Conference Agenda

Ethical questions and rationales have always been central to pedagogical discourses on media, being closely intertwined with the historical, societal and cultural environment of individual countries and their respective education systems. In the strands of tradition of these discourses, repetitive patterns of discussion as well as historically changing values can be identified. Today we live in a deeply mediatized world, where almost all elements of the social world are linked to digital media and their underlying infrastructures (Hepp 2020). As digitality is now our dominant cultural space, this raises new ethical questions: How do normative orders that give orientation develop in the context of digital change? Who takes responsibility for the realization of ethically legitimized principles in the digital? And how do ethical perspectives potentially differ internationally? Phenomena related to these questions such as hate speech, cybermobbing or deep fake are frequently researched. Still, the adopted normative framework and the manner in which moral issues are being reflected upon remain unclear. Recently, new technological possibilities, such as artificial intelligence, have spurred a renewed focus on digital ethics and also on the children's rights (UN 2021).

Against the background of the diversity of this discourse, in our presentation we want to propose a theoretically derived systematization of the research on ethics, digitality and education. This is based on the following three heuristic dimensions:

Dimension 1: Communication

On the basis of the theory of communicative action by Habermas (1981), we distinguish three levels.

A) Structural conditions of an ethic of communication in the context of digitality: The psychological and social prerequisites for life and learning as well as the media ensemble and media repertoire of the human are focused as a condition for the ability to communicate self-determined.

B) Rule-driven communicative practices: Focus is on the everyday rules, moral and legal principles that underlie communication. Research deals with the questions of rule-compliant communication or with phenomena that violate applicable rules.

C) Ethical reflection of the rules and principles of communication in the mediatized society: The central question is, if people recognize the same rules of communication or this has to be negotiated in meta-communication.

Dimension 2: Social Structure

In this dimension, we take up the three levels of analysis as they are established in the social and cultural sciences for the classification of social structures. Ethical questions in the context of media education arise differently at each of these levels of society.

A) Whole systems are examined on the macro level.

B) Parts of these systems are in the eye on the meso level.

C) At the micro level, actions of individual actors are considered.

Dimension 3: Agency

In this dimension, we look at the agency with which studies operate in the discourse on digitality, ethics and education.

A) Active agency: individuals are conceived as completely empowered in their media actions.

B) Passive agency: determinant effect of external factors on media action is assumed.

C) Relational agency: powers is situated in both, in the individual and in other heterogeneous entities.

Drawing on a literature review, we identified empirical studies in the delineated research area and subsequently placed them within the three heuristic dimensions described.

The research questions for our review were:

1. What are the methods used, and topics studied in the field of research?

2. To what extent and in what way can studies be located in the heuristic? Where are the focal points?

In the proposed presentation, we focus on the following question:

3. From which countries do studies originate? To what extent can conceptions of ethic, digitality and education be linked to global cultural clusters?

In Germany, a systematic conceptual link between inclusion and digitization-related competencies in teacher education curricula. Two systematic reviews on “digital learning in inclusive settings” showed that for the German speaking context only 34 empirical studies were published in the last 10 years which deal with inclusive media education in schools (Mertens et al. 2022; Quenzer-Alfred et al. to be published). Only sporadically concepts have been developed (e.g. Büker et al., 2022) – although synergy effects have already been described. Hence, there is a need for proposals on how to provide (future) teachers with knowledge for inclusive media education. Concepts for teacher training should meet the demands of digital accessibility to enable participation for all students. Two prototypical didactic approaches have been proposed to support teacher training in tertiary education and in-service training, these are: "Inclusion meets Digitization" and a toolbox with focus on "Digitization and inclusion-oriented Casework", both offered as Open Educational Resources (OERs) (Homrighausen et al., 2022).

The “self-study course” deals with digital theoretical concepts of inclusive media education, the benefits of assistive technologies, the Universal Design for Learning and some good practice examples for teacher education. The moodle-based “toolbox” is an online resource that includes different modules interconnecting inclusive case studies, lesson plans and digital media material to train teachers how to use digital media in the inclusive classroom as well as accessibility features and strategies for creating inclusive digital content. Additionally, it provides guidance, practical strategies and reflection guidelines. Added value of the two resources can be seen in linking digitization-related competencies with the conceptual areas of inclusion. The novel resources help (future) teachers to bridge the digital divide: in the long run they might have the potential to make “access to digital information” possible.

The theoretical framework of both resources draws upon fostering inclusion in, at and through media (Bosse 2016; Bosse, Kamin, Schluchter 2019) as well as the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) which is particularly useful for teachers of students with disabilities (https://www.cast.org). Participation in the media counters stereotypical and stigmatizing portrayals of vulnerable groups and opens up the opportunity to contrast images of disability conveyed by the mass media with views of vulnerable and diverse groups. For the school context, this implies to reflect the diversity of students in teaching media, be it in books, worksheets or on the school website. All groups shall be represented equally in the media. Participation at media emphasizes the aspect of media accessibility in terms of perceptibility, comprehensibility and usability for all people, regardless of their individual predisposition. This can be achieved through (internal-) differentiation, assistive technologies, appropriate aids, facilitated operation (e.g. on mobile phones). Participation at media can also be achieved via linguistic accessibility (choice of simple/easy language, multilingualism, formulation and self-expression aids e.g. for students with learning disabilities). Ideally, media are designed according to the premises of the UDL (www.cast.org) so that they can be used by as many people as possible without further adaptation. Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a framework that makes teaching material accessible to all students, regardless of background, abilities or learning styles. It utilizes multiple means of representation, engagement, and expression to create an inclusive learning environment. UDL's main principles are useful for inclusive teaching as it allows teachers to accommodate diverse needs of all students. Participation through media arises when education, learning, work and everyday life are shaped through the acquisition of comprehensive media competence. With regard to the school classroom, opportunities for participation are also opened up by using media as didactic teaching and learning tools to support learning processes.

Because of the digitalization as the current wave of mediatization (Hepp 2020) the requirements on the professionalization of teachers are changing. Thus, the pedagogical use of digital technologies in education is becoming a part of teacher’s professionalism. However, in European countries the frequency of the use of digital technology in classroom differ and there is a wide range of types and forms using technology in education (Eickelmann et al. 2019; EU 2019; Lorenz et al. 2022). One of the reasons for this diversity are different attitudes of teachers towards digital technology (Eickelmann & Vennemann 2017; Gouseti et al. 2023). In particular, study results indicate the influence of implicit knowledge on the usage of technology in education (Kommer 2010). The approach of the habitus - or rather the media related habitus (’medialer Habitus’) – can conceptualize this phenomenon. Thus, there is a direct link between implicit knowledge and pedagogical acting, which influence the use of digital technology. Existing studies reconstructed different forms of media related habitus and the assumption is that the different forms lead to specific ways of using digital technologies (Brüggemann 2013; Kommer 2010). For example, teachers maybe try to avoid the use of technology or they are motivated to use them.
On the other hand, with the pedagogical usage of digital technology is becoming part of teachers` professionalism also places more requirements and demands on them. These requirements has normative implications for teachers on different levels, such as institutional and organisational conditions or pedagogical concepts that influence teachers` practice. Here, too, it can be assumed that different pedagogical conditions have various effects on the way teachers use digital technologies (Breiter et al. 2013, 41-45; Lorenz et al. 2022, 12-13).
Not yet clarified is how the media related habitus relates to these requirements and their normative implications. Bohnsack (2017) conceives the relationship between habitus and norm within the praxeology sociology of knowledge (’Praxeologische Wissenssoziolgie’) as an implicitly processed interrelation. This interrelation is located in the orientation framework (in a broader sense). The orientation framework determines the habitual practice as the ’modus operandi’ of acting. Thus, the implicitly processed interrelationship between habitus and norm influence the way teachers use digital technologies. Thereby this relation can take on different forms and both, for example, can be in tension or fit (Geimer & Amling 2014).
The paper presents a study that examined this interrelationship among secondary school teachers with focus on the use of digital technologies. Based on the praxeology sociology of knowledge the role of the habitus is conceptualised within the orientation framework as relation between habitual orientations (’Handlungsorientierungen’) (Nohl et al. 2015) and the role of normative expectations as orientation schemes (’Orientierungsschemata’) (Bohnsack 2017). The paper discus this research and present a typology of different orientation frameworks (in a broader sense). The findings framed against the backdrop of the discourse on habitual influence on the pedagogical use of technology. This enables a differentiated understanding of how the conditions of educational practice influence habitual orientations of teachers` and how this leads to specific forms of technology use. In this way, it can be shown how the relationships of habitual orientations and orientation schemes shape the pedagogical practice in different ways. On the one hand it becomes apparent that based on the habitual orientations similar conditions are perceived differently by the teachers and are thus associated with varying implications for the pedagogical practice. On the other hand, teachers with comparable habitual orientations use digital technologies differently when normative expectations vary. This opens up a differentiated and theoretically reflected approach to explain diversity in teachers` use of digital technologies in the classroom.