Conference Agenda

The rapid growth of information and communication technologies (ICT) at the end of 1990s accelerated globalization of the world economy, and innovation has become more important for economic growth (European Commission, 2013), which emphasized developing “human capital” for the economy (Popkewitz, 2012) and led to digital transformation of businesses (DT). DT is not limited to cutting-edge technologies (Hess et al., 2016; Kane et al., 2015), and occasional digital updates (De la Boutetiere et al., 2018; Libert et al., 2016). It refers to gaining and utilizing 21^st century skills ( Voogt & Roblin 2010; Kalantzis & Cope, 2012), which are seen as skills of today’s workforce by many international organizations recently (Williamson, 2013; Aronowitz & Giroux, 1993). Broadly speaking, 21^st century skills can be grouped under “communication skills, collaborative skills, individual learning approaches, individual autonomy, ICT and digital literacy” as well as personal attributes and core knowledge areas such as literacy, numeracy and STEM associated fields of knowledge (Joynes et al., 2019). In developing 21^stcentury skills, ICTs are essential according to many commentators (Joynes et al., 2019) and acquiring 21^st century skills develops individuals’ capabilities holistically (UNESCO, 2015b). It is evident that 21^st century skills refer to ‘practical’ capabilities of individuals.

As the future of education is “a network-based distributed system of learning rather than a strictly routinized series of teaching tasks” (Davidson & Goldberg, 2009) and educational policies and reform ideas now routinely espouse “a science of future-building” (Gardner et al., 2009), technology-enhanced learning (TEL) comes to forefront. TEL requires decentralization of curriculum and experiential everyday knowledge so students actively prepare to deal with change (Williamson, 2013). Moreover, massive open online courses (MOOCs) have accelerated the process of TEL (Siemens, 2013).

It is now inevitable for higher education institutions (HEIs) to utilize TEL to help learners gain flexibility of the era (Wang et al., 2021; Benavides et al, 2020; Koehler et al., 2007) because universities are considered to raise qualified workforce which can answer to current needs of the sectors (Lauder & Mayhew, 2020; Kemp, 2016). However, graduates’ lack of experience in such skills are heavily criticized (Matsouka & Mihail, 2016; Pang et al, 2018; PIAAC, 2019). Moreover, universities and governments underline integrating work experience more broadly into academic programs more (Patrick et al., 2008; Leonard, 1999) because HE has been regarded as a personal investment for better work and life opportunities, so higher quality outcomes are expected of them (Devlin et al., 2008; Kirke et al., 2007). As Larkin and Hamilton suggested (2010), the transition from student to novice practitioner is necessitated and practice opportunities must help students to recognize the importance of fieldwork, the generic work attributes with the help of a tailored planning and delivery. On the other hand, Larkin and Watchorn (2012) clearly emphasized that there is an even pressing need for bridging practices of academia with the expectations of the workplace.

Systematic reviews conducted on TEL applied by HEIs reported success in equipping students with such practical skills; however, indicated a lack of direction; the facilitators and hinderers are not very well-understood, and a holistic approach towards TEL in HE is needed (Abedini et al., 2020; Benevides et al., 2020; Bernhard-Skala, 2019; Farias-Gaytan, 2022). This gap in the literature is aimed to be addressed by this study. To that aim, the following research question was formulated:

1. When and how can TEL satisfy the experience/practice needs of students at HEIs?

1.1. What approaches and methods of TEL are used by HEIs?

1.2. What facilitators and hinderers are experienced by HEIs during the process of TEL?

We live in the postdigital condition: Digitality and digital technologies, algorithms and algorithmic logics have become the background and starting point of our everyday actions, distinctions such as digital/analog or online/offline are becoming increasingly blurred (Jandrić et al. 2018). Technologies permeate almost all areas of life and thus also school and teaching. The concept of 'postdigitality' reminds us that it is not only the digital that needs to be considered when thinking about technology, especially in educational contexts (Fawns 2019). Interwoven social, economic, cultural, political, ethical, or ecological conditions, logics, and forms of organization are also inscribed in the technologies we use, and these conditions constitute our practices of use. Moreover, the concept of 'postdigitality' also reminds us that the conditions we live in today, are always noisy, messy and chaotic and we always have to deal with not knowing and understanding a lot (Macgilchrist 2021).

FabLabs/Making Spaces are open spaces, where making with a variety of analog and digital materials and technologies is central. Such labs can also function as (extracurricular) spaces of education (Schelhowe 2013). In my dissertation project, I co-design and observe educational activities for and with schools, a FabLab and a diverse student body. Participatory methods, involving close cooperation between research and practice, and an ethnographic sensibility is central to this. Drawing on research on postdigital education and educational making, the focus is on the following question: What happens in FabLabs as postdigital educational spaces - from the perspective of the different actors involved?

This study conceptualizes FabLabs as 'sociotechnical configurations' and 'postdigital educational contexts': They are understood as constituted by interwoven, social, political, cultural, economic, pedagogical, technical and algorithmic logics and forms of organization, material artifacts, architectures and individual competencies (Jasanoff 2016; Suchman 2007). From this perspective, educational processes are not shaped by individual or autonomous persons, but by sociotechnical configurations. When educational processes in labs are viewed through the 'post-digital lens', it opens the view to the interconnectedness of analog and digital action and social, technical, cultural, political, and ethical (messy!) structures and logics that also structure a lab.

In the first stage of research and analysis, 'failure' has emerged as a central phenomenon. 'Failure' is raised in the literature as central to (educational) making, but is mostly mentioned in terms of the successful design of a product or artifact, or in terms of a positive culture of mistakes and productivity, without being discussed or analyzed in more detail (Martin 2015): Productive failure in making appears as a quasi-natural path to success and learning, whereby I’d like to question this critically. If failure is discussed, then the focus is on failure as an individual and subjective process; overall, the subjective perspectives and individual experiences of the actors are in the foreground (Cross 2017), although isolated studies could also be identified that indicate that failure is much more complex (Maltese et al. 2018). But even in these studies, however, individual actors and actions are the primary focus (Simpson et al. 2018).

Following on from this, beyond the individual and drawing on the sociotechnical conceptualisation noted above, this dissertation will focus on 'failure' not only as an individual, but as a complex, sociotechnical phenomenon in a post-digital educational context: In response to the research question posed above one thing that happens in FabLabs is the unfolding of failure as a socio-technical phenomenon. The aim of the contribution is therefore, first, to reflect on my research process and methodological aspects such as opportunities and challenges of participatory collaboration with educational practice. Second, to present initial results on 'failure' in postdigital educational contexts, using the example of FabLab/Making.

Children are heavy adopters of social media, despite the terms of service being thirteen years of age (Ofcom, 2022). This occupancy within the digital space, is changing the experience of socialisation for children and young people (Ranzini and Hoek, 2017). Digital technology and social media add new dimensions that children must navigate, and consequently social media has altered the notions of space, community and identity and the relationships between them (Thomson et al., 2018). For tweens (8 – 12-year-olds) on the cusp of adolescence, the presentation of a ‘digital identity’ involves a self-curated digital content in the form of narrative, images, and photographs. Furthermore, online virtual communities have been created and within a social-technical context, children and digital technologies interact (MacDonald et al., 2022). In this research, the age group of 10 and 11 years old was specifically chosen, as arguably, it is when they are becoming more influenced by peer culture (Steinbekk et al., 2021) and making tentative steps around shaping their own identity that is separate from their family and immediate influences of the home environment (James and Prout, 2015). Moreover, it is also the age group that is most likely to experience having their own mobile phone for the first time (Pangrazio and Gaibisso, 2020).

It is apparent that much of the literature and research on children’s social media use, as well as in mainstream media, is often shown through a deterministic lens, with children being portrayed as having little or no agency. Therefore, children’s social media usage is often viewed and represented in problematic terms or from ‘adultist views’ (Phippen and Street, 2022, p.43) with grooming, catfishing, and predator behaviour invariably seen as a jeopardy of digital spaces and exploitation as a real possibility (Reeves and Crowther, 2019). Consequently, to challenge this deterministic outlook, a theoretical framework that positions children as the experts in their own lives (James and James, 2004) and as active participants, capable of decision-making (Dockett et al, 2012) was held central to this research. It is important not to report a homogenous experience of children’s social media use and recognise their subjectivity within their experience, just as real-life socialisation and identity portrayal would entail. Implementing a social constructivist perspective, thus, allows for a situatedness of their experiences through their own narrative.

The theoretical lens of Goffman’s (1959) Impression Management was employed to this research, with the assumption that individuals strive to control or guide the impression of how others perceive them with how they present their appearance, attitude and manner depending on the audience that they encounter. Through these social interactions with others as an audience could consequently be viewed as the building blocks of our identity formation and how our beliefs, values, subjectivities, and behaviours are shaped. Goffman’s (1971) dramaturgical approach utilises the metaphor of the stage to illustrate differences between situations where self-presentation is salient and those that are less pronounced. This distinction may not be as apparent on social media though as profile pages of social media networks are artefacts that exist to position the creator in relation to the reader/audience and this may be carefully curated. For tweens this may be even more problematic, as they tentatively explore their identity in digital spaces, with social media being viewed as an additional stage for their performances that has a more permanent nature than the visceral experiences of real life interaction (Zhao, 2005). The research questions focused on how children’s identities are shaped by their experiences of social media, with the influence of gendered stereotypes and the pressures of these digital spaces.