Studies in Philosophy and Education

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 253–266 | Cite as

Meaning and Learning in a World of Instability and Multiplicity



Globalization impacts on education everywhere; it is impossible to consider issues of curriculum or pedagogy without bearing in mind the effects of globalization. Here I consider to what extent it is possible to imagine curricula and pedagogies which could function at a global level? I do so from an anglo-phone perspective, from within the UK (and similar societies) in the early part of the 21st century. The challenge is to develop means of analysis which allow distanced reflection on local issues and at the same time facilitate descriptions at a global level, relatively free of the ‘skew’ of the local. The article deals with four issues: dominantmyths which still govern contemporary thinking about education; addressing the transitional generation, a generation which straddles the shifts produced by the fault-lines in present social and political transitions of arrangements of power and authority; the characteristics and effects of present and likely future environments of learning, distinct historically and geographically; and the urgent need to develop apt theories of learning, that is, theories of learning which are apt for these new givens. What unites all these is the commonality of the experience of learning in a world of instability and multiplicity of meaning.


Globalization Meaning and learning Global curriculum Global pedagogy 


  1. Barnett, R. (2003). Beyond all reason. Living with ideology in the university. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy symbolic control and identity. Theory, research, critique. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  3. Boeck, M. (2004). Family snaps: Life worlds and information habitus. Journal of Visual Communication, 3(3), 281–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gee, J. P. (2004). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  5. Gee, J. P., Hull, G., & Lankshear, C. (1996). The new work order: Behind the language of the new capitalism. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  6. Göhlich, M., Wulf, C., & Zirfas J. (Eds.). (2007). Pädagogische Theorien des Lernens.Google Scholar
  7. Kress, G. R. (1996). Internationalization and Globalization: rethinking a curriculum of communication. Comparative Education, 32(2), 185–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kress, G. R. (1997). Before writing: Rethinking the paths to literacy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Kress, G. R. (2000). A Curriculum for the future. Cambridge Journal of Education, 30(1), 133–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kress, G. R. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  11. Kress, G. R. (2007). Towards a semiotic theory of learning. In M. Göhlich, et al. (Eds.).Google Scholar
  12. Kress, G. R., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal learning and teaching: The rhetorics of the science classroom. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  13. Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003). New literacies. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Wallerstein, I. (2001). Unthinking social science (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Willis, P. (1978). Learning to labour. London: Saxon House.Google Scholar
  16. Wulf, C. (2005). Zur Genese des Sozialen: Mimesis Performativitaet Ritual. Bielefeld: transcript Verlag.Google Scholar
  17. Wulf, C. (2006). Anthropologie kultureller vielfalt. Interkulturelle Bildung inn Zeiten der Globalisierung. Bielefeld: transcript Verlag.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Culture, Language and Communication, Institute of Education University of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations