Conference Agenda

The article links refugee migration with the importance of digital media use as one of the central challenges of the 21st century by referring to Ukrainian refugee families in Germany. In contrast to the so-called ‘refugee crisis’ of 2015, when millions of people from the Middle East fled the war in their home countries intending to settle in Europe for a more extended period, many Ukrainians are currently travelling back home – despite the ongoing war (BBC News 2022). The constant balancing act between their safety in Germany and the permanent fear for the survival of their family members and friends left behind in the war zone puts a strain on the psychological resilience of the refugees. Against this background, Ukrainian refugees are particularly challenged to organise not only their everyday life in Germany but also their children’s (mediated) well-being in the best possible way. Digital media play a central role in the lives of refugees in Germany, among other things, for communication purposes, information retrieval, and orientation (Kaufmann 2018), as well as for coping with their new everyday life in the context of learning and educational participation (Friedrichs-Liesenkötter/Hüttmann forthcoming; Kutscher et al. 2022). Overall, few empirical studies to date have focused on the significance of digital media in everyday life and the educational contexts of refugees in Germany. In addition to positive aspects, these also show negative ones, such as an intensification of inequalities in the course of an increase in digitality (cf. on distance learning Fujii et al. 2021) or that news media underline the precarious situation in the home country and thus reinforce refugees’ fears. There is a research desideratum on the media use of current Ukrainian refugees in the context of everyday life, upbringing, and school education and on (media) educational support that may be needed (GMK et al. 2022). The group of authors addresses these issues using an exploratory study. The study pursues the following research questions:

- What is the significance of digital media in everyday life and media education of Ukrainian refugee women and their children and grandchildren? (Among other things, to what extent is the topic of disinformation via digital media taken up in media education)?

- What role do digital media play in educational contexts in schools (especially in lessons) and non-school contexts of the refugees?

Furthermore, indications for possible necessary (media) educational support services can be derived from this study.

This paper presents central results against the theoretical background of mediated co-presence in transnational families’ and friends’ lives (Francisco 2015; Teichert 2021). Further theoretical references are the role of digital social networks’ potential acceleration and distribution of disinformation (Stark et al. 2019) and the challenge of media education in families under the framework of unequal life situations (Paus-Hasebrink & Sinner 2021). It becomes evident that the research topic of digital media’s influence on refugees’ live abroad cannot be separated from migration and education policy decisions. The topic of diversity of the ECER conference is thus addressed in multiple aspects: First, regarding origin and migration and refuge; second, with respect to the results of the present study which gives an insight into the media use of a previously understudied group of refugees; third, according to new challenges and implications for school and media education arising from refugee children attending German schools. The latter particularly requires greater diversity and flexibility in learning opportunities regarding policy regulations.

Internationally, the potentials of Open Education for diverse learning groups are being explored. Herein, the use of Open Educational Resources (OER), materials in any medium published under an open license allowing for free access and adaptation, is being promoted globally. Due to their accessibility and adaptivity, OER are being associated with inclusion and the aim to value the diversity of learners. Thus, OER represent a central aspect in the process of valueing diversity. This process takes place simultaneously on a variety of repositories, digital spaces dedicated to the distribution of materials and participation in the OER discourse. It is likely that a wide variety of understandings of diversity and inclusion will develop within these spaces. Hence, educational research must be responsive to these communities, their spaces and practices. The UNESCO promotes the use of OER in order to contribute to social inclusion, and quality education that is equitable, inclusive, open and participatory (UNESCO 2012 Paris OER Declaration; Ljubljana OER Action Plan 2017). The postulate of inclusion sensitivity on a global scale will encounter divergent understandings of inclusion both nationally and, even more so, internationally. This complexity is multiplied in the context of digitality, in which new forms of inclusion sensitivity are explored and recognition of diversity is postulated, while at the same time new challenges in terms of barriers and exclusion are raised. At the same time, a large number of actors are involved in OER and thus explicitly or implicitly in the discussion about diversity and inclusion in educational settings. This complexity raises the question of how well-founded the affiliation between Open Education, OER and inclusion really is. Up until recently (i.e. Bozkurt, Koseoglu & Singh 2019), the concept of openness in education as a whole lacked a philosophical and theoretical basis (Deimann & Farrow 2013), which was subsequently criticised as “weakly theorised" (Knox 2013). Postulating openness and thus OER as conducive to participation and inclusion could even obscure social inequalities (Otto & Kerres 2022) and even have an exclusionary effect (Funes & Mackness 2018). Given these tensions, it is important to gain clarity about how inclusion is commonly understood in the context of OER. In order to assess this, OER repositories as the digital infrastructure rendering learning content accessible (McGreal 2011) are being analysed. Since these repositories should not merely be considered a facilitator for materials but a support for educators and learners embracing practices corresponding to the ideals of OER (Atenas & Havemann 2014), they serve as an access point to assessing understandings of inclusion in the OER communities and movement.

The paper poses the research question: Which understandings of inclusion can be traced on OER repositories? This overarching question is answered focusing on following questions in order to narrow down the multitude of approaches to digital portals and platforms: 1) Self-conception: How is inclusion and inclusion sensitivity referred to on the repository? 2) configurations: In what ways do the structure and functions of the repository explicitly address the facets of OER that are postulated as inclusion-sensitive, e.g. adaptivity? 3) Quality criteria: To what extent do quality rubrics for OER on the platforms refer to inclusion sensitivity? These questions are being answered from an international-comparative perspective (e.g. Phillips & Schweisfurth 2007). By bringing four European nations’ perspectives into view (Germany, Czech Republic, Sweden, Luxembourg), whereby e.g. German-language offers can also be applied in Austria and Switzerland, a broad trans-European perspective can be applied. Simultaneously, international comparisons allow for identifying local context-specific frameworks relevant for varying approaches to diversity.

The provision of quality education and equal opportunities for lifelong learning for all are key objectives of international and European education policies (European Commission 2021; United Nations 2020). One of the key points is the development of a powerful and productive digital education ecosystem, which includes not only high-quality learning content and digital educational media and tools, but also a secure platform that supports learning, is user-friendly and respects current data protection laws (European Commission 2020).

For this reason, the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) has initiated the development of such an educational ecosystem - the "Nationale Bildungsplattform". The "Bildungsraum Digital" (BIRD), which has been under development since 2021, is a prototype of this educational ecosystem. BIRD enables the testing of data transfer structures, the interoperability of different types of platforms and the implementation of standards. This contribution to the European educational space aims to provide a way to connect existing and new educational platforms across all sectors of education. It is an important step towards the creation of an educational ecosystem that recognises the diversity and federal structure of the German education system, as well as the associated independence of actors and platforms.

Diversity, however, does not only apply to the different fields of education, but also to the diversity of potential users who could benefit from the educational space. Some important dimensions are the different ages, personal circumstances, educational experiences, and financial and time resources of potential learners. Social inequalities (Verständig et al. 2017) can be considered in addition to the approach of Gardenswartz and Rowe (2003). However, the diversity of people can also complement and enrich BIRD. Incorporating the creative ideas of users not only allows the digital infrastructure to evolve in perpetuity, but also keeps it open to innovation through community participation.

The development of BIRD is supervised by FernUniversität Hagen. Two research questions are addressed: 1) how people appropriate digital platforms as technologies, and 2) how social practice already shapes or will shape them in the future. Against the background of these project goals and the challenges and opportunities of diversity, the talk will have three objectives:

(1) While the educational ecosystem BIRD is still in its planning stage, one can already discern central functions of the platform. In our talk, we will look at the BIRD platform in the context of current political and scientific debates on strengths and limitations of educational platforms.

(2) As a second objective, we will address the question of how decision-makers‘ (Macgilchrist et al. 2020) practices within BIRD’s subprojects form or preform the future educational ecosystem. Here we do not focus on the technological side of it but on practices (decisions, goals, self-perceptions etc.) of all decision-makers that are involved in BIRD’s subprojects.

Part of our concern here is also the topic of future users and their ‘adoptions’ of the platform, including how they can be (or are) taken into account in the making of BIRD’s projects. Ultimately, this entails the question: how we can do research at all about future users (and their possible adoptions of the platform) and hence judge potentials or limitations of the platform and its subprojects.

(3) Actors from different educational fields will be using the BIRD ecosystem. In our presentation we will therefore address the relationship between structural conditions of the platform and practices and orientations of actors from different educational segments. Since BIRD targets all educational fields, the practices and perspectives from different segments should be reflected in the making of the platform.