Conference Agenda

Research in the field of education has explored the role of accountability policies in different contexts (e.g. Maroy, 2015) and how performance-based systems of accountability have increasingly been implemented to ensure that schools are held responsible for quality improvement on measurable policy-indicators (Camphuijsen, 2020). Recent research has also focused on how digital tools (such as Learning Analytic Platforms, abbreviated as LAPs) are used as policy tools for governance and accountability purposes (Martinez Lunde, 2022). However, less attention has been granted to processes of democratizing these tools by involving and making them transparent to the public. This study intends to address this gap in the literature and contribute to important insights to the intersection of digital and democratic governance of schools, especially in the Nordic countries. The paper is based on the premise that technological democratization is a 'moral imperative'. (Sclove, 1992, p. 143). The Nordic, and especially the Norwegian context emerges as an interesting case as researchers have highlighted tension between internal practice of educational professionals, and external practices such as national testing policy (Martinez Lunde, 2022). Additionally, research suggests that discursive tensions between a language of performance data and democracy has been rendered more visible in policies over time (Larsen et al., 2020).
The overarching research question guiding the study is as follows: How are current digital policy tools used by policymakers and school authorities related to students’ well being and learning outcomes subject to democratization? To address this question, I draw from three theoretical perspectives that inform the discussion. First, theories on accountability (O’day, 2002; Sinclair, 1995) provide a foundation for understanding how digital policy tools may provide transparency and ensure that schools are held accountable for students’ well-being and learning outcomes. This perspective emphasizes the workings of accountability when educational authorities aim to map schools’ practices when it comes to student learning and psychosocial well-being. Second, theories on professionalism (Anderson & Cohen, 2018; Sugrue & Solbrekke, 2014) highlights the importance of educators and policymakers’ autonomy to make informed decisions in the best interest of all students. Moreover, the perspective recognizes the importance of educational professionals’ judgements and contributes to a balanced discussion on the tensions between digital, “top down” governance on the one hand, and situated and contextually based professional judgement as a necessary ingredient in guiding local school development, on the other. Third, the perspective of phronesis or practical wisdom (Aristotle, 1999; Birmingham, 2004) emphasizes the need for ethical considerations and moral virtues in the process of decision-making in processes of digital governance. This perspective is chosen to add another layer of perspective to professional judgement in discussing challenges and opportunities in democratizing digital governance as it emphasizes the ethical and contextually situated judgement as key ingredients in the concept of phronesis. Additionally, the study considers the policy context in which these policy tools are situated and implemented. Even though educational policies and systems vary across countries and regions, these tools are somewhat similar across contexts. Accordingly, understanding the Nordic context will contribute to understanding the democratization of the tools in similar contexts, such as the Anglo-American and European. Also, how these tools are democratized will provide insight into how they can be used for future development of schools, and for the betterment of students’ well-being and learning outcomes.

In recent decades, there has been a major change in the education technology field, as more and more high-tech companies, including start-ups, enter the educational technology arena, previously dominated by big publishers and non-profit organizations. A large portion of the EdTech sector is profit-driven and sees the educational field as a potential market (Williamson, 2017). The discussion on technology and education has been characterized by cycles of hype, hope, and disappointment (Gouseti, 2010). The rise of the EdTech industry in the education field has been accompanied by a similar hopeful discourse about its potential to disrupt and fix the educational system (Selwyn, 2016). Is it another cycle? This question motivated us to examine what pedagogical change(s) EdTech companies offer to schools and to what extent these changes are linked to the pedagogical changes required in the education system as described in the literature.

Educational researchers and leading agencies state that owing to trends of digitalism, globalism, and aspirations towards a knowledge society, life in the 21st century involves new challenges (e.g., growing need for innovation and knowledge creation) (Law 2014; OECD, 2018; Tan et al., 2021). Therefore, today’s students must develop certain skills, orientations, and competencies, often termed 21st-century skills (National Research Council, 2012).

Moreover, educational researchers and agencies state that the educational system should undergo a transformative change towards learner-centered pedagogies. This is imperative because the prevailing teacher-centered instruction in schools is deemed inadequate for fostering 21st-century skills among students (Bremner et al., 2022; Tan et al., 2021; OECD, 2018).

Learner-centeredness is not merely about students being active during the lesson, but rather, it is about students being involved in decision-making about their learning in dialogue with peers and the teacher, metaphorically co-writing the script of their learning with the teachers. In contrast, in teacher-centered pedagogy, teachers write the learning script: they control every aspect of the educational situation (Ben-David Kolikant, 2019; Bremner et al., 2022; Gutierrez et al., 1995).

According to Law (2014), who reviewed empirical studies related to pedagogical innovation and change, another important dimension to consider when analyzing pedagogical innovation and change is the role students, teachers, and technology will play, and their closeness to teacher-centered and learner-centered practice.

Finally, learner-centered pedagogies feature high curricular flexibility. Namely a certain degree of freedom for students to make decisions and co-write their learning scripts and the freedom required for teachers to support the diverse needs that emerge as students undergo these learning processes (Bremner et al., 2022).

This transformative change towards learner-centered pedagogies means restructuring educational goals and a dramatic change in teachers and students' roles and responsibilities (Law 2014; OECD 2018). Such a change can be classified as a second-order change, a term that refers to cases where the system itself undergoes a change that involves restructuring the goals, procedures, and boundaries of the system. In contrast, first-order change refers to cases where there is a change in the way procedures are carried out in a given system, but the system itself and the essence of these procedures remain the same (Ertmer, 2005; Watzlawick et al., 1974). Technology can support and sustain a second-order change towards learner-centeredness (Ertmer, 2005; Law, 2014; OECD, 2018).

We examined EdTech companies that offer pedagogically-oriented products for K-12 formal education from a pedagogical perspective. Data sources were the websites of all companies that presented at the ASU+GSV summit, 2018. Comparing each product’s description against learner-centered pedagogy principles, we revealed that only a few companies aim at second-order change. The majority aim at middle-order change, within which one component of traditional teacher-centered pedagogy is broken, yet the essence of teacher-centeredness is preserved.

Over the last few years, the number of pedestrian fatalities on urban roads has increased, due largely to infractions associated with their behaviors (e.g., crossing when traffic lights are red). It is argued these behaviors reflect a lack of risk perception. Road safety programs have tried to raise awareness through different methods, using quite often experiences with emotional impact (e.g., testimonies of people who have experienced an accident themselves). Advances in technology have made it possible to develop more effective intervention programs. Concretely, VR technology provides new opportunities for human factors research in areas that are dangerous or difficult to study in the real world. Generally, it has been deployed with the aim of increasing the efficacy of these safety programs. Previous studies have demonstrated the potential of VR to improve pedestrian behaviors, especially when it is accompanied by a debriefing and critical reflection. Within this background, the present study aims to provide evidence regarding to what extent the use of VR on road safety might improve pedestrian behavior. Thus, in order to achieve this goal, the following research questions are posed:

RQ1: Having an accident as a pedestrian in a VR might help to improve the behavior in urban environments? In particular, does it help to reduce violations and errors and increase positive behavior? (a) The hypothesis regarding RQ1 (Hypothesis 1) is that having an accident as a pedestrian in VR will be associated with a reduction in the number of violations and errors and an increase in the number of positive behaviors.

RQ2: Having a reflection and debriefing on the experience in an urban VR environment might help to improve pedestrian behavior? In particular, does it help to reduce violations and errors and increase positive behavior? The hypothesis regarding the RQ2 (Hypothesis 2) is that having a reflection and debriefing on the experience will be associated with a reduction in the number of violations and errors and an increase in the number of positive behaviors.