99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Ignite Talk (20 slides in 5 minutes)
The Making of Educational Technologies: A Media Ethnographic Study Proposal to Research the Genesis of Educational Media Technology
Julie Lüpkes
University of Oldenburg, Germany
Presenting Author: Lüpkes, Julie
With the emergence of a multitude of new educational technology (EdTech) and the simultaneous opacity of the capabilities, limitations, and methods used by a digital tool or platform, it is becoming increasingly challenging for teachers, school administrators, and education policy makers to make sufficiently informed decisions about the use of technology in schooling. As EdTech remains a ‘black box’ (Hartong, 2021) in terms of both its functionality and emergence, sociotechnical imaginaries and algorithmic logics are inadvertently being implemented into the technology´s educational concept (Decuypere, 2019; Macgilchrist, 2019; Troeger et al., 2023).
Due to their methodology, previous studies on the development of educational media technologies have only been able to hypothesize about the discrepancy between the pedagogical conception and the actual implementation of an EdTech product (e.g., Weich et al., 2021). Meanwhile, ethnographies of the EdTech sector have either been rather event-based (Player-Koro et al., 2022) or have not yet focused on the development processes of technology (Ames, 2019; Macgilchrist, 2019; Ramiel, 2021). I would like to close this gap with my thesis by critically observing developers as they work in a relatively young venture, using a media ethnography approach. Over a time span of at least six months, I would like to investigate which, how, and why fundamental design decisions are made when translating pedagogical concepts into algorithmic environments.
The planned project is situated in two contexts. On the one hand, it is characterized by the assumption that educational media technologies emerge in an interplay of socio-technically negotiated ideas and social construction (Bijker et al., 1987), coming into being through “situated action” (Suchman, 2006, p. 70) and practices (Pink et al., 2016). A technology is therefore an expression of a certain image of educational and learning processes, of pedagogical theories and didactic concepts on the part of its developers. How exactly this image is translated into algorithmic or digital environments, how it is programmed and implemented, is the subject of a variety of negotiation processes. These are embedded in a social working context, characterized by translation practices between different internal and external actors and professions that need to be captured.
On the other hand, my dissertation project assumes that the European educational media production is undergoing a decisive digital transformation, with new players entering the market and fundamentally changing it. While established educational media publishers have to reinvent themselves in order to meet the social and political pressure of digitalization, platform-based technologies and products dominate the school EdTech market, especially from supposedly 'disruptive' start-ups (Ramiel, 2021). These new private-sector actors introduce a wide array of new sociotechnical imaginaries (Jasanoff, 2015) of education, not only to the European EdTech market, but also to more general educational discourses (Eynon & Young, 2021; Nivanaho et al., 2023). However, young EdTech organizations are also interesting for my research in that it is precisely the negotiation processes in the early founding and development phase of a venture that shape fundamental socio-technically influenced concept decisions. Therefore, this moment seems suitable for researching the medial construction of educational concepts ‘in the making’, so to speak.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedI chose to implement a media ethnographic approach to research EdTech start-ups and their inner workings. With this, I will be able to conduct educational organizational and conceptual research at the micro and meso level, for which a qualitative methodology seems appropriate. As shown, previous studies have so far refrained from ‘in situ’ research of such design processes and have only been able to ascertain that discrepancies become visible between the statements of developers about their educational ideals and the pedagogical end product of their work. The media ethnographic approach of participant observation, on the other hand, will allow me to gain a differentiated insight into pedagogical production decisions and processes. For this reason, my research project combines several data collection methods: In order to gain an overview of the research context and the startup team, ethnographic interviews will be conducted first, which will then be followed by participant observation to “study the differences between what people say they do and what they do” (Boellstorff, 2021, p. 51), for at least 6 months. Concluding interviews complete the survey, which will then be analysed with a grounded theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1999) and a special focus on “rich points” (Agar, 1996, p. 31) in my material.
The startup will be sampled along three criteria. First, the stage of development of the company is taken into account. Only projects that are still in an early phase, i.e. are either about to be founded (pre-seed phase) or have recently been founded (seed-phase), are considered, because it can be assumed that interesting fundamental technical and educational product development decisions are made here. A second criterion is the possible access to the company. This does not only mean the possibility of being able to research a case in a purely practical way, but also the accessibility of the researched team and an openness to critical research and participant observation (Cunliffe & Alcadipani, 2016). The third (soft) criterion I apply is the relevance potential of the company to be examined, i.e. the presumed infrastructural and/or market reach of the envisaged EdTech. The reason for this is that my project is intended to gain knowledge about the algorithmic modelling of pedagogical processes across school subjects and competencies.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAs my contribution to the ERC is about proposing a research design, which I intend to implement by September 2024 in my PhD project, I will not be able to present any results. Instead, I would like to use this opportunity as a newcomer to the ERC to reflect on my research proposal, to learn from my peers, and to hear about their experiences with the topic of EdTech development and the methodology of (media) ethnography.
Especially in the European context, the matter of digital future-making seems to be a cross-cutting issue. The digitalisation and mediatisation of education and schooling are worldwide meta processes that cannot be dealt with in a regional understanding, but need a global, and especially a European perspective. EU-wide policy papers like the Digital Competence Framework for Educators show the relevance and normalisation of emerging technologies in the classroom. Digitalisation seems to be one of the few certain futures in European education. It is important to understand not only the practical impact of this ‘digital turn’ on schooling, how it changes classroom culture, competencies, and media usage in schools. It is also crucial to turn to the media production side of digitalisation in education, to ask critical questions about what parts of pedagogical theory and practice can be digitalised and how this is done, to look at new actors like EdTech startups and their imaginations of digital futures that are inscribed in EdTech.
ReferencesAgar, M. (1996). The professional stranger. Academic Press.
Ames, M. G. (2019). The Charisma Machine. MIT Press.
Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. (Eds.). (1987). The Social construction of technological systems. MIT Press.
Boellstorff, T. (2021). Rethinking Digital Anthropology. In H. Geismar & H. Knox (Eds.), Digital anthropology (pp. 44–62). Routledge.
Cunliffe, A. L., & Alcadipani, R. (2016). The Politics of Access in Fieldwork: Immersion, Backstage Dramas, and Deception. Organizational Research Methods, 19(4), 535–561.
Decuypere, M. (2019). Researching educational apps: Ecologies, technologies, subjectivities and learning regimes. Learning, Media and Technology, 1–16.
Eynon, R., & Young, E. (2021). Methodology, Legend, and Rhetoric: The Constructions of AI by Academia, Industry, and Policy Groups for Lifelong Learning. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 46(1), 166–191.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1999). The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine Transaction.
Hartong, S. (2021). The power of relation-making: Insights into the production and operation of digital school performance platforms in the US. Critical Studies in Education, 62(1), 34–49.
Jasanoff, S. (2015). Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power (S. Jasanoff & S.-H. Kim, Eds.). University of Chicago Press.
Macgilchrist, F. (2019). Cruel optimism in edtech: When the digital data practices of educational technology providers inadvertently hinder educational equity. Learning, Media and Technology, 44(1), 77–86.
Nivanaho, N., Lempinen, S., & Seppänen, P. (2023). Education as a co-developed commodity in Finland? A rhetorical discourse analysis on business accelerator for EdTech startups. Learning, Media and Technology, 1–15.
Pink, S., Horst, H. A., Postill, J., Hjorth, L., Lewis, T., & Tacchi, J. (Eds.). (2016). Digital ethnography: Principles and practice. SAGE.
Player-Koro, C., Jobér, A., & Bergviken Rensfeldt, A. (2022). De-politicised effects with networked governance? An event ethnography study on education trade fairs. Ethnography and Education, 17(1), 1–16.
Ramiel, H. (2021). Edtech Disruption Logic and Policy Work: The Case of an Israeli Edtech Unit. Learning, Media and Technology, 46(1), 20–32.
Suchman, L. (2006). Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions. Cambridge University Press.
Troeger, J., Zakharova, I., Macgilchrist, F., & Jarke, J. (2023). Digital ist besser!? – Wie Software das Verständnis von guter Schule neu definiert (pp. 93–129). Springer VS.
Weich, A., Deny, P., Priedigkeit, M., & Troeger, J. (2021). Adaptive Lernsysteme zwischen Optimierung und Kritik: Eine Analyse der Medienkonstellationen bettermarks aus informatischer und medienwissenschaftlicher Perspektive. MedienPädagogik, 44, 22–51.
99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Ignite Talk (20 slides in 5 minutes)
Digitally Divided? The Fabrication of 'Technology' and 'Social Background' in the International Comparative School Achievement Study ICILS 2018
Felix Büchner
University of Oldenburg, Germany
Presenting Author: Büchner, Felix
Over the past 20-30 years, international comparative school achievement studies have established themselves as a key influence for designing educational processes in European schools and beyond (Martens et al., 2016). They have led to the immense prominence of educational standards and thus to a paradigm shift at almost all levels of education in schools (Vogt & Neuhaus, 2021). In this sense, the logics of international educational standards have become deeply inscribed in the logic of European educational research and practice. Accordingly, what is considered 'education' today is largely configured by the international circulation of educational standards through international comparative studies. Following the success of the PISA study, it is therefore not surprising that the way students use digital media technologies in schools is also being surveyed according to these logics and recorded with the help of standardisation and international comparison. The international comparative school performance study ICILS (International Computer and Information Literacy Study) plays a central role in this by attempting to assess the so-called computer and information literacy of eighth-graders in 2018, as it did in 2013. As expected, there was a great deal of media attention in Germany when the study was published, as its results seemingly suggested that students "learnt nothing" (Schmoll, 2019; transl.) with regard to their digital skill and a large number of them are "left behind" (Unterberg, 2019; transl.). What didn’t find its way into this reception were the techniques, methods and apparatus with which such comparable standards and forms of knowledge are fabricated and organised in the first place.
This Ignite Talk takes a critical look at the ICILS 2018 study and these standardisation dynamics. A particular focus is put on the categories and items that are included or not included in the fabrication of comparable school performance data. To exemplify, this contribution questions the items 'technology' and 'social background' as well as their relationship. Although both categories are central and controversially discussed in European educational research, their constructions in international comparative studies such as PISA or ICILS are not self-explanatory. What constitutes a 'technology' or a 'social background' must first be operationalised in the study designs – it has to be constructed in a certain way in order to be surveyed. These operationalisations are contingent and depend, among other things, on disciplinary logics, research pragmatics and institutional power dynamics (Eckhard & Mattmüller, 2017). Accordingly, the research questions of this talk are: How are 'technology' and 'social background' fabricated as categories for computer and information literacy in the international comparative study ICILS 2018? And what implications do these fabrications have for the understanding of and the encounter with digital inequality in European classrooms?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedTo answer these questions the ICILS 2018 study was first subjected to a close reading, in which particularly the chapters and sections in which the categories 'technology' and 'social background' were introduced and applied were analysed. In analysing these sections, a historical-critical stance was adopted in order to counter the assumptions that have become entrenched in comparative studies and are not (or no longer) questioned. Following the "genealogy of the critical stance" (Foucault, 1996, p. 178; transl.), this analysis was devoted to the "problematizations" (ibid., 179) of truth, i.e. those forms of knowledge that are situationally recognised as truth and serve as basis for action. Such an analysis of problematizations in their historical context allows a critical view of the inherent power relations in the knowledge systems as well as their becoming – which usually remains invisible without this step of investigation. Finally, the reconstructed problematizations that are inscribed in the categories of 'technology' and 'social background' were contrasted with a critique generated from the critical literature on educational technologies (EdTech). This critique builds on a socio-technical understanding (Selwyn, 2022) of the connections between digitality and society and offers an alternative look at digital media in European schools.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThis contribution shows how the ICILS study employs a narrow concept of technology that outsources various contexts - above all the societal context - and diametrically opposes it to the technological. This conceptual separation of the technological from the societal brings advantages for the operationalisation of various study items of the quantitative comparative study on the one hand, but on the other hand leads to a simplification of the entanglements of the technological and societal and a trivialisation of the phenomenon of sociodigital inequality (Helsper, 2021). In summary, both the ICILS study's understanding of technology and the digital divide concept it employs apply a technodeterministic perspective. This perspective harbours the risk of ignoring the social contexts in which technology acts, simplifying the study item 'social background' and correspondingly underestimating the complex phenomenon of sociodigital inequality in European classrooms.
ReferencesEckhard, S., & Mattmüller, J. (2017). Verwaltungseinfluss und Verhandlungsergebnisse in internationalen Organisationen. Moderne Staat, 2, Article 2. https://doi.org/10.3224/dms.v10i2.04
Foucault, M. (1996). Diskurs und Wahrheit: Die Problematisierung der Parrhesia: 6 Vorlesungen, gehalten im Herbst 1983 an der Universität von Berkeley/Kalifornien (J. Pearson, Ed.; M. Köller, Trans.). Merve Verlag.
Helsper, E. (2021). The digital disconnect. SAGE Publications Ltd.
Martens, K., Niemann, D., & Teltemann, J. (2016). Effects of international assessments in education – a multidisciplinary review. European Educational Research Journal, 15(5), 516–522. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904116668886
Schmoll, H. (2019, November 5). Bildung: Schüler haben bei Digitalkompetenz nichts dazugelernt. FAZ.NET. https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/bildung-schueler-haben-bei-digitalkompetenz-nichts-dazugelernt-16469645.html
Selwyn, N. (2022). Education and technology: Key issues and debates (Third edition). Bloomsbury Academic.
Unterberg, S. (2019, November 5). Computerkompetenz: Ein Drittel der Schüler ist abgehängt. Der Spiegel. https://www.spiegel.de/lebenundlernen/schule/computernutzung-ein-drittel-der-schueler-ist-abgehaengt-a-1294424.html
Vogt, M., & Neuhaus, T. (2021). Fachdidaktiken im Spannungsfeld zwischen kompetenzorientiertem fachlichen Lernen und inklusiver Pädagogik: Vereinigungsbemühungen oder Verdeckungsgeschehen? Zeitschrift für Grundschulforschung, 14(1), 113–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42278-020-00093-5
99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Ignite Talk (20 slides in 5 minutes)
The Impact of AI on Teaching: Teachers' Motivations and Concerns
Jurgita Bagdonaite
Vilnius University, Lithuania
Presenting Author: Bagdonaite, Jurgita
In the rapidly evolving landscape of education, the integration of AI, particularly Chatbots, presents a fundamental area of exploration. My research is centered around the critical question: "How does the integration of AI, particularly Chatbots, affect the professional activities of teachers, and how do educators envision their roles with these AI tools?" This inquiry delves into the transformative impact of artificial intelligence on educational practices. The theoretical framework of this research is multi-faceted, intertwining educational philosophy paradigms with contemporary socio-technological theories.
At its core, the research utilizes a constructivist paradigm, inspired by the works of Papert (1971), Kay (2011), Ilic et al. (2021) viewing AI as a dynamic tool enhancing the learning process. It actively transforms education and motivates teachers to prepare students for the future. These tools simplify complex concepts by relating them to familiar ones within the environment and have the potential to create their models of the world. Complementing this, the postmodern perspective, particularly Foucault's and other Foucauldian scholars contributing to this discourse's insights on power dynamics and knowledge creation, offers a lens to examine the interaction between technology and educators. It probes into how these interactions influence societal structures and control within the educational realm.
Furthermore, the application of Actor-Network Theory (ANT), as conceptualized by Latour (2005), provides a nuanced understanding of AI in education. ANT posits that both technology and humans, in this case, educators, are co-actors in the social world, shaping and being shaped by each other. This theory is particularly relevant in exploring how educators interact with AI tools like Chatbots, forming a symbiotic relationship that redefines the educational landscape.
The research also draws attention to the broader European and international dimensions, reflecting on the insights from UNESCO which underscore the importance of technology in future educational models. The response of European countries, as noted by the OECD and the European Parliament, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic, highlights the strength and adaptability of implementing AI in various sectors, including education.
This research aims not only to provide a theoretical understanding of these dynamics but also to offer practical insights for educators and policymakers. The increasing necessity for teacher professional development in line with technological advancements is a crucial aspect of this study. It addresses the potential risks of a future where educators might be unprepared for the integration of modern AI tools in their teaching practices.
In conclusion, this research analyzing the motivations, implications, and future prospects of AI integration in teacher professional activities, it aims to contribute significantly to the discourse on technology and education, ensuring that educators are well-equipped to harness the benefits of AI in their professional lives.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedIn my PhD research, I am planning to use Actor-Network Theory (ANT) as both a theoretical and methodological approach to explore the intricate relationship between educators and artificial intelligence tools, particularly Chatbots. ANT, a framework developed in the field of Science and Technology Studies, offers a unique lens through which the complex networks of interactions between human and non-human actors can be examined. In the context of my research, this involves understanding how educators, as human actors, interact with and are influenced by AI technologies, which are non-human actors in the educational landscape.
However, I am currently conducting a survey with teachers to gather data on their readiness and motivation to use digital tools, particularly AI technologies like Chatbots. The survey seeks to understand the educators' level of engagement with these technologies, their perceptions of its benefits and challenges, and their willingness to integrate such tools into their teaching practices.
Therefore, in this conference, I will also present this dynamic to provide a more holistic understanding of the impact of AI on teaching and teachers' motivations to use these tools. This mixed-methods approach allows for a more comprehensive exploration of the topic. The qualitative aspect focuses on the nuanced, detailed experiences and perceptions of educators, while the quantitative aspect offers a broader, statistically significant perspective.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsOne of the primary expected outcomes is a detailed insight into educators readiness and motivation to incorporate AI tools in their teaching practices. The survey conducted with teachers is likely to reveal varied levels of engagement with these technologies, influenced by factors such as technological proficiency, perceived benefits and challenges, and the existing educational infrastructure. These findings will contribute to a deeper understanding of the factors that drive or hinder the adoption of AI in education.
In general this research is expected to provide comprehensive findings on the integration of AI in education, with a focus on the perspective of teachers. It aims to inform future practices in educational technology, ensuring that the incorporation of AI tools like Chatbots is effectively aligned with the needs and capabilities of educators. This alignment is crucial for maximizing the potential of AI in enhancing educational outcomes and preparing students and teachers for a future increasingly influenced by technological advancements.
ReferencesAusat, A. M. A. (2022). Positive Impact of The Covid-19 Pandemic on The World of Education. Jurnal Pendidikan, 23(2), 107-117.
Ausat, A. M. A., Massang, B., Efendi, M., Nofirman, N., Riady, Y. (2023). Can Chat GPT Replace the Role of the Teacher in the Classroom: A Fundamental Analysis. Journal on Education, 5(4), 100-106
Ball, S. J. (2013). Foucault and education: Disciplines and knowledge. Routledge.
Fenwick, T., Edwards, R. (2010). Introduction: Reclaiming and renewing actor network theory for educational research. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(sup1), 1-14.
Gough, N. (2004). RhizomANTically Becoming-Cyborg: Performing posthuman pedagogies. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 36(3), 253-265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2004.00066.x
Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Vintage.
Heimans, S., Biesta, G., Takayama, K., & Kettle, M. (2023). ChatGPT, subjectification, and the purposes and politics of teacher education and its scholarship. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 51(2), 105-112. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2023.2189368
Ilic, M. P., Paun, D., Popovic Ševic, N., Hadžic, A., Jianu, A. (2021). Needs and performance analysis for changes in higher education and implementation of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and extended reality. Education Sciences, 11(10), 568.
Kay, A. C. (1991). Computers, networks and education. Scientific American, 265(3), 138-149.
Latour, B. (2005) Reassembling the Social: An introduction to actor-network theory, (Oxford, Oxford University Press).
OECD (2021). OECD Digital Education Outlook. Retrieved from: https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/oecd-digital-education-outlook-2021_589b283f-en#page5
Papert, S. (1993). The children's machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. Basic Books, a Division of HarperCollins Publishers.
Rabinow P., Rose N. (2006) Biopower today. BioSocieties 1.2: 195-217.
Simanowski, R. (2016). Digital humanities and digital media conversations on politics, culture, aesthetics, and literacy. London.
UNESCO. (2021). Pathways to 2050 and beyond: Findings from a public consultation on the futures of higher education. Retrieved from: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379985
Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, L., & Polosukhin, I. (2017). Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30.
|
