The impact of mobile augmented reality in geography education: achievements,cognitive loads and views of university students

Augmented reality (AR) technology is commonly used in education. AR offers a combination of the virtual and real world; thus, it can help students in learning abstract and complex subjects. The purpose of the current study was to determine the impact of mobile AR technology on achievement, cognitive load levels and views of 95 first-year university students (40 in the experimental group and 55 in the control group) enrolled in a geography course in the social sciences education department of the education faculty of a university in Turkey. A sequential explanatory design, a mixed method type of research, was used. The data were collected using an achievement test, a cognitive load scale, and a semi-structured interview form. The results of the study showed that AR increases students’ achievement and decreases their cognitive load levels, and the students’ views about AR technology were positive. Consequently, it can be stated that mobile AR technology is a useful tool for teaching geography, especially geomorphology topics.     

Conservation versus Regeneration?: Case of European Capital of Culture 2010 Istanbul

The purpose of this research is to review different perceptions on the possible future role and impact of the European Capital of Culture (ECoC) 2010 Istanbul in enabling conservation to contribute to regeneration. The paper attempts to understand the vicious relationship between conservation and regeneration and it analyses the ways in which the ECoC event can resolve potential contradictions enabling conservation to contribute to regeneration by constructing an empirical study based on interviews and documentary research. It concludes with specific remarks in the name of attaining more effective and sustainable outcomes from the process both for Istanbul and Turkey.     

A dialogue with Nietzsche: Blumenberg and Löwith on history and progress

While discussions of the debate between Karl Löwith and Hans Blumenberg over ‘secularisation’ focus primarily on the methodological utility of the concept, the difference between them was also one of the philosophical commitments and substantive claims about modernity. This difference is not always obvious. One way of bringing it out is to address the different contexts in which they produced their most famous statements about secularisation. But another, and one that will be pursued here, is to consider the critical dialogue that both thinkers engaged in with Nietzsche. Put briefly, while Löwith thought that Nietzsche misunderstood the ancients, Blumenberg thought that he misunderstood the moderns. For Löwith, Nietzsche's doctrine of the eternal return is not Greek, but an aggressive countergospel that owes much to the Christian culture it seeks to oppose; for Blumenberg, Nietzsche assumes, wrongly, that the self-belittlement of man by theology has been succeeded by the self-belittlement of man by science. In addition, Blumenberg – unlike both Nietzsche and Löwith – thinks that he can mount a robust defence of both modern science and progress.     

Nietzsche on Memory and Active Forgetting

This article explores Nietzsche’s approach to the fundamental question of “how to live one’s life”, and more specifically his view of the role of the past in seeking an answer to this question. By discussing Nietzsche’s views of how different nations and cultures relate to their history, I suggest some comparisons with how individuals might do so. Common to both is the relationship between the past as a resource and as a burden: the burden of single events or periods and the burden of the abundance of facts. Key to Nietzsche’s thinking on these questions is his account of the relationship between remembering, promising, and forgetting. He considers “active forgetting” paradoxically as both a form of forgetting and a way of taking full responsibility for the past.