16. ICT in Education and Training
Paper
Individual Support and Digital Media – Results of an Interview Study
Julia Gerick, Theresa Jahns, Barbara Zschiesche
TU Braunschweig, Germany
Presenting Author: Gerick, Julia
With the advancement of digitization, opportunities for the individual support of students are increasingly opening up. Digital media can help to better take into account students' individual prerequisites, needs, interests and inclinations, learning preferences, and differences in performance in the classroom (e.g., Holmes et al., 2018; Petko et al., 2017; Brühwiler & Vogt, F., 2020). Although previous research points to these potentials, the use of digital media for individual support has not yet been widespread in Germany (e.g., Gerick et al., 2017). This leads to the assumption that the implementation of individual support with digital media requires a lot of preconditions and opens up the question of the conditions for success at different levels. This is where a research project in Germany comes in.
The research project aims to identify conditions for success in individual support with digital media from the multidimensional perspective of school actors. A model of school development and school effectiveness with digital media (Eickelmann & Drossel, 2019) is used as a theoretical approach. Individual support is located on the process level and it is assumed that conditions for success can be identified on the school input level as well as on the process level.
In the context of this research project, individual support is understood to be all pedagogical actions within the framework of school teaching-learning processes that are carried out with the intention of supporting the learning development and process of all individual learners by identifying and taking into account their specific (learning) prerequisites, (learning) needs, (learning) paths, (learning) goals, and (learning) opportunities, based on Kunze (2008) and Behrensen and Solzbacher (2012).
Against this background this contribution will focus on the following research question:
Which success conditions can be identified for the individual support with digital media?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedTo answer the research question, (group) interview data from school leaders (n=8 interviews with overall 12 persons), teachers (n=25 interviews with overall 36 persons) and students (n=13 interviews with overall 60 students)) from eight schools in Hamburg (Germany) are analyzed (4 primary schools, 2 secondary schools, 2 Gymnasia). These eight schools were selected criterion-led out of a pool of 60 schools, which were characterized by strong individual support in the Hamburg school inspection. Analyses are conducted using qualitative content analysis (Mayring, 2021).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe results show firstly that teachers and school leaders in the participating schools deeply reflect on the challenges of individualised learning. In particular, these reflections focus on the tensions and antinomies that derive from issues of individualise. School actors deal with these issues in a very situational and contextual way. Secondly, it can be shown that teachers critically discuss the special potentials of digital media. In doing so, they perceive digital media both as a tool for teaching and as an object of teaching. This points to a strong awareness of the challenges of digital education in the 21st century.
The findings will be discussed against the background of current European discourses and research results about the prerequisites for the use of ICT in teaching and learning.
ReferencesBehrensen, B. & Solzbacher, C. (2012). Grundwissen Hochbegabung in der Grundschule. Weinheim: Beltz Verlag.
Brühwiler, C. & Vogt, F. (2020). Adaptive teaching competency. Effects on quality of instruction and learning outcomes. Journal for educational research online 12, 1, S. 119-142 - URN: urn:nbn:de:0111-pedocs-191216 - DOI: 10.25656/01:19121
Eickelmann, B. & Drossel, K. (2019). Digitalisierung im deutschen Bildungssystem im Kontext des Schulreformdiskurses. In N. Berkemeyer, W. Bos & B. Hermstein (Hrsg.), Schulreform (S. 445-458). Beltz Verlag: Weinheim.
Gerick, J., Eickelmann, B. & Bos, W. (2017). Zum Stellenwert neuer Technologien für die individuelle Förderung im Deutschunterricht in der Grundschule. In F. Heinzel & K. Koch (Hrsg.), Individualisierung im Grundschulunterricht (S. 131-136). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Holmes, W., Anastopoulou, S., Schaumburg, H. & Mavrikis, M. (2018). Personalisiertes Lernen mit digitalen Medien. Stuttgart: Robert Bosch Stiftung.
Kunze, I. (2008). Begründungen und Problembereiche individueller Förderung in der Schule. In I. Kunze & C. Solzbacher (Hrsg.), Individuelle Förderung in der Sekundarstufe I und II (S. 13 – 26). Baltmannsweiler: SchneiderVerlag Hohengehren.
Mayring, P. (2021). Qualitative Content Analysis. SAGE Publications.
Petko, D., Schmid, R., Pauli, C., Stebler, R. & Reusser, K. (2017). Personalisiertes Lernen mit digitalen Medien. Journal für Schulentwicklung, (3), 31-39.
16. ICT in Education and Training
Paper
Fathers’ Involvement in the Mediation of their Young Children’s Digital Media Practices in Azerbaijan
Sabina Savadova
The University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Savadova, Sabina
This qualitative study explores young children’s digital media practices in a home setting in Azerbaijan, a former Soviet country. The study provides rich insights into young children’s digital media practices and their parents’ mediation strategies which have not been researched before. Practices are the ways people interact with or incorporate objects and actions into their everyday lives and are influenced by social and cultural worldviews. I draw on the definition of digital media practices from Merchant (2012, p.772) as “the ‘doings’, ‘sayings’ and ‘relatings’” that constitute the social actions of everyday life.
The ongoing changes in the education system of Azerbaijan, such as the recent embedding of digital technologies in primary education, made Azerbaijan an attractive research setting for this study. Given the considerable impact of parents on their children’s education, the role of the home context presented an exciting opportunity to explore influences on parents’ views on and involvement in their children’s digital media practices. This study responds to calls for research into young children’s digital media practices in different countries and cultures in the Global South ( Nikken, 2017; Shin & Li, 2017).
Parental involvement in young children’s digital media use plays a crucial role in positively fostering children’s digital media practices (Connell et al., 2015; Nikken, 2017; Plowman et al., 2008). Fathers are often found to play video games with their children instead of mothers who prefer reading books with them (Connell et al., 2015; Padilla‐Walker et al., 2012). In previous studies, researchers have primarily included mothers when conducting family visits (Livingstone et al., 2015). However, there is a need for more research revealing and explaining fathers’ engagement in their children’s interactions with digital media (Tang et al., 2018). Azerbaijan is a patriarchal society where most of the duties related to child-rearing are left to mothers (Najafizadeh, 2012), which heightens the importance of inquiring about fathers’ involvement in children’s interactions with digital technologies. I will explore fathers’ opinions on their children’s uses of digital technologies, as well as their involvement in their children’s digital media practices through revisiting own childhoods (Cole, 1998).
I aim to explore the following research question.
What are the ways in which fathers in Azerbaijan are involved in the mediation of their young children’s digital media practices?
My study is guided by Tudge's (2008) contextualist ecocultural theory drawing on the everyday practices and interactions among individuals, cultures, and activities (re)shaping children’s daily lives. I also draw on Cole's (1998) concept of prolepsis, which constitutes a considerable part of the theoretical framework drawn for this study. Cole’s concept has roots in the field of developmental psychology, and even though my study is far from this field and is carried out on a small scale, I find prolepsis a good fit for the study to elaborate on fathers’ involvement in their children’s digital media practices. Cole (1998) applies the concept of prolepsis to the practice of childrearing and, in this context, explains it as a process of imagining their child’s future and then channelling the child’s present to meet the expectations of this imagined future. This phenomenon is undoubtedly informed by the culture of parents, rooted in their own past experiences and upbringings, and therefore, the parents’ beliefs and the projection of the desired future for their children can often become a ‘materialised constraint’ on the present experiences of the child (Cole, 1998, p. 184). Cole (ibid) only mentioned mothers when explaining prolepsis. Scrutinizing fathers’ views on their children’s digital media uses through the concept of prolepsis can help explain why the fathers were not inclined to develop their children's digital skills early on.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedGiven the complexity of real-life contexts (Thomas, 2011), I used multiple case study as I believe that knowledge is co-constructed by the researcher and researched, and by employing a case study, it is possible to reveal multiple interpretations and provide detailed and thick descriptions for each case (Stake, 2006). Five families, each with a five-year-old child, participated in multiple case studies over a period of 15 months during 2018-2019. The study generated data through a total of 15 family visits in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan. Each family visit consisted of various activities, including participatory methods with mothers and children separately. In addition, a new participatory method - the ‘living journals’ was developed to explore further children’s digital media practices within their home settings.
The living journal method borrows elements from Tobin and his colleagues’ Video-Cued Ethnography (Tobin et al., 1989) and Plowman and Stevenson’s (2012) mobile phone diaries method. The method facilitated a remote exploration of children’s daily lives: mothers were invited as proxy researchers, thereby decentring the researcher in the data generation process. During two weeks at different times of the year – school term and holiday break – I asked mothers to send me pictures or videos of their children, which they were to capture at pre-arranged times and prompted at certain intervals. I compiled those pictures and stills from videos to create custom-designed paper journals for each child in print and digital formats and later used them as prompts in acquiring all family members’ opinions on the activities depicted in the journals. Mothers, together with the participant child, and fathers separately commented both on the completed journals relating to their own child, as well as those created by other participant children. The journals existed in both physical and digital formats and were a source of visually rich multimodal, multivocal, metatextual, and multifunctional data.
Parents and children consented to share their visuals in publications and conference presentations. Children’s ongoing consent was approached with great care and attention, considering its full complexity and holistic nature (Kustatscher, 2014). The analysis in my study was synchronised with the data generation and was iterative in nature (Patton, 2015), mainly drawing on the constructivist approaches (Miles et al.,2014).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe living journals method revealed fathers’ views on and the extent of their involvement in their children’s digital practices. Fathers expected their children’s future to be 'digital'. However, they were still hesitant to project this vision of the future on their current activities and decisions on the mediation of their children’s daily digital practices. The fathers introduced games to their children, which tended to be the types of games designed for adults or allowed their children to use their phones to some extent to play games or watch their fathers playing games. Since fathers expected mothers to take care of their children, they saw the mediation of their children’s digital media practices as part of general childcare.
Cole (1998) explains prolepsis as parents returning to their childhoods, projecting their childhoods on their children’s future, and acting on them in the current moment. All the participant fathers had been introduced to computers and phones in their early adulthood, and four of them projected their own experiences on their children’s future. Being content with their own current competence in digital technology, they saw no issues with restricting their children’s access, with the underlying logic being that if they learned to use computers in their adulthood, so could their children, and there was no need to get started on this journey early. They seemed determined to try and prevent their children from using digital devices at a young age. Fathers were mainly authoritative figures within families who initiated or sometimes participated in setting the rules for their children’s access to digital media. Mothers were found to be in charge of overseeing the day-to-day implementation of such established rules with more direct control over how their children engaged with digital media. To use a metaphor, fathers held legislative powers and mothers held executive powers.
ReferencesCole, M. (1998). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Harvard University.
Connell, S. L., Lauricella, A. R., & Wartella, E. (2015). Parental co-use of media technology with their young children in the USA. Journal of Children and Media, 9(1), 5-21.
Kustatscher, M. (2014). Informed consent in school-based ethnography: Using visual magnets to explore participation, power and research relationships. International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies, 5(4.1), 686-701.
Livingstone, S., Mascheroni, G., Dreier, M., Chaudron, S., & Lagae, K. (2015). How parents of young children manage digital devices at home: The role of income, education and parental style (EU Kids Online, Issue.
Merchant, G. (2012). Mobile practices in everyday life: Popular digital technologies and schooling revisited. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(5), 770-782.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. 3rd. Sage publications.
Najafizadeh, M. (2012). Gender and ideology: Social change and Islam in post-soviet Azerbaijan. Journal of Third World Studies, 29(1), 81-101.
Nikken, P. (2017). Implications of low or high media use among parents for young children’s media use. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 11(3).
Padilla‐Walker, L. M., & Thompson, R. A. (2005). Combating conflicting messages of values: A closer look at parental strategies. Social Development, 14(2), 305-323.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods : integrating theory and practice (Fourth edition.. ed.). SAGE Publications.
Plowman, L., McPake, J., & Stephen, C. (2008). Just picking it up? Young children learning with technology at home. Cambridge Journal of Education 38(3), 303-319.
Plowman, L., & Stevenson, O. (2012). Using mobile phone diaries to explore children’s everyday lives. Childhood, 19(4), 539-553.
Shin, W., & Li, B. (2017). Parental mediation of children’s digital technology use in Singapore. Journal of Children and Media, 11(1), 1-19.
Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. The Guilford Press.
Tang, L., Darlington, G., Ma, D. W. L., & Haines, J. (2018). Mothers’ and fathers’ media parenting practices associated with young children’s screen-time: A cross-sectional study. BMC Obesity, 5(1), 1-10.
Thomas, G. (2011). A typology for the case study in social science following a review of definition, discourse, and structure. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(6), 511-521.
Tobin, J. J. (2019). The Origins of the Video-Cued Multivocal Ethnographic Method. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 50(3), 255-269.
Tudge, J. R. H. (2008). The everyday lives of young children : culture, class, and child rearing in diverse societies. Cambridge University Press.
16. ICT in Education and Training
Paper
The Interplay Between Understandings of Inclusion and the Selection of of Digital Educational Materials - an International Comparative Perspective
Christoph Bierschwale, Michaela Vogt
Bielefeld University, Germany
Presenting Author: Bierschwale, Christoph;
Vogt, Michaela
Topic, objective
Inclusion research is an extensive field of research, which manifests itself, for example, in the area of professionalization of teachers and in the discussion about the basic understanding of inclusive schooling, even if the term "inclusion" itself is and remains diffuse (see, for example, the research of Nilholm & Göransson 2017; Löser & Werning 2013). However, a understudied research field that is based on a very broad understanding of inclusion is the relationship between respective prevailing understandings of inclusion and digital educational materials such as learning platforms in different cultural contexts. Digital learning platforms can be distinguished from other software solutions on the basis of their functions. According to Petko, digital learning platforms offer the possibility of managing knowledge content, and they also enable communication, e.g. through forums. There is also the possibility of setting tasks and timelines. Learning platforms also offer the possibility of conducting exams and also enable course management (Petko 2010). Thus, in the German-speaking but also international discourse, there is hardly any research literature so far that deals with the exclusive elements of learning platforms from an international-comparative perspective (see e.g. Richardson & Powell 2011; Budde, Blasse & Johansen 2017). Furthermore, it is noted that work on countries in the Global South is largely lacking, and this includes, in particular, work on the education system in Singapore (e.g., Hung, Chen & Wong 2006; Singal, Lynch, & Johansson 2018). The focus of the following study is on a comparison between Estonia, a country that can be considered a pioneer in the implementation of digital media, and Germany, which is still lagging behind in the expansion of digital offerings (Reiss et al. 2019). In addition to this binary comparative perspective, a contrast is made with Singapore, which is also considered a leader in the field of digital education (Reiss et al. 2019). The research focus brings the diversity of educational systems and values into focus and, in connection with the theme of the conference, shows potentials through the exchange of best practices.
Theory
The developments in a school and the behaviour of the people in the organisation also with regard to the selection of digital teaching materials cannot be viewed in isolation, but always in interaction with other systems such as the law, the economy and society as a whole. Only this systems-theoretical understanding makes it possible to understand and explain the actions of the individual against the background of social institutions. An essential theoretical access to the interrelationships is offered by the theory of Helmut Fend in his "New Theory of Schools" (2008). Fend points out that action in the school is consists of normative sets of rules consisting of "duties and rights", according to which persons orientate their actions (Fend 2008, p. 172).
Comparisons between countries make it clear that education systems can be organised in very different ways. The federal system in Germany contrasts with a centrally controlled education system in Singapore and an education system in Estonia that is an education system that is strongly characterised by networks with the business community.
Based on the theoretical assumptions, questions are addressed on two levels
At the level of understandings of inclusion: What concept of inclusion can be found in policy documents and in group discussions with teachers and political decision-makers? Here, document analysis and interviews are used for methodological implementation.
At the level of digital teaching materials: How do teachers use digital learning platforms? What exclusive elements are there in learning platforms? Here, classroom observation is necessary, as well as qualitative content analysis of corresponding learning platforms.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe methodological approach is based on an international comparative research approach in which experiences from other countries can be used to reflect on own education policies and to learn from the experiences (Amaral 2015). The comparative analysis in this study has two main functions: In terms of knowledge generation, especially the elaboration of categories. In comparing data and material matching categories (and thus focal points) but also differences between category systems come more into view. In addition, learning from the experiences of other countries is made possible. Furthermore, the approach of Participatory Action Research is used. This approach can be summarised as follows: “It seeks to bring together action and reflection, theory and practice, in participation with others, in the pursuit of practical solutions to issues of pressing concern to people, and more generally the flourishing of individual persons and their communities" (Reason & Bradbury 2008, p. 4). Co-researchers in this Participatory Action Research project are in particular pupils, teachers, parents, representatives of school administrators and IT entrepreneurs (Klüver & Krüger 1972; Kramer, Kramer & Lehmann 1979; Cornwall & Jewkes 1995; Reason & Brady 1995). In addition to these methodological foundations, different methods are triangulated in order to answer the corresponding research questions according to the theoretical assumptions.
With reference to methods of the study, document analysis and group interviews will be used. Within the framework of the document analysis central education policy documents are analysed. In Singapore, the following strategies of the Ministry of Education are of particular relevance with regard to digital educational materials: "Teach Less, Learn More" (TLLM) from 2013 and "Thinking School, Learning Nation" from 1997. The strategies are available in an authorised English version. In Estonia, the Republic of Estonia Education Act of 1992 is of particular relevance, as it institutionalises decision-making structures on education policy. In addition to the analysis of the context, the digital teaching materials themselves will also be examined through a qualitative content analysis. With reference to the group discussions, an important selection criterion in the schools was that the schools work with digital educational materials. We were able to win corresponding cooperation schools and conducted the group discussions in 2022. The evaluation is largely completed and the first results are available. Furthermore, 14-day research visits were conducted in both countries. During these visits, the interviews were conducted. A standardized questionnaire was used to conduct the interviews.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsWith reference to the answer to the first research question, it can be stated that teachers in Estonia are largely influenced by a narrow understanding of the concept of inclusion. In this context, pedagogical diagnostics play a special role, as does the distinction between children with learning disorders and children without learning disorders. There are also differences between schools in rural areas and schools in urban areas. Thus, rural schools were relatively less confronted with cultural heterogeneity. There were very few students who did not speak Estonian as their first language. No differentiated debate about inclusion can be found in the educational documents or in the interviews with teachers. With reference to Singapore, a rather narrow understanding of inclusion could also be found in the documents, which refers to special education criteria and psychological diagnostics.
With regard to the second research question, it can be stated that only few individualizing digital offers are provided in view of the special needs of the pupils in Estonia. Digital media are used in particular for quizzes and learning status queries. For example, there is no language support in the learning platforms for children without knowledge of the language of instruction; the same finding could be found in digital learning platforms in Singapore. In Singapore, a variety of apps could be found that are used to activate students, but without taking into account specific needs, e.g. with regard to gender or cultural heterogeneity.
ReferencesAmaral, M. (2015). Methodologie und Methode in der International Vergleichenden Erziehungswissenschaft. In: Parreira do Amaral, M., Amos, S. (Ed.) Internationale und Vergleichende Erziehungswissenschaft. Geschichte, Theorie, Methode und Forschungsfelder. Münster: Waxmann, p. 107-1.
Budde, J., Blasse, N., & Johannsen, S. (2017). Praxistheoretische Inklusionsforschung im Schulunterricht. Zeitschrift für Inklusion, (4). Abgerufen von https://www.inklusion-online.net/index.php/inklusion-online/article/view/358
Cornwall, A., & Jewkes, R. (1995). What is participatory research? Social Science & Medicine, 41 (12),p. 1667–1676.
Fend, H. (2008). Neue Theorie der Schule. Einführung in das Verstehen von Bildungssystemen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
Hung D., Chen D., Wong A. (2006). An Overview of Virtual Learning Environments in the Asia-Pacific: Provisos, Issues, and Tensions. In: Weiss J., Nolan J., Hunsinger J., Trifonas P. (Ed.) The International Handbook of Virtual Learning Environments. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1- 4020-3803-7_27.
Klüver, J., & Krüger, H. (1972). Aktionsforschung und soziologische Theorien: Wissenschaftstheoretische Überlegungen zum Erkenntnisinteresse in der Aktionsforschung. In F. Haag, H. Krüger, W. Schwärzel, & J. Wildt (Ed.), Aktionsforschung: Forschungsstrategien, Forschungsfelder und Forschungspläne. München: Juventa, p. 76 – 99.
Kramer, D., Kramer, H., & Lehmann, S. (1979). Aktionsforschung: Sozialforschung und gesellschaftliche Wirklichkeit. In K. Horn (Ed.), Aktionsforschung: Balanceakt ohne Netz? Methodische Kommentare. Frankfurt a. M.: Syndikat, p. 21 – 40.
Nilholm, C. & Göransson, K. (2017). What is meant by inclusion? An analysis of European and North American journal articles with high impact, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 32:3, 437-451, DOI: 10.1080/08856257.2017.1295638.
Petko, D. (2010). Lernplattformen, E-Learning und Blended Learning in Schulen. In: Petko, D. (Ed.) Lernplattformen in Schulen: Ansätze für E-Learning und Blended Learning in Präsenzklassen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, p. 9 – 29.
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2001). Introduction: Inquiry and participation in search of a world worthy of human aspiration. In Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. (Ed.), Handbook of action research. London: Sage, S. 1 – 14.
Reiss K., Weis, M. Klieme E. Köller, O. (2019) Grundbildung im internationalen Vergleich. Münster: Waxmann.
Richardson, John & Powell Justin J.W. (2011). Comparing Special Education: Origins to Contemporary Paradoxes. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Singal, N.; Lynch, P.; Johansson, S. (2018). Education and Disability in the Global South: New Perspectives from Africa and Asia. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
|
