In der Serie wird eine Unterrichtsreihe für die Digitale Grundbildung auf Grundlage des Frankfurt Dreieck vorgeschlagen. Das exemplarische Thema der Unterrichtsreihe ist die Nutzung der Internetprotokolle als Web3. In diesem Beitrag werden die pädagogischen Grundlagen des Konzepts und der verwendete Stack vorgestellt.
Although the legal system is founded on the assumption that sex is binary, important perforations of this principle have already taken place. These perforations concern transsexuals on the one hand and intersexuals on the other. Transsexuals and intersexuals in particular are staking a claim to integration into the legal system. Moreover, they demand a right to self-determine their gender. The fundamental question that emerges regarding these claims is whether the subject of a fundamental right has the prerogative of interpretation or whether instead the state is to determine the respective contents. There are primarily two different options that could comply with the mentioned claims: the dissolution of gender categories (post-gender) and the legal recognition of a third non-specific or neutral gender. The dissolution of gender categories would not be in conformity with the constitution (Grund gesetz), but it could be achieved by its amendment. In particular, such an amendment would have to address Art. 3, 6, 12a GG. The recognition of a third sex would also imply legislative changes. Although the constitution only has two categories of sex – male and female – it is not barred from any further openings towards the recognition of a third gender. The recognition of a third gender would present major challenges to the legal system: civil status as well as passport regulations would have to be adjusted. Important changes to the law of descent and the matrimonial law would be required. In addition to the said amendments of law, another important aspect has to be considered: a third sex could be stipulated as mandatory for intersexuals or as mere option that complements the binary system. Whereas a mandatory requirement for intersexuals would not respect their general personal rights (Art. 2 para. 1 sentence 1 in conjunction with Art. 1 para. 1 of the constitution), an option to choose between several options (male, female and a third, unspecified or neutral gender) would have to be offered not only to intersexuals but also to male and female persons. The legal recognition of such a right of choice between several genders for everyone would have extensive consequences. There would be no objective criteria to determine the gender any longer. Only a burden of proof by providing evidence could be imposed to show the seriousness of the decision. The burden should distinguish according a persons sex: a clear sex does indicate the gender and exempts from any burden in the event that the person chooses the gender corresponding to the sex. In contrast, the burden increases in the event that the chosen gender does not correspond to the sex. When it comes to intersexuals, the third/unspecified/neutral gender is indicated by their physical appearance. To preserve their general personal rights considering that having an unspecified gender may have discriminating effects, choosing an option belonging to the binary system (male or female) has to be facilitated. In the end, it remains a political decision whether to allow self-determination concerning ones gender despite the loss of objectivity in the legal system.
Since the UOG (= Universitätsorganisationsgesetz, i.e. the University Organisations and Studies Act) of 1993 the Austrian universities have been increasingly seen to remodel themselves as independent »educational enterprises«. This progress based on the deregulation and decentralization of university procedural parameters reached its temporary culmination with the transformation of the universities into entities with complete independent legal status which took place in accordance with the UG (= Universitätsgesetz, i.e. Universities Act) of 2002. The abiding function of the state as a protector and furthermore, a financer of the universities has led to a relationship between the state, society and the universities based on academic achievement and responsibility. It must be added that the legislative intention of creating independent sites of academic research and teaching have increasingly been forced to take economic principles of commercial enterprise into consideration. The last step, up until now, in the intended all embracing »cultural change« within the universities came into being with the University Organisation Amendment Act of 2009 which contains a radical amendment to the legal situation which was valid until then. This change in the basic guidelines has played an essential part in the change of emphasis within the executive bodies of the universities, in a tendentious weakening of the democratically elected senate, an intensification of direct and indirect influence on the business of the university as well as to the relativization of the traditionally free university entrance in Austria. Developments that do not always seem to create an appropriate balance between academic freedom, state responsibility and social requirements.
Seit etwa 15 Jahren ist der Einsatz so genannter ›Neuer Medien‹ im Hochschulkontext im Diskurs, was allerdings nicht dazu geführt hat, dass sich flächendeckend eine E-Learningkultur etabliert hat. Dabei ist die Akzeptanz von Neuen Medien nach unterschiedlichen Hochschulkontexten diversifiziert zu betrachten. Insbesondere zu Beginn der Entwicklung sind es am häufigsten technische Fakultäten, die E-Learning als neue Lernform etablieren wollen. In der Diskussion um die Errichtung entsprechender Strukturen steht u.a. die Substitution von Lehrenden durch moderne digitale Technologien im Vordergrund. Die verschiedenen Aktivitäten sind bislang trotz hohem Ressourcenaufwand, z.B. zur aufwendigen Produktion von ›Hochglanz-Multimedia‹, und trotz dem Ziel, immer intelligentere tutorielle Systeme (ITS) zu entwickeln, nicht sehr erfolgreich verlaufen. Insbesondere gegenüber komplexen Inhalten und kreativen Lernenden geraten solche Systeme schnell an ihre Grenzen. Das Erfordernis, hohe Produktionskosten für einzelne Features zu refinanzieren, führt zu hoch standardisierten Massenprodukten, die an mehr als einem Hochschulort gleichermaßen einsetzbar sind. Aus lerntheoretischen Erwägungen sollen die Anwendungen gleichzeitig subjektorientiert sein. Hieraus entsteht nicht selten eine Entwicklungsparadoxie. Hochschulen selbst investieren bisher, insbesondere vor dem Hintergrund mangelnder Erkenntnisse hinsichtlich der Kosten-Nutzen-Relation, nur sehr zurückhaltend in reine Softwarelösungen.