etc. And then when from the basic reasoning we perceive the selfsocialization theories in a skeptical manner (Krappmann 2002), we have to admit that the processes of adoption described by selfsocialization more and more are becoming the center of attention, if th3 increased possibilities of the choice, feedback, organization and intervention in managing the media are opened. For the media pedagogic then occur the problems of increased insecurity and non-transparency in the process of the media competence adoption. Adopting the media competence is more and more the case of self controlling handling of the young the new media, and less the case of the planned and directed instruction and intermediation. The new media place before the media pedagogic the task to balance the relation of the selfsocialization and socialization performed by another person. In that way the importance of the media competences can be further explained as well.

4

CONCLUSION

The balancing of the relation of the selfsocialization and socialization performed by another party during adoption of the media competence in handling the New Media, on the basis of the existing

006071

considerations has to be started from at least three levels and the following should be mutually associated: 1. the new media forms, 2. the subjective processes of perception and usage of the New Media, as well as 3. the social contexts of the Internet communication. These three levels are important also for the theory of acquisition of the media competence in the area of the mass media (compare Sutter 1999). In the area of the old as well as of the new media, questions are posed on the influence of the media form, on the potentials of autonomy and organization of the recipients and users, and on the significance of different social contexts as well. The new research and analyses' systematization of the new media interactivity show the relevance of the three levels, when looking for the integrated, voluminous concepts of the interactivity (comp. Neuberger 2007). Thus, for example, differentiated are the dimensions of the media communicative technologies, different communicative contexts and ways of perception of the users. The change of the media, marked as the interactivity of the new media, cannot be denied nor its influence on adopting the media competences. These influences make stronger the tendency that the media competence is adopted in the processes of self-socialization (as is the assumption). The new media place before the media pedagogic the task to think through on the assumptions, processes and conditions of the media competence adoption. It could also happen through discussion on the relation of the interactivity of the new media and selfsocialization.

REFERENCES [1]

Andevski, M., (2009a) Violence on the internet. Book of abstracts of The fifth International Symposium `Technology, Informatics and Education for the Learning and Knowledge Society`, Faculty of Technical Sciences in Novi Sad. Novi Sad, pp. 94-95.

[2]

Andevski, M., (2009b) Internet addiction. Book of abstracts of The Seventeenth International Interdisciplinary Symposium ‘Ecology, Sport, Physical Activity and Health of Youth’. University of Novi Sad. Novi Sad, pp. 79.

[3]

Arsenijević, J., (2009) Information System as Educational Management Support. Proceedings of the 17th Interdisciplinary International Symposium ’Ecology, Sport, Physical Activity and Health of Youth. University of Novi Sad. Novi Sad, pp. 78.

[4]

Arsenijević, J., Andevski, M., (2010) Education Management for the Learning Society. Faculty of Pre-School Teacher Training in Kikinda and the Faculty of Philosophy in Novi Sad. Novi Sad, pp. 146.

[5]

Beiβwenger, M., (2005) Interaktionsmanagement in Chat und Diskurs. In: Storrer, A.,(Hrsg.) Chat-Kommunikation in Beruf, Bildung und Medien. Stuttgart: Ibidem-Verlag, pp. 63-87.

[6]

Bucher, H.J., (2004) Online-Interaktivität-ein hybrider Begriff für eine hybride Kommunikationsform. In: Bieber, C., Leggewie, C., (Hrsg) Interaktivität. Ein transdisziplinärer Schlüsselbegriff. Frankfurt/New York: Campus Verlag, pp. 132-167.

[7]

Chomsky, N., (1972) Aspekte der Syntax-theorie. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.

[8]

Damon, W., (1984) Die soziale Welt des Kindes. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.

[9]

Döbert, R., Habermas, J., Nunner-Winkler, G., (1980) Zur Einführung. In: Entwicklung des Ichs. Athenäum, Hain, Scriptor, Hanstein. pp. 9-30.

[10]

Dollase, R., (1999) Selbstsozialisation und problematische Folgen. In: Fromme, J., Kommer, S., Mansel, J., Treumann, K.P., (Hrsg.) Selbstsozialisation, Kinderkultur und Mediennutzung. Opladen: Leske&Budrich, pp. 23-42.

[11]

Fromme, J., Kommer, S., Mansel, J., Treumann K.P., (Hrsg.)(1999) Selbstsozialisation, Kinderkultur und Mediennutzung. Opladen: Leske&Budrich.

[12]

Gapski, H., Gräβer, L., (2007) Medienkompetenz im Web.2.0 – Lebensqualität als Zielperspektive. In: Gräβer, L./Pohlschmidt, M., (Hrsg.) Praxis Web 2.0. Potenziale für die Entwicklung von Medienkompetenz. Düsseldorf/München: KoPäd, pp. 11-34.

006072

[13]

Habermas, J., (1995) Notizen zur Entwicklung der Interaktionskompetenz. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.

[14]

Hurrelmann, K., (2002) Selbstsozialisation oder Selbstorganisation? Ein sympathisieren- den, aber kritischer Kommentar. Zeitschrift für Soziologie der Erziehung und Sozialisation, Jg.22, Heft 2, pp. 155-166.

[15]

Kohlberg, L., Levine, C., Hewer, A., (1983) Moral stages: A current formulation and a response to critics. In: Meacham, J.A., (Hrsg.) Contrabutions to Human Development, Vol. 10. Basel.

[16]

Krämer, S., (200) Subjektivität und neue Medien. Ein Kommentar zur Interaktivität. In: Sandbothe, M., Marotzki, W., (Hg.) Subjektivität und Öffentlichkeit. Kulturwissenschaftliche Grundlagenprobleme virtueller Welten. Köln: Herbert von Halem. pp. 102-116.

[17]

Krappmann, L., (2002) Warnung vor dem Begriff der Selbstsozialisation.Zeitschrift für Soziologie der Erziehung und Sozialisation, Jg. 22, Heft 2, pp. 178-185.

[18]

Luhmann, N., (1996) Die Realität der Massenmedien (1995) 2.erw.Aufl.Opladen WD Verlag.

[19]

Matzat, U., (2005) Die Einbettung der Online-Interaktion in soziale Netzwerke der Offline-Welt. In: Jäckel, M./Mai, M., (Hrsg.) Online-Vergesellschaftung? Mediensoziologische Perspektiven auf neue Kommunikationstehnologien. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwis- senschaften, pp. 175-199.

[20]

Mehler, A., Sutter, T., (2008) Interaktive Textproduktion in Wiki-basierten Kommunikationssystemen.In: Zerfaβ A., u.a. (Hrsg.) Kommunikation, Patizipation und Wirkungen im Social Web. Band 1: Grundlagen und Methoden: Von der Gesellschaft zum Individuum. Köln: Herbert von Halem. pp. 267-300.

[21]

Neuberger, C., (2007) Interaktivität, Interaktion, Internet. Publizistik, Jg.52, Heft 1, pp. 33-50.

[22]

Rörig, H., (2006) Die Mär vom Mehr. Strategien der Interaktivität. Begriff, Geschichte, Funktionsmuster. Berlin: Lit-Verlag.

[23]

Süss, D., (2004) Mediensozialisation von Heranwachsenden: Dimensionen-KonstantenWandel. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

[24]

Sutter, T., (1994) Entwicklung durch Handeln in Sinnstrukturen. Die sozial-kognitive Entwicklung aus der Perspektive eines interaktionistischen Konstruktivismus. In: Sutter, T.,Charlton M., (Hrsg.) Soziale Kognition und Sinnstruktur. Oldenburg, pp. 23-112.

[25]

Sutter, T., Charlton, M., (2002) Medienkompetenz – einige Anmerkungen zum Kompetenzbegriff. In: Groeben, N., Hurrelmann, B., (Hrsg.) Medienkompetenz. Voraussetzungen, Dimensionen, Funktionen. Weinheim: Juventa, pp. 129-147.

[26]

Theunert, H., (1999) Medienkompetenz. Eine pädagogisch und altersspezifisch zu fassende Handlungsdimension. In: Schell, F., Stolzenburg, E., Theunert, H., (Hrsg.) Medienkompetenz: Grundlagen und pädagogisches Handeln. München: KoPäd, pp. 50-59.

[27]

Tipp, A., (2008) Doing being present. Instant Messaging aus interaktionssoziologischer Perspektive. In: Stegbauer, C., Jäckel M., (Hrsg.) Social Software. Formen der Kooperation in computerbasierten Netzwerken. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, pp. 175-193.

[28]

Tully, C., (Hrsg.) (2009) Multilokalität und Vernetzung. Beitrage zur technikbasierten Gestaltung jugendlicher Sozialräume, Juventa Verlag, Weinheim und München.

[29]

Veith, H., (2002) Sozialisation alsrefleksive Vergesellschaftung. Zeitschrift für Soziologie der Erziehung und Sozialisation, Jg. 22, Heft 2, pp. 167-177.

[30]

Zinnecker, J., (2000) Selbstsozialisation – Essay über ein aktuelles Konzept. Zeitschrift für Sozialisationsforschung und Erziehungssoziologie, Jg. 20, Heft 3, pp. 272-290.

006073