Advertisement

The Birth of a New Paradigm: Rethinking Education and School Leadership with a Metamodern ‘Lens’

  • Gokhan Kilicoglu
  • Derya KilicogluEmail author
Article

Abstract

Metamodernism, which is used synonymous with post-postmodernism or neo-modernism, has come forward in response to postmodernism and the emerged crises, instabilities, and uncertainties in all areas of this epoch. Metamodernism is a perspective situated epistemologically with (post)modernism, ontologically between (post)modernism and historically beyond (post)modernism. It seeks an oscillation between modernism and postmodernism with mediating between them and responding to existing cultural modes. Thus, metamodernism is a paradigm beyond modernism and postmodernism, trying to explain today’s cultural and intellectual developments which are not sufficiently criticized by modernism nor postmodernism. This paper questions and discusses the understanding of this paradigm and its reflections on education, school leadership, and schooling in the Nordic countries. By reviewing education related reports, survey reports, books and articles about these countries, comprehending their philosophy of education throughout the years, and analyzing the ongoing educational developments, the main notion of metamodernism and its influences on schooling, leadership implications, classroom activities and research in education are focused on this paper.

Keywords

Metamodernism Paradigm shift Changing schools School leadership Nordic education system 

Notes

References

  1. Anderson, R.E., and S. Dexter. 2005. School technology leadership: An empirical investigation of prevalence and effect. Educational Administration Quarterly 41(1): 49–82.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X04269517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, V.N., and I. Helgøy. 2007. Education reforms in Denmark and Norway: Restricting or enhancing the role of the state and the professions in education governance. Workshop 11, Reforming education policy: Internalisation-privatisation- governance, Helsinki Joint Session, 7–12 May. https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/899c7405-7755-4fd9-a787-dcef691e84a5.pdf.
  3. Andreasson, U., and M. Lundqvist. 2018. Nordic leadership. Denmark: Rosendahls.Google Scholar
  4. Antikainen, A. 2006. In search of the Nordic model in education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 50(3): 229–243.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830600743258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Avolio, B.J., and W.L. Gardner. 2005. Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly 16(3): 315–338.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beck, U. 2000. What is globalization?. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  7. Becker, A., M. Cummins, A. Freeman, and K. Rose. 2017. 2017 NMC technology outlook for Nordic Schools: A horizon project regional report. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.Google Scholar
  8. Begley, P.T. 2010. In pursuit of authentic school leadership practices. International Journal of Leadership in Education 4(4): 353–365.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13603120110078043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beldarrain, Y. 2007. Distance education trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student interaction and collaboration. Distance Education 27(2): 139–153.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910600789498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bentley, N. 2018. Trailing postmodernism: David Mitchell’s Cloud Atlas, Zadie Smith’s NW, and the metamodern. English Studies 99(7): 723–743.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0013838X.2018.1510611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bilimoria, D. 1995. Modernism, postmodernism, and contemporary grading practices. Journal of Management Education 19(4): 440–457.  https://doi.org/10.1177/105256299501900403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bishop, J., and M. Verleger. 2013. The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. In Proceedings of the ASEE National Conference. Atlanta, GA: ASEE.Google Scholar
  13. Blossing, U., G. Imsen, and L. Moos. 2014. The Nordic education model: ‘A School for All’ encounters neo-liberal policy. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bolman, L.G., and T.E. Deal. 2000. People and organisation. In The Jossey–Bass reader on: Educational leadership, ed. M. Fullan, 59–69. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  15. Bottia, M.C., E. Stearns, R.A. Mickelson, S. Moller, and A.D. Parker. 2015. The relationships among high school STEM learning experiences and students’ intent to declare and declaration of a STEM majör in college. Teachers College Record 117(3): 1–46.Google Scholar
  16. Bourriaud, N. 2009. Altermodern: Tate Triennial 2009. London: Tate Publishing.Google Scholar
  17. Bower, M., C. Howe, N. McCredie, A. Robinson, and D. Grover. 2014. Augmented reality in education—Cases, places and potentials. Educational Media International 51(1): 1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2014.889400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Brunton, J. 2018. Whose (meta)modernism?: Metamodernism, race, and the politics of failure. Journal of Modern Literature 41(3): 60–76.  https://doi.org/10.2979/jmodelite.41.3.05.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bush, T. 2018. Distributed leadership and bureaucracy: Changing fashions in educational leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 47(1): 3–4.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143218806704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bybee, R.W. 2010. Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher 70(1): 30–35.  https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2014.523220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Coessens, K., and J.P. Van Bendegem. 2007. On the position of the educationalist intellectual in the information age: Shouldn’t we become meta-modern artists? In Educational research: Networks and technologies, ed. P. Smeyers and M. Depaepe, 71–84. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Comaroff, J. 2011. The end of neoliberalism?: What is left of the left. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 637(1): 141–147.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716211406846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Constas, M.A. 1998. The changing nature of educational research and a critique of postmodernism. Educational Researcher 27(2): 26–33.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1176195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Davies, P.M. 2010. On school educational technology leadership. Management in Education 24(2): 55–61.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020610363089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Digital Economy and Society Index [DESI]. 2019. The Digital Economy and Society Index 2019. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/desi.
  26. Dovemark, M., S. Kosunen, J. Kauko, B. Magnúsdóttir, P. Hansen, and P. Rasmussen. 2018. Deregulation, privitisation and marketisation of Nordic comprehensive education: Social changes reflected in schooling. Education Inquiry.  https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2018.1429768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dumitrescu, A. 2014. Towards a metamodern literature (Doctoral dissertation). https://ourarchive.otago.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10523/4925/DumitrescuAlexandra2014PhD.pdf?sequence=5&isAllowed=y.
  28. Eguchi, A. 2014. Robotics as a learning tool for educational transformation. In Proceedings of 4th International Workshop Teaching Robotics, Teaching with Robotics & 5th International Conference Robotics in Education, Padova (Italy), 18 July. Retrieved from https://www.robolab.in/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/00_WFr1_04.pdf.
  29. Elstad, E. 2016. Educational technology in schools: Policymaking and policy enactment. In Digital expectations and experiences in education, ed. E. Elstad, 47–58. The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Esping-Andersen, G. 1996. The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  31. Esping-Andersen, G. 2005. Education and equal life-chances: Investing in children. In Social policy and economic development in the Nordic countries, ed. O. Kangas and J. Palme, 147–163. England: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Field Waite, S., and K. Robbins. 2017. The question of creativity for the field of educational leadership. In The Wiley international handbook of educational leadership, ed. D. Waite and I. Bogotch, 29–44. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Foucault, M. 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 19721977, ed. C. Gordon, trans. C. Gordon, L. Marshal, J. Mepham & K: Sober. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  34. Fransson, G., J. Holmberg, O.J. Lindberg, and A.D. Olofsson. 2018. Digitalise and capitalise? Teachers’ self-understanding in 21st-century teaching contexts. Oxford Review of Education.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2018.1500357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Fuchs, J.A. 2017. “It takes a village”—(Catholic) education in the 21st century. In Schools in transition: Linking past, present, and future in educational practice, ed. P. Siljander, K. Kontio, and E. Pikkarainen, 241–254. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  36. Giroux, H.A. 1983. Theory and resistance in education: A pedagogy for the opposition. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.Google Scholar
  37. Giroux, H.A. 1988. Border pedagogy in the age of postmodernism. Journal of Education 170(3): 162–181.  https://doi.org/10.1177/002205748817000310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gronn, P. 2008. The future of distributed leadership. Journal of Educational Administration 46(2): 141–158.  https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230810863235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gronn, P. 2011. Hybrid configurations of leadership. In The SAGE handbook of leadership, ed. A. Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grint, B. Jackson, and M. Uhl-Bien, 437–454. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  40. Goldin, C., and L.F. Katz. 2008. The race between education and technology. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Gordon, T., and E. Lahelma. 1996. “School is like an Ants’ Nest”: Spatiality and embodiment in school. Gender and Education 8(3): 301–310.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09540259621548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Gustafsson, J., and S. Blömeke. 2018. Development of school achievement in the Nordic countries during half a century. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 62(3): 386–406.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2018.1434829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Harris, A. 2009. Creative leadership: Developing future leaders. Management in Education 23(1): 9–11.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020608099076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hannah, S.T., R.L. Woolfolk, and R.G. Lord. 2009. Leader self-structure: A framework for positive leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior 30(2): 269–290.  https://doi.org/10.1002/job.586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Helliwell, J.F., H. Huang, and S. Wang. 2019. Changing world happiness. In World Happiness Report 2019, Chp 2, ed. J.F. Helliwell, R. Layard, and J.D. Sachs, 11–46. New York: Sustainable Development Solutions Network.Google Scholar
  46. Himanen, P. 2005. The Nordic model of the information society: The Finnish case. In Social policy and economic development in the Nordic countries, ed. O. Kangas and J. Palme, 265–280. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hultén, M., and B. Larsson. 2016. The flipped classroom: Primary and secondary teachers’ views on an educational movement in schools in Sweden today. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2016.1258662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hutcheon, L. 2002. The politics of postmodernism, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Imsen, G., U. Blossing, and L. Moos. 2017. Reshaping the Nordic education model in an era of efficiency Changes in the comprehensive school Project in Denmark since the millennium. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 61(5): 568–583.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2016.1172502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Inglehart, R. 2018. Cultural evolution: People’s motivations are changing, and reshaping the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Inglehart, R., and C. Welzel. 2005. Modernization, cultural change, and democracy: The human development sequence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kara, H. 2015. Creative research methods in the social sciences: A practical guide. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kim, C., D. Kim, J. Yuan, R.B. Hill, P. Doshi, and C.N. Thai. 2015. Robotics to promote elementary education pre-service teachers’ STEM engagement, learning, and teaching. Computers & Education 91: 14–31.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.08.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kirby, A. 2009. Digimodernism: How new technologies dismantle the postmodern and reconfigure our culture. New York, London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  55. Knox, J. 2016. Posthumanism and the MOOC: Opening the subject of digital education. Studies in Philosophy and Education 35: 305–320.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-016-9516-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kontio, K., E. Pikkarainen, and P. Siljander. 2017. A modern idea of the school. In Schools in transition: Linking past, present, and future in educational practice, ed. P. Siljander, K. Kontio, and E. Pikkarainen, 1–18. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  57. Lathan, M. 2015. A poetics of postmodernism and neomodernism: Rewriting Mrs Dalloway. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lee, K. 2012. Augmented reality in education and training. TechTrends 56(2): 13–21.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-012-0559-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Leffel, G. 2017. The missiology of trouble: Liberal discontent and metamodern hope. Missiology: An International Review 45(1): 38–55.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0091829616676193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lipovetsky, G. 2005. Hypermodern times. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  61. Lundahl, L. 2016. Equality, inclusion and marketization of Nordic education: Introductory notes. Research in Comparative & International Education 11(1): 3–12.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1745499916631059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Mannay, D. 2016. Visual, narrative and creative research methods: Applications, reflection and ethics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  63. Maxcy, S.J. 1994. Postmodern school leadership: Meeting the crisis in educational administration. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  64. Møller, J. (2018). Scandinavian approaches to school leadership. In Invited Presentation at the International Conference Improving School Leadership, Copenhagen, 14–15 April. http://www.oecd.org/education/school/40553301.pdf.
  65. Mortimore, P. 2013. Peter Mortimore: Nordic leadership: Something worth keeping. In L. Moos (Ed.), Transnational influences on values and practices in Nordic educational leadership: Is there a Nordic Model? (Forewords, pp. vi–viii). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  66. Moore, M.G., and G. Kearsley. 2012. Distance education: A systems view of online learning, 3rd ed. USA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  67. Moos, L., B. Hansen, G. Björk, and O. Johansson. 2013a. Leadership for democracy. In Transnational influences on values and practices in Nordic educational leadership: Is there a Nordic Model? (Chp 8, ed. L. Moos, 113–132. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Moos, L., O. Johanson, and G. Skedsmo. 2013b. Successful Nordic school leadership. In Transnational influences on values and practices in Nordic educational leadership: Is there a Nordic Model? (Chp 10), ed. L. Moos, 159–172. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Moos, L., K.K. Kofod, K. Hjort, and P.H. Raae. 2013c. Denmark: New links between education. In Transnational influences on values and practices in Nordic educational leadership: Is there a Nordic Model? (Chp 2), ed. L. Moos, 19–30. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Mumby, D.K. 1996. Feminism, postmodernism, and organizational communication studies. Management Communication Quarterly 9(3): 259–295.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318996009003001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Mumby, D.K. 1997. Modernism, postmodernism, and communication studies: A rereading of an ongoing debate. Communication Theory 7: 1–28.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1997.tb00140.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Niemi, H. 2017. What is evidence required for and who generates that evidence in the Finnish education system? In Evidence and public good in educational policy, research, and practice (Educational Governance Research, vol. 6, ed. M.Y. Eryaman and B. Schneider, 43–62. Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Norberg, K. 2001. The constitutive vales of Swedish schooling: A challenge to the inner life of schools. Pedagogy Culture and Society 9(3): 371–386.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14681360100200125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Pantelidis, V.S. 2009. Reasons to use virtual reality in education and training courses and a model to determine when to use virtual reality. Themes in Science and Technology Education 2(1–2): 59–70.Google Scholar
  75. Piketty, T. 2014. Capital: In the twenty-first century. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Reichenbach, R. 2010. Die Effizienz der Bildungssysteme und die Sinnkrise des schulischen Lernens. In Schule zwischen Effizienzkriterien und Sinnfragen, ed. J. Warwas and D. Sembill, 1–16. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren.Google Scholar
  77. Ringarp, J. 2013. From Bildung to entrepreneurship: Trends in education policy in Sweden. Policy Futures in Education 11(4): 456–464.  https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2013.11.4.456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Rudrum, D., and N. Stavris. 2015. Introduction. In Supplanting the postmodern: An anthology of writings on the arts and culture of the early 21st century (np), ed. D. Rudrum and N. Stavis. New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  79. O’Neill, O. 2013. Intelligent accountability in education. Oxford Review of Education 39(1): 4–16.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2013.764761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. OECD. 2011. Lessons from PISA for the United States: Strong performers and successful reformers in education. OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264096660-en.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Oelkers, J. 1994. Influence and development: Two basic paradigms of education. Studies in Philosophy and Education 13(2): 91–109.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01075817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Øygardslia, K. 2018. But this ısn’t school: Exploring tensions in the intersection between school and leisure activities in classroom game design. Learning, Media & Technology 43(1): 85–100.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2017.1421553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Saba, F. 2006. Critical issues in distance education: A report from the United States. Distance Education 26(2): 255–272.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910500168892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Sahlberg, P. 2010. Rethinking accountability in a knowledge society. Journal of Educational Change 11: 15–16.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-008-9098-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Sahlberg, P. 2015. Finnish lessons 2.0: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  86. Salminen, J., L. Tornberg, and P. Venäläinen. 2016. Public institutions as learning environments in Finland. In Miracle of Education: The principles and practices of teaching and learning in Finnish schools, ed. H. Niemi, A. Toom, and A. Kallioniemi, 253–266. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Salo, P., E.M. Furu, and K. Rönnerman. 2008. Education policies and reforms: A Nordic perspective. In Nurturing praxis: Action research in partnerships between school and university in a Nordic light, vol. 3, ed. K. Rönnerman, E.M. Furu, and P. Salo, 11–20. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Samuels, R. 2008. Auto-modernity after postmodernism: Autonomy and automation in culture, technology, and education. In Digital youth, innovation, and the unexpected, ed. T. McPherson, 219–240. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  89. Schönig, W. 2017. The transformation of school in a changing society—A German example. In Schools in transition: Linking past, present, and future in educational practice, ed. P. Siljander, K. Kontio, and E. Pikkarainen, 213–228. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Shwab, K. 2016. The fourth industrial revolution. Geneva: World Economic Forum.Google Scholar
  91. Sheninger, E. 2014. Digital leadership: Changing paradigms for changing times. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.Google Scholar
  92. Sigurðardóttir, H.D.I. 2016. Concern, creativity and compliance: The phenomenon of digital game-based learning in Norwegian Education (Ph.D. dissertation). Trondheim: Norwegian University of Science and Technology.Google Scholar
  93. Siljander, P. 2017. School in transition: The case of Finland. In Schools in transition: Linking past, present, and future in educational practice, ed. P. Siljander, K. Kontio, and E. Pikkarainen, 191–212. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Siljander, P., and A. Sutinen. 2012. Introduction. In Theories of Bildung and Growth: Connections and controversies between continental educational thinking and American pragmatism, ed. P. Siljander and A. Kivelä, 1–18. Sense Publishers: Rotterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Slavin, R., S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R.H. Lazarowitz, C. Webb, and R. Schumuck. 2013. Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn. New York: Springer Science + Business Media LLC.Google Scholar
  96. Snee, H., C. Hine, Y. Morey, H. Roberts, and H. Watson. 2016. Digital methods for social science: An interdisciplinary guide to research innovation. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Stoll, L., and J. Temperley. 2009. Creative leadership: A challenge of our times. School Leadership and Management 29(1): 65–78.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13632430802646404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Takeuchi, L.M., and S. Vaala. 2014. Level up learning: A national survey on teaching with digital games. New York, NY: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame.Google Scholar
  99. Telhaug, A.O., O.A. Mediås, and P. Aasen. 2006. The Nordic model in education: Education as part of the political system in the last 50 years. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 50(3): 245–283.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830600743274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Thayer-Bacon, B.J. 2019a. Living during a technological revolution. Studies in Philosophy and Education 38(6): 577–579.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-019-09684-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Thayer-Bacon, B.J. 2019b. Redefining work and education in the technological revolution. Studies in Philosophy and Education 38(6): 581–590.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-019-09649-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Turner, L. 2011. The metamodernist manifesto. Retrieved from http://www.metamodernism.org.
  103. World Economic Forum. 2017. The Global Human Capital Report 2017: Preparing people for the future of work. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_Human_Capital_Report_2017.pdf.
  104. Uljens, M., J. Møller, H. Ärlestig, and L.F. Frederiksen. 2013. The professionalisation of Nordic school leadership. In Transnational influences on values and practices in Nordic educational leadership: Is there a Nordic Model? Chp 9, ed. L. Moos, 133–158. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Vahtivuori-Hänninen, S., and H. Kynäslahti. 2016. ICTs in a school‘s everyday life—Developing the educational use of ICTs in Finnish schools of the future. In Miracle of Education: The principles and practices of teaching and learning in Finnish schools, ed. H. Niemi, A. Toom, and A. Kallioniemi, 241–252. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. van den Akker, R., A. Gibbons, and T. Vermeulen. 2017. Metamodernism: Historicity, affect, and depth after postmodernism. London, New York: Rowman & Littlefield International.Google Scholar
  107. Vartiainen, J., M. Aksela, and L. Vihma. 2016. LUMA Centre Finland. In Miracle of Education: The principles and practices of teaching and learning in Finnish schools, ed. H. Niemi, A. Toom, and A. Kallioniemi, 267–275. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Vermeulen, T., and R. van den Akker. 2015. Utopia, sort of a case study in metamodernism. Studia Neophilologica 87(1): 55–67.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00393274.2014.981964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Vermeulen, T., and R. van den Akker. 2010. Notes on metamodernism. Journal of Aesthetics and Culture 2: 1–14.  https://doi.org/10.3402/jac.v2i0.5677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. World Economic Forum. 2017. The global human capital report 2017: Preparing people for the future of work. Switzerland: World Economic Forum.Google Scholar
  111. Wu, H., S.W. Lee, H. Chang, and J. Liang. 2013. Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Computers & Education 62: 41–49.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Yousef, T. 2017. Modernism, postmodernism, and metamodernism: A critique. International Journal of Language and Literature 5(1): 33–43.  https://doi.org/10.15640/ijll.v5n1a5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Education, Turkish and Social Sciences EducationEskisehir Osmangazi UniversityEskisehirTurkey
  2. 2.Faculty of Education, Educational SciencesEskisehir Osmangazi UniversityEskisehirTurkey

Personalised recommendations