16. ICT in Education and Training
Paper
"How Can School Actually Change - with the new Possibilities?" A Mixed-Methods Study on School Development through Digital Learning Management Systems
Julia Frohn, Marcela Pozas
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany
Presenting Author: Frohn, Julia;
Pozas, Marcela
As necessary basic infrastructure of a school (cf. Breiter 2021, 568), digital learning management systems (LMS) have been used in universities and schools since around the turn of the millennium. However, their usage in schools has rapidly increased in the course of the Covid-19-pandemic (Helm & Postlbauer 2021), opening the desideratum, which role these platforms can play in (inclusive) school development processes and which potential disadvantages may arise from them.
LMS can be defined as the totality of available platforms, services, software solutions, learning tools and educational media that significantly support content-related and organizational work as well as collaboration in educational settings for teachers, students and, if applicable, other stakeholders (cf. Breiter et al. 2021, 5). While recent studies have focused, for example, on diversity-oriented functions of LMS to support self-regulated learning (Reynolds 2016), to provide individualized (Hase et al. 2022) or differentiated (Frohn & Pozas 2021a) instruction, to enable teacher cooperation (Frohn & Bengel 2022) or to improve parents’ participation in school processes (Bradley 2022), little is known about the potential role of LMS in processes of (inclusive) school development.
This study therefore aims at identifying means and functions of LMS for possible fields of school and lesson development. Based on the assumption that school development should always aim at the value of diversity in schools and lessons, we follow a mixed-method approach (see below) to shed light on the following research questions:
- Which areas of inclusive school development can be supported using LMS?
- Which areas of teaching and learning in heterogeneous groups can be supported using LMS?
- Which students’ competencies can be fostered using LMS?
- How can LMS support differentiated instruction?
- What are the obstacles in using LMS for school development?
- What dangers do teachers perceive in the use of LMS?
In order to explore the research questions, our study consists of two sequential stages: First, we conducted interviews in three cycles (2020, 2021, 2022) among Berlin teachers at schools with a high percentage of students from low-income households (Frohn 2021; Frohn & Pozas 2021b; Frohn & Bengel 2022). While the data showed that the role of LMS at Berlin secondary schools changed quite rapidly, these changes took different turns: According to the interviewees, LMS were hardly used during the first school closures in Germany. The data from the second survey phase suggest a clear development in the use of LMS, both in quantity and quality, which was discussed in almost all interviews. However, the third round showed different developments: While some schools made the use of LMS mandatory and thereby started to implement school development through the use of LMS, other schools almost stopped using LMS completely as soon as regular classes were held again. These findings led to the question if these first findings applied to other schools in Germany, and how the data could be used for diversity-sensitive developmental processes in potential hybrid school settings.
Therefore and secondly, based on the qualitatively generated categories, we developed an instrument in order to validate our findings from the interview study and to learn more about teachers’ use of LMS in the whole of Germany. The questionnaire is currently being shared through various means, and up to now has a sample of 402 primary and secondary school teachers in Germany.
The preliminary quantitative findings seem to confirm the interview data (see below).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe study follows a mixed-methods approach, using (1) exploratory, qualitative findings to (2) design an instrument for further quantitative research. In 2020, 2021 and 2022, semi-structured teacher-interviews were conducted longitudinally among Berlin teachers at schools with a high percentage of students from low-income families (April 2020: N=16; April-June 2021: N=14; February-May 2022: N=13). About three quarters of the interviewed teachers work at community schools and integrated secondary schools, about one quarter at grammar schools. The semi-structured interviews were conducted via video call (average 47 minutes), recorded, anonymized and transcribed in a simplified form according to Dresing et al. (2015). Using MAXQDA, the data were analyzed qualitatively according to Kuckartz (2018) and categorized inductively-deductively.
With regards to the questionnaire development, following the inductively-deductively explored category system, the extracted units of meaning were inductively structured into statements which were transformed into the questionnaire items. A total of 35 items with a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) were developed. Examples of such items are: “The use of digital LMS is an important tool for the development of hybrid teaching-learning forms”, “The use of digital LMS requires a reorganization of information technology teaching and learning environments”, or “The use of digital LMS does not allow for more comprehensive differentiation in everyday teaching”. At the time of submission, the sample consists of N=402 primary and secondary school teachers in Germany.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAt this time in the research process, the quantitative research is still ongoing, since the online-questionnaire has not been closed yet. Therefore, the findings, discussion and the implications of the study will all be presented at the conference. However, the current state of data suggests that the exploratory findings from the interview data can be confirmed through the quantitative analysis. Following the first interpretations, LMS seem to be a useful tool in processes of school development: In combination with comprehensive qualification measures, LMS can contribute to teacher cooperation, lesson development, documentation of learning processes, differentiated instruction, parent participation and more transparent coordination of school and lesson processes.
However, teachers also address important points of criticism. According to the data, increasing digitalization can lead to a shift in boundaries – both in terms of time and space – between the working and the private world, possibly increasing the already heavy workload of teachers and students through potentially constant accessibility. In addition, the data also show the concern that school as a social space might be neglected by the increasing use of digital tools, since the digital exchange cannot do justice to the direct exchange.
In summary, this paper shows how using LMS in schools can contribute to diversity-sensitive school development while pointing out possible risks for the stakeholders involved. From these results, options for action will be discussed, aiming at how school and lesson development can be improved through using LMS towards hybrid settings of teaching and learning.
ReferencesBradley, V. (2022). Middle School Parents‘ Beliefs Regarding Learning Management System Use in Mathematics. Istes.
Breiter, A. (2021). Strategische Planung einer lernförderlichen IT-Infrastruktur für Schulen. In G. Brägger & H.-G. Rolff (ed.), Pädagogik. Handbuch Lernen mit digitalen Medien (p. 567–577). Beltz.
Breiter, A., Müller, M., Telle, L. & Zeising, A. (2021). Digitalisierungsstrategien im föderalen Schulsystem: Lernmanagementsysteme und ihre Betriebsmodelle. https://www.telekom-stiftung.de/sites/default/files/ifib-lernplattformen-final.pdf (20.1.2023).
Desing, T. ,Pehl, T., & Schmieder, C. (2015). Manual (on) Transcription. 3rd English edn. Marburg.
Frohn, J. (2021). Troubled schools in troubled times: How COVID-19 affects educational inequalities and what measures can be taken. European Educational Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.1177/14749041211020974
Frohn, J. & Bengel, A. (2022). Impulse zur Lehrkräftekooperation durch die Nutzung digitaler Lernmanagementsysteme (LMS) – „… nicht nur gemeinsame Absprachen, sondern wirklich eine gemeinsame Planung“. In J. Frohn, A. Bengel, A. Piezunka, T. Simon & T. Dietze (ed.), Inklusionsorientierte Schulentwicklung (p. 49-60). Klinkhardt.
Frohn, J., & Pozas, M. (2021a). Using Differentiated Instruction (DI) through digital Learning Management Systems (LMS) – How LMS can change teaching and learning in heterogeneous learning groups. European Conference on Educational Research (ECER) held in Yerevan (presentation online)
Frohn, J., & Pozas, M. (2021). „Und das Schwierigste ist und bleibt halt, alleine zu lernen“: Eine explorative Untersuchung zum Lehren und Lernen auf Distanz in der Oberstufe. WE_OS Jahrbuch, 4(1), 84–105. https://doi.org/10.11576/weos-4944.
Hase, A., Kahnbach, L., Kuhl, P. & Lehr, D. (2022). To use or not to use learning data: A survey study to explain German primary school teachers’ usage of data from digital learning platforms for purposes of individualization. Front. Educ. 7:920498. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.920498
Helm, C. & Postlbauer, A. (2021). Schulschließungen in Österreich – Ein Fazit nach einem Jahr Pandemie. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht 68 (4), 306–311. https://doi.org/10.2378/peu2021.art27d
Kuckartz, U. (2018). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Weinheim: Beltz.
Reynolds, R. B. (2016). Relationships among tasks, collaborative inquiry processes, inquiry resolutions, and knowledge outcomes in adolescents during guided discovery-based game design in school. Journal of Information Science, 42, 35–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551515614537
16. ICT in Education and Training
Paper
Dimensions of Teaching Quality at Organisationally Resilient Schools in the Digital Age. Qualitative In-Depth Study towards ICILS
Anna Oldak, Dr. Kerstin Drossel, Prof. Dr. Birgit Eickelmann, Nadine Fröhlich, Ricarda Bette
University Paderborn, Germany
Presenting Author: Oldak, Anna
The digitalization of every part of personal life challenges schools to prepare students with digital skills needed to handle future expectations in their professional life and to ensure that students have the skillset to be an engaged part of society (Aljanazrah et al., 2022). In this light, initiatives such as the Digital Education Plan of the European Commission or organizations such as the OECD (2020) identify computer- and information-related skills as a central aim of today’s education (European Commission, 2020). In this context, the large-scale assessment (LSA) International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS) of the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) observed that eighth-graders’ computer and information literacy (CIL) is subject to tremendous social disparities in all participating countries (Fraillon et al., 2019). Against the results that students from low socioeconomic status backgrounds score on average significantly lower in all countries that participated in ICILS, a minority of the schools scored high despite their low-SES student body composition (Drossel et al., 2020) and have overcome the digital disparities. Referring to the psychological trait of resilience, these schools are regarded as organizationally resilient (Henderson & Milstein, 2003).
Research on organizationally resilient schools in other educational domains, such as reading, mathematics, or science, suggests that organizationally resilient schools differ from nonresilient schools in their input and process characteristics (Agasisti et al., 2018). For the field of CIL it is shown that the phenomenon of organizational resilience is also widespread in CIL internationally and that the prevalence of resilient schools varies across the selected education systems participating in IEA-ICILS (Drossel et al., 2020). Furthermore, it is demonstrated that organizationally resilient schools share common school characteristics (ibid.).
Nevertheless, the question of how teachers and learners can use digital media to shape teaching and learning processes has not yet been answered in the context of the conditions of digitality in resilient schools. To analyze teachers' use of digital media to promote learning in resilient schools in more detail, this contribution draws on the theory of three basic dimensions of teaching quality (effective classroom management, cognitive activation, supportive climate) (Praetorius et al., 2018). For effective classroom management, research on the use of digital media to support learning at the instructional level suggests that the impact on learning success depends on the learning environment, social form, and modalities (Antoine et al., 2018). With regard to cognitive activation, studies show that digital media contributes to positive changes in effort (Fütterer et al., 2022; Labonté & Smith, 2022). As for the supportive climate, research shows that the introduction of digital media for teaching is perceived as supportive (Hammer et al., 2021). Overall, however, it remains unclear how schools use digital media in the classroom. Therefore, the value of diversity in education can be seen from the link between diversity and the use of digital media. Thus, the desideratum primarily relates to the design of teaching and learning processes in resilient schools, taking into account the three basic dimensions of teaching quality. This contribution therefore focuses on the following research question:
- How do resilient schools in Germany conduct the use of digital media to promote learning at the instructional level, taking into account the three basic dimensions of teaching quality such as effective classroom management, cognitive activation, and supportive climate?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe in-depth study on unexpectedly successful schools (UneS-ICILS), funded by the Ministry of Education (BMBF) from 10/2023 til 12/2023 examines precisely these resilient schools. For this purpose, a triangulated research design by analyzing interviews, school documents, videos of school lessons and secondary analysis of ICILS 2018 data is used to identify success factors and common characteristics of the schools that contribute to overcoming digital disparities. From the IEA-ICILS data, 15% (N=36) of the participating schools in Germany are identified as organizationally resilient (Drossel et al., 2020). In these schools the mean socio-economic status (SES) of the eighth graders is below average (lower 40% in Highest International Socio-Economic Index of Occupational Status) and the mean digital competencies can be classified as above average in the overall representative distribution for Germany (Drossel et al., 2020).
To answer the research question, interviews and classroom videos were analyzed. Interviews with 7 groups with 5 pupils each and 14 interviews with teachers were organized in the time of 07/09/2021 until 10/01/2022 and analyzed using qualitative content analysis (Mayring, 2004). For the evaluation, deductive and inductive codes were created based on the theory used. For efficient classroom management relevant codes were aspects of heterogeneity, organization and structure, self-directed learning, efficient and goal-oriented use of media. For supportive learning environment the codes support regarding the use of media, usage of media as additional class, common work on concepts, and individual attitude towards media emerged. For cognitive activation the codes cognitive activation using digital tools, videos and software for learning and difficulties of long lasting focus were developed.
The observation sample of videos using a quantitative approach (Riordan, 2022) was collected from 11/11/2021 to 11/26/2021 and a total of 12 classroom videos have been recorded at 4 schools. The quality of teaching is assessed by means of an estimation procedure with which the extent of a characteristic was classified in a 1 (is not met) to 4 (met to a great extent) value scale (Ingram et al., 2020). Based on the theory used observers focused regarding efficient classroom management on structuring of the media, dealing with technical glitches, differentiation through media and the pedagogical use of media. Supportive learning environment was assessed by the codes participation in class discussion through media and mutual support in the use of media. The aspect cognitive activation was rated regarding the use of media for comprehension and use of multimedia representations.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe results of the interviews show for efficient classroom management, that support for students in dealing with heterogeneity, media used for exercises differentiated according to knowledge levels, simplified organization of lessons are important factors. Self-directed learning can be promoted by uploading assignments, with leaving the responsibility for completing with the pupils. Also, teachers themselves use media multifaceted. Regarding supportive learning environment, teachers and pupils support each other and mostly additional offerings are provided in e.g. advanced courses. Media concepts were developed jointly and the use shows to depend on individual attitude. The use of tools can stimulate cognitive activation by providing content in a more application-oriented way. The use of learning videos can enable the deepening of content. However, it has shown difficulties in focusing longer.
The video analysis shows for classroom management that a structure and a common thread were evident in the media, and teachers dealt effectively with technical disruptions. However, aspects of differentiation through media were little observed and media were hardly used to stimulate cooperative forms of learning. In the case of supportive learning environment, it was found that all or a majority of the students were able to access devices and in dealing with media in the case of technical malfunctions, mutual support was provided resulting in effective solutions. In the case of cognitive activation, there is room for improvement in that media were used to communicate or practice more efficiently, but not used at all to expand knowledge. Also, none of the observed classes reached the highest level of multimedia representation.
The results are also of great interest at the european level, as they are addressed as an important factor to manage “the risk of an […] digital divide” (European Comission, 2020, p. 2). in the Digital Education Action Plan (2021-2027).
ReferencesAgasisti, T., Avvisati, F., Borgonovi, F. & Longobardi, S. (2018). Academic resilience: What schools and countries do to help disadvantaged students succeed in PISA. OECD Education Working Papers 167, OECD Publishing.
Aljanazrah, A., Yerousi,s G., Hamed G. & Khlaif, Z.N. (2022). Digital transformation in times of crisis: Challenges, attitudes, opportunities and lessons learned from students’ and faculty members’ perspectives. Front. Educ. (7), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.1047035.
Antoine, F. M., Nu-Man, M. R. & Reyes-Aceytuno, E. (2018). Classroom Management. In M. Rhoads and B. (Eds.), Stachowiak Igniting Your Teaching with Educational Technology. A Resource for New Teachers. Pressbooks. https://pressbooks.pub/edd7032017f2/chapter/1/.
Drossel, K., Eickelmann, B. & Vennemann, M. (2020). Schools overcoming the Digital Divide – In depth analyses towards organizational resilience in the computer and information literacy domain. Large-scale Assessments in Education (8), 1–19. doi.org/10.1186/s40536-020-00087-w.
European Comission (2020). Digital Education Action Plan. 2021-2027. Resetting education and training for the digital age. https://education.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/document-library-docs/deap-communication-sept2020_en.pdf.
Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T. & Duckworth, D. (2019). Preparing for Life in a Digital World. IEA International Computer and Information Literacy Study 2018 International Report. Camberwell. Springer.
Fütterer, T., Scheiter, K., Cheng, X., Stürmer, K. (2022). Quality beats frequency? Investigation students’ effort in learning when introducing technology in classrooms. Contemporary Educational Psychology (69), 2-20.
Hammer, M., Göllner, R., Scheiter, K., Fauth, B., & Stürmer, K. (2021). For whom do tablets make a difference? Examining student profiles and perceptions of instruction with tablets. Computers & Education. (166), 104-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104147.
Henderson, N. & Milstein, M. (2003). Resiliency in schools: Making it happen for students and educators. Sage Publication.
Ingram, J., Lindorff, A., Sani, N., McCann, E. & Riggall, A. (2020). TALIS Video Study:
National Report. Research summary. Department for Education. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1027792/TVS_England_summary_report_for_Schools.pdf.
Labonté, C. & Smith V.R. (2022). Learning through technology in middle school classrooms: Students’ perceptions of their self-directed and collaborative learning with and without technology. Educ Inf Technol 27, 6317–6332 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10885-6.
Mayring, P. (2004). Qualitative content analysis. A companion to qualitative research, 1(2), 159-176.
OECD (2020). Education at a Glance 2020: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/69096873-en.
Praetorius, A. K., Klieme, E., Herbert, B. & Pinger, P. (2018). Generic dimensions of teaching quality: The German framework of three basic dimensions. ZDM, 50 (3), 407-426.
Riordan, J.-P. (2022) A method and framework for video-based pedagogy analysis. Research in Science and Technological Education. (40:1), 53-75. DOI: 10.1080/02635143.2020.1776243.
16. ICT in Education and Training
Paper
The Effects of Surrounding Factors and School Environment on Upper Secondary School Teachers Didactic Use of Digital Learning Resources
Lena Gleisner Villasmil
Mälardalen University, Sweden
Presenting Author: Gleisner Villasmil, Lena
We live in the 21st century and many forms of social and cultural diversity is seen in digital forums since we live in a digital society. We are in many ways dependent on digital resources to be able to perform various socially obligatory functions in work, study, and everyday life. The digital resources connect people with each other and erase the limits between the surrounding word, society, school, and the teaching situation (Säljö, 2019). Schools in Europe have been gradually digitized especially since the 1990s and the curriculum emphasize that teachers should give all students the opportunity to develop their ability to use digital resources and to prepare for the surrounding society (Lundgren, 2014). The expression digital learning resources (DLR) is an expanded cumulative concept for digital technology and in this paper, it refers to any kind of digital resource that is used in education (Nilsen, et al., 2020; OECD, 2009; Selander, 2017; Wallin, et al., 2017). Although the access to digital resources in schools has been good, teachers’ didactic use of it has been varied (Tallvid, 2016). However, a major change took place in terms of teaching from the spring of 2020, when many schools in Europe and all over the world switched to online teaching to reduce the spread of Covid-19 (Beardsley, et al., 2021). This change forced every teacher to be more flexible and to use digital resources to be able to teach and communicate with students (Gileada & Dishonb, 2022).
Many surrounding factors have affected teachers use of digital learning resources such as school environment, support access, professional development, outside school education and experiences. Studies show that school environment on organizational level affect teachers’ competence using DLR, together with several contextual factors (Pettersson, 2018). Another important factor is teachers’ attitude towards digital resources in teaching (Eickelmann & Vennemann, 2017). Previous research also indicates that demographic factors such as teaching subject affects teachers use of digital resources(Bratland, et al., 2022; Erixon, 2014). Studies regarding teachers’ use of DLR emphasizes the need of further research on influencing factors (Erstad, et al., 2021). Against this background the aim of this study is to explore how surrounding factors and school environment influence upper secondary school teachers' use of digital learning resources (DLR) for teaching. The following two research questions were addressed:
- What are the categories of surrounding factors and school environments affecting upper secondary school teachers use of DLR?
- Are there any differences between these categories and the dimensions of teachers’ use of DLR?
This study uses the expanded didactic triangle to understand both the use of DLR and the factors affecting teachers use of DLR (Hudson & Meyer, 2011). Teachers’ didactic use, surrounding factors and school environment are explored through teachers views and answers in an online survey. Teachers’ dimensions using DLR includes the didactic purpose, the classroom practice and the frequency using different digital learning resources.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe study was carried out using an online questionnaire conducted in 2022. A convenience sample of 243 teachers from 23 upper secondary schools in Sweden participated in the survey. The teachers answered self-reported questions and rated their answers on a six-point Likert scale from (1) strongly disagree, to (6) strongly agree. The layout, question-order, time required and formulations of the questions was designed using recommendations from research-manuals (Denscombe, 2021) and the content of the used questions were inspired by previous research (Eickelmann & Vennemann, 2017). Demographic questions and four other questions were used in this study, these were question 12 (frequency using different DLR), 14 (didactic purpose using DLR), 17 (classroom practice with DLR) and 19 (surrounding factors and school environment affecting the use of DLR). Cognitive interviews (Campanelli, 2008) as a pilot study with six upper secondary teachers were made, as well as discussions with fellow researchers. Minor adjustments were done, and the final questionnaire was distributed directly to teachers by email or through their principal by email or the school’s online platform.
The data was analysed, using four survey-questions with several items, for an exploratory factor analysis, and standard multiple regression analysis for correlations. The statistical program IBM SPSS Statistic version 28 was used to analyze the data. The exploratory FA was performed in the following three main steps: 1) Assess the suitability of the data for factor analysis, 2) Extract the factors, and 3) Rotate and interpret the factors (Pallant, 2013, pp. 189-192). The regression analysis was performed in following main steps: 1) Check the assumptions, 2) Evaluate the model, 3) Evaluate each of the independent variables, and 4) Use the information obtained from the output (Pallant, 2013, pp. 163-168).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe findings revealed five different teacher categories regarding surrounding factors and school environment. The five categories are 1) the satisfied -, 2) the support receiving-, 3) the experienced-, 4) the student focused-, and 5) the stressed teacher category. The satisfied teacher category is positive regarding the schools DLR equipment and teacher training with DLR. The experienced teacher category have improved their skills with DLR outside school The findings regarding teachers’ use of DLR revealed also five different dimensions of teachers’ use of DLR. These five dimensions of use are 1) the creative purpose use, 2) the provide material use, 3) the student feedback use, 4) the creative tests and game use, and 5) the simulation-, film- and sound use.
The findings from the regression analysis show significant correlation between the first four teacher categories and the DLR use dimensions, although there is no correlation between the stressed teacher category and the DLR use dimensions. The only teacher category that shows a significant correlation with the simulation-, film- and sound use dimension are the experienced teacher category. The strongest significant correlations are found between the student-focused teacher and the creative purpose use. The results indicates that multiple surrounding factors affect teachers’ use of digital learning resources, both inside and outside schools. Teachers that use more advanced resources as simulation-, film-, and sound-software have received their education outside school, and they use DLR frequently outside school in their sparetime. Student focused teachers have creative didactic purposes with their use of DLR in classroom practice. The implications are: 1) teachers feeling stressed using DLR need help and support to be able to use DLR, 2) teachers need more in-service training to improve their use of advanced DLR, and 3) student-focused teachers are more creative in their didactic use of DLR.
ReferencesBeardsley, M., Albó, L., Aragón, P. & Hernández-Leo, D., 2021. Emergency education effects on teacher abilities and motivation to use digital technologies. British Journal of Educational Technology, Volume 52, pp. 1455-1477.
Bratland, E., El Ghami, M. & Mediå, M., 2022. Technology and knowledge. In what way are knowledge and teachers’ knowledge practices in subject areas crucial for the integration of technology in education?. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 17(3), pp. 155-169.
Campanelli, P., 2008. Testing survey questions. In: International Handbook of Survey Methodology. New York: Routledge, pp. 176-200.
Denscombe, M., 2021. Forskningshandboken: För småskaliga forskningsprojekt inom samhällsvetenskaperna. 4 ed. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Eickelmann, B. & Vennemann, M., 2017. Teachers’ Attitudes and Beliefs Regarding ICT in Teaching and Learning in European Countries. European Educational Research Journal, 16(6), pp. 733-761.
Erixon, P.-O., 2014. School subjects in the screen culture. Education Inquiry, 5(2), pp. 167-170.
Erstad, O., Kjällander, S. & Järvelä, S., 2021. Facing the challenges of ‘digital competence’. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 16(2), pp. 77-87.
Gileada, T. & Dishonb, G., 2022. Rethinking future uncertainty in the shadow of COVID 19: Education, change, complexity and adaptability. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 54(6), p. 822–833.
Hudson, B. & Meyer, M. A., 2011. Beyond Fragmentation: Didactics, Learning and Teaching in Europe. Opladen & Farmington Hills, MI: Barbara Budrich Publishers.
Lundgren, U. P., 2014. Teknik för pedagogik och pedagogik som teknik: Såsom i en spegel. In: Lärare i den uppkopplade skolan. Falkenberg: Glerups, pp. 231-253.
Nilsen, A. G., Almås, G. A. & Gram, H., 2020. Producing Digital Learning Resources (DLR) for Teacher Training. Designs for Learning, 12(1), pp. 71-80.
OECD, 2009. Beyond Textbooks: Digital Learning Resources as Systemic Innovation in the Nordic Countries
Pallant, J., 2013. SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Pettersson, F., 2018. On the issues of digital competence in educational contexts – a review of literature. Educ Inf Technol, 23, pp. 1005-1021.
Säljö, R., 2019. En digital uppväxt och en digital framtid. Tidskriften vägval i skolans historia.
Selander, S., 2017. På väg mot en digital lärmiljö: En lägesrapport om digitala lärresurser i svenska skolor i Finland, Helsingfors: Svenska kulturfonden.
Tallvid, M., 2016. Understanding teachers’ reluctance to the pedagogical use of ICT in the 1:1 classroom. Education and Information Technologies, 21(3), pp. 503-519.
Wallin, J., Hafsteinsdottir, E., Samuelsson, J. & Bergman, E., 2017. Digitala lärresurser I matematikundervisningen, Systematisk översikt 2017:02, Lund: Lund University
|
