Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 19th Aug 2026, 21:30:09 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
06 SES 11 A: Open Educational Practices and Institutional Transformation
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
06. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Paper Imperfect by Design: Lessons from an Open Educational Practices DBR-Project in Teacher Education University of Vechta, Germany Presenting Author:Open Educational Resources (OER) (UNESCO 2012) and Open Educational Practices (OEP) (Ehlers 2011) are widely discussed as key levers for fostering collaboration, innovation, and quality in higher education across Europe (Aksoy et al. 2025, Alquézar Sabadie et al. 2014, Knox 2013, Otto et al. 2021, Wiley 2010). While much attention has been given to the production and quality assurance of open artifacts – recently intensified by the rapid diffusion of AI-based tools – there is a growing concern that a strong product-oriented focus risks obscuring the relational, cultural, and participatory dimensions of openness (Helbig & Lukács 2019). Against this background, this presentation questions and conceptualizes openness not as a finished product, but as an ongoing educational practice shaped through social interaction, negotiation, and shared responsibility. Drawing on design-based-research approaches as a theoretical-methodological framework, this contribution explores the question of how the “imperfect by design” character of OER-artifacts, interventions to foster OEP, and the DBR process itself shape what and how knowledge about openness can be produced in the making of OER, while fostering OEP. To find context-sensitive solutions for this problem from a theoretical, empirical, and practical point of view we introduce findings from a research project, that over 18 months implemented so-called OER-Teams in certain subjects of teacher training at a small university in Germany. We understand these OER-Teams and the project as an Educational Space, that allows to promote OER in teacher education and the overall development of open educational practices in higher education. Within these OER-Teams students and teachers worked together on OER and specific phenomena of teaching and learning in their subjects. Teachers were invited to act as facilitators and co-designers of learning environments, while students participated as partners in the (re-)design of courses and learning materials. Six teams, each consisting of one or more teachers and students from different subjects, participated in this interdisciplinary project. The project aim was not primarily to produce OER artifacts, but to accompany participants in experimenting with Open Educational Practices within their courses. Accordingly, productive activities related to digital technologies, and ‘doing’ in the interplay of practice and research were essential for our project. In this way, the OER-Teams were supposed to primarily support reflection on teaching practices, in which OER as well as the sharing culture of OER come alive in the faculty. The project aim was to enable a situated community of practices (Baas et al. 2022, Wenger et al. 2010). Therefore, the OER-Teams were directly connected to current individual challenges in everyday teaching practice at the university. This contribution unfolds in a three step way. After introducing the project, the presentation shifts focus to analyze the transversal dimensions of open education like strategy, leadership, technology and quality (Inamorato dos Santos et al. 2016), focusing on the questions:
Finally, the potential reactions such OER/OEP projects might face and context-specific solutions, preparing stakeholders for similar challenges are highlighted and discussed. This analysis contributes to supporting the European Union's perspective (2013, 2016) on promoting openness in higher education institutions and broader academic debates on inclusive, participatory educational spaces. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The study follows a Design-Based Research (DBR) approach, which is particularly suited for investigating complex educational innovations in real-educational contexts (McKenney & Reeves 2018, Reinmann 2020). DBR is to enable the iterative development, implementation, and analysis of design interventions while simultaneously contributs to a theoretical understanding (Brase 2024) of Open Educational Practices as socio-cultural practice (Bellinger et al. 2018). The project combines interventions – such as individual consultations, design workshops, and peer feedback sessions – with qualitative empirical inquiry. These interventions aim to support shifts in roles and participation, inviting teachers to act as facilitators and co-designers of learning environments and students to participate as partners in the redesign of courses and learning materials. We will present insights situated at a faculty of teacher education at a small university where we accompanied teams of teachers and students over two semesters (2024–2025). For the empirical part of the study, we draw on multiple qualitative data sources collected during the whole project. These include group discussions with participating teachers and students, semi-structured interviews with students, case studies created by the project team and analysis of the artifacts and learning scenarios developed during the project. All data were audio-recorded, transcribed, and anonymized. In addition, narrative materials were subsequently created to accompany the OER teams in order to document our experiences in supporting participants in the context of project practice. One analytical focus was on ‘rich points’ (Agar 2006) in the sense of irritations and unexpected situations in the collaboration between practice and research. The qualitative analysis began with the reconstruction of verbally communicated data focussing on to carve out the entanglement of role negotiations, participation and the understanding of openness in order to achieve an understanding of ‘imperfection’. In line with the design-based logic of the project, analysis and design are closely intertwined: interim findings inform subsequent design decisions, forms of accompaniment and continuously highlight the imperfections. By presenting empirical findings from the design-based process, the paper reflects the exploratory and iterative character of the research process. Reflecting on the social embeddedness of openness, it highlights the situatedness of educational spaces, drawing attention to the imperfect, vague or ambivalent nature of design-based research approaches which are – as we would like to point out – “imperfect by design”. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The expected outcome of the contribution is a differentiated understanding of how openness is enacted, negotiated, and sometimes constrained within participatory design processes in higher education. Based on empirical insights, we will show how Open Educational Practices emerge less through the production of polished artifacts and more through shared reflection, experimentation, and the reconfiguration of traditional roles between teachers and students. Our findings suggest that participatory and interdisciplinary collaboration can foster reflective engagement with teaching and learning practices and support the development of OEP communities. At the same time, the analysis reveals tensions between openness as a process and the project expectations that prioritize tangible outputs in the form of sharable OER. A strong focus on artifact production tends to foreground media-design and quality issues, while practices of sharing experiences, uncertainties, and unfinished ideas remain more fragile. With an empirically sound contribution to current discussions on open learning environments, roles, and participation, the presentation aims to open a dialogue about imperfection in the context of design-based research and to critically reflect on the limits of openness within institutionalized settings. References Aksoy, D. A., Kurşun, E., & Zawacki‐Richter, O. (2025). Factors Affecting the Sustainability of Open Educational Resource Initiatives in Higher Education: A Systematic Review. Review of Education 13 (1): e70029. Agar, M. (2006). An Ethnography By Any Other Name ... Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7(4). Alquézar Sabadie, J., Muñoz, J., Punie, Y., Redecker, C., & Vuorikari, R. (2014). OER: A European policy perspective. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2014(1). Baas, M., Schuwer, R., Van Den Berg, E., Huizinga, T., Van Der Rijst, R., & Admiraal, W. (2022). The Role of Brokers in Cultivating an Inter-Institutional Community around Open Educational Resources in Higher Education. Higher Education 85(5): 999–1019. Bellinger, F., Bettinger, P., & Dander, V. (2018). Researching Open Educational Practices (OEP): Mediendidaktische Hochschulforschung zwischen Praxisrekonstruktion und Diskursanalyse. MedienPädagogik: Zeitschrift für Theorie und Praxis der Medienbildung, 32, 108–121. Brase, A. K. (2024). Knowledge generation between design, data and theory: Argumentation in design-based research. EDeR. Educational Design Research, 8(1). Ehlers, U.-D. (2011). Extending the Territory: From Open Educational Resources to Open Educational Practices. Journal of Open Flexible and Distance Learning, 15(2). European Commission (2013). Opening up Education: Innovative teaching and learning for all through new Technologies and Open Educational Resources. Inamorato Dos Santos A, Punie Y and Castaño Muñoz J. (2016). Opening up Education: A Support Framework for Higher Education Institutions. Publications Office of the European Union. Helbig, C., & Lukacs, B. (2019). Openness als Prinzip von Organisationsentwicklung. Werkbericht zu partizipationsorientierten Dialogformaten im Projekt OERlabs. Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung, 14(2), 109–122. Knox, J. (2013). Five critiques of the open educational resources movement. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(8), Article 8. McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2018). Conducting Educational Design Research. Routledge. Otto, D., Schröder, N., Diekmann, D., & Sander, P. (2021). Offen gemacht: Der Stand der internationalen evidenzbasierten Forschung zu Open Educational Resources (OER). Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 24(5), 1061–1085. Pawlowski, J. M. (2012). Emotional Ownership as the Key to OER Adoption: From Sharing Products and Resources to Sharing Ideas and Commitment across Borders. EFQUEL Innovation Forum. Reinmann, G. (2020). Ein holistischer Design-Based Research-Modellentwurf für die Hochschuldidaktik. Educational Design Research, 4 (2), Article 30. UNESCO. (2012). Paris OER Declaration. Wenger, É., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. (2010). Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. Harvard Business School Press. Wiley, D. (2010). Openness as Catalyst for an Educational Reformation. EDUCAUSE Review, 45(4), 14-20. 06. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Paper Learning Platforms as Educational Space: Belonging and Participation in Lower Secondary Schools University of Vienna, Austria Presenting Author:In Austria, Covid-19-related school closures acted as a catalyst for the rapid integration of learning platforms into everyday schooling. These platforms now mediate pedagogical practices, enable new forms of communication, and support institutional decision-making, thereby constituting a novel educational space. We conceptualise educational space as a relational space that produces inclusion and exclusion, through social, symbolic and institutional arrangements (Foucault, 2006; Hummrich, 2010). As has been shown, physical educational space does not determine pedagogy in a linear or deterministic way; rather, it gains meaning through users’ practices, interpretations, and ongoing negotiations (Baars et al., 2023). We argue that this relational, non-deterministic understanding is equally applicable to digital educational spaces. Digital educational spaces are mediated through the use of learning platforms. These learning platforms must not be understood as neutral technological tools, but as socially constructed, norm-driven apparatuses that require critical examination with regard to how they reorganise teaching and learning (Kavanagh et al., 2024; Nichols & Garcia, 2022). This reorganisation results in a data-driven education that carries, amongst others, the risk of reinforcing existing inequalities and digital divides (Damberger, 2023; Helsper, 2021; Rafalow, 2020; Rafalow & Puckett, 2022). These dynamics are further intensified by profit-oriented interests of Big Tech actors in platform integration (Hartong & Decuypere, 2023; Kerssens & van Dijck, 2021). As socially co-constructed educational spaces, the way we use learning platforms can have an impact on whether or not these risks of reinforcing inequalities are mitigated or exacerbated. Students’ sense of belonging is a key ingredient for inclusive education (Alink et al., 2023; Hummrich, 2010). To better understand how to reduce the risk of reinforcing inequalities, it is therefore crucial to examine how learning platforms can be shaped in ways that foster students’ sense of belonging. Belonging is understood as a phenomenon shaped by experiences of recognition, participation, autonomy, and control (Allen & Kern, 2017; Dalhaus, 2023; Hummrich, 2010; Sasson & Rimon, 2025). To further contextualise these dynamics, we draw on data justice research in education to better understand data practices on learning platforms and their implications for visibility, participation, and marginalisation (Pangrazio et al., 2024; Pangrazio & Selwyn, 2023). Against this background, our paper asks two research questions: 1) How do students conceptualise their ideal digital educational space? 2) What can we learn from these conceptualisations for the co-creation of digital educational spaces that centre students’ sense of belonging? By positioning students as key actors in both the analysis and design of educational spaces, the study aims to challenge top-down approaches and to contribute empirically grounded insights into students’ conceptualisations of how digital educational spaces can foster belonging as a key dimension of inclusive education. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study follows a participatory design-based research approach to gain a deeper understanding of real-life needs, an approach that is considered particularly well suited to the investigation of educational space (McKenney & Reeves, 2021; Smith et al., 2025). In line with participatory design principles, students are not treated as passive research subjects but as co-designers of educational space (Dindler et al., 2020). Empirical research is conducted at three lower secondary schools in Austria located in challenging contexts, with the majority of students being part of minoritised communities. The sample includes two urban schools and one small-town school. In total, 75 students participated in a cycle of five design workshops. Across the workshop cycle, students critically engaged with the concept of data, deconstructed existing learning platforms using the DORIT model (Dindler et al., 2023), and developed ideas for alternative designs and uses of digital educational spaces, conceptualised as their “ideal learning platform”. The workshops were developed and implemented in close collaboration with class teachers. The workshops were documented after each session. In addition, students’ design artifacts were collected and analysed. Qualitative data further include semi-structured interviews with students (n = 11) and key stakeholders such as teachers and school administrators (n = 10). Data are analysed using the documentary method, which enables the reconstruction of implicit orientations, shared meanings, and collective patterns of interpretation regarding how students make sense of educational space (Bohnsack, 2011). Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Addressing RQ1, personalisation emerged as a central dimension of students’ ideal digital educational space. Students highlighted multilingual interfaces and content as crucial, identifying language barriers as a source of exclusion. Ideas for personalised learning features and AI-tutoring also reflected students’ desire for more inclusive learning opportunities. Beyond functional adaptation, personalisation was linked to self-expression: students called for customisable interfaces, avatars, and other design options. The students’ artifacts suggest that belonging in digital educational spaces is shaped not only by access, but also by opportunities to express individuality. In data-driven schools, this is particularly relevant, as students are increasingly externally defined only through their data representations or “data-doppelgangers” (Pierlejewski, 2020). Students also emphasised communication and community features. More flexible and informal ways of communication between peers were seen as essential to an ideal educational space. Demands for safer digital spaces also showed that communication on existing platforms is not experienced as equally inclusive by all students. Overall, students’ conceptualisations align with findings from research on physical educational spaces, which similarly highlight personalisation, individualisation, and social connection as key dimensions of supportive educational space (Baars et al., 2023). This supports our assumption that a relational understanding of physical educational space is equally applicable to digital educational spaces. Our findings also align with research on school belonging, emphasising self-expression as a key factor as well as a sense of community in which students feel safe and supported (Sasson & Rimon, 2025; Zaman et al., 2025). Addressing RQ2, our findings indicate that students’ conceptualisations provide concrete insights into how digital educational spaces can be co-created to foster belonging. Across the design workshops, students consistently positioned themselves as active contributors, emphasising the importance of student participation in educational research and the design of digital educational spaces. References Allen, K.-A., & Kern, M. L. (2017). School Belonging in Adolescents: Theory, Research and Practice. Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5996-4 Baars, S., Schellings, G. L. M., Joore, J. P., & Van Wesemael, P. J. V. (2023). Physical learning environments’ supportiveness to innovative pedagogies: Students’ and teachers’ experiences. Learning Environments Research, 26(2), 617–659. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-022-09433-x Dindler, C., Iversen, O. S., Hjorth, M., Smith, R. C., & Nielsen, H. D. (2023). DORIT: An analytical model for computational empowerment in K-9 education. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 37, 100599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2023.100599 Dindler, C., Smith, R., & Iversen, O. S. (2020). Computational empowerment: Participatory design in education. CoDesign, 16(1), 66–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2020.1722173 Hartong, S., & Decuypere, M. (2023). Platformed professional(itie)s and the ongoing digital transformation of education. Tertium Comparationis, 29(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.31244/tc.2023.01.01 Helsper, E. J. (2021). The digital disconnect: The causes and consequences of digital inequalities. Sage Publications. Hummrich, M. (2010). Exklusive Zugehörigkeit: Eine raumanalytische Betrachtung. Sozialer Sinn, 11(1), 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1515/sosi-2010-0102 Kerssens, N., & van Dijck, J. V. (2021). The platformization of primary education in The Netherlands. Learning, Media and Technology, 46(3), 250–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2021.1876725 McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2021). Educational design research: Portraying, conducting, and enhancing productive scholarship. Medical Education, 55(1), 82–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14280 Nichols, T. P., & Garcia, A. (2022). Platform Studies in Education. Harvard Educational Review, 92(2), 209–230. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-92.2.209 Pangrazio, L., Auld, G., Lynch, J., Sawatzki, C., Duffy, G., Hannigan, S., & O’Mara, J. (2024). Data justice in education: Toward a research agenda. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2024.2320196 Pierlejewski, M. (2020). The data-doppelganger and the cyborg-self: Theorising the datafication of education. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 28(3), 463–475. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2019.1653357 Rafalow, M. H. (2020). Digital Divisions: How Schools Create Inequality in the Tech Era. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226726724.001.0001 Rafalow, M. H., & Puckett, C. (2022). Sorting Machines: Digital Technology and Categorical Inequality in Education. Educational Researcher, 51(4), 274–278. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211070812 Sasson, I., & Rimon, R. (2025). Beyond four walls: Exploring the relationships between physical learning environments, technological resources, and sense of school belonging. Learning Environments Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-025-09554-z Zaman, R. A., Sharma, U., & Round, P. (2025). Key factors influencing the sense of belonging in students experiencing marginalisation: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2025.2556000 06. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Ignite Talk From Black Boxes to Transformative Agency: The CEDE Model and OECD’s AI Literacy Competencies in Practice 1: University of Oulu, Finland; 2: University of Eastern Finland, FInland Presenting Author:
The rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into the everyday lives of children and youth has fundamentally altered modes of communication, learning, and creativity. In the educational sector, however, discourse on AI is often narrowly confined to instrumental utility or the mitigation of threats such as cheating (Vartiainen & Tedre, 2025). This limited scope overlooks the deeper necessity of cultivating learners’ transformative agency—the capacity not merely to use, but to critique, resist, reshape, and reimagine AI-mediated systems (Vartiainen & Tedre, 2025). The recent OECD (2025) AI literacy framework emphasizes that literacy extends beyond interaction; it requires the ability to design (Designing AI) and manage (Managing AI) systems to truly understand their ethical and societal implications. To address this, the CEDE model (Contextualization, Exploration, Design, Ethical reflection) offers a pedagogical framework grounded in the learning sciences, moving learners from passive observers to active agents (Vartiainen & Tedre, 2025).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The primary aim of this presentation is to demonstrate how the CEDE model and four browser-based tools developed in the Generation AI project operationalize the competencies outlined in the OECD (2025) framework. Specifically, the study examines how: (a) Designing AI is facilitated through tools that allow learners to train their own classifiers and language models (Generation AI Teachable Machine, Little Language Machine); (b) Engaging with AI is deepened through adversarial play and "breaking" systems (Breakable Machine); and (c) Managing AI is contextualized through the simulation of profiling and recommendation algorithms (Somekone). Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The tools developed in the project demonstrate that complex AI processes can be made intelligible through "glass-boxing" methods without requiring coding skills. Regarding Designing AI, the Generation AI Teachable Machine and Little Language Machine allow students to curate data and train models, concretizing how human choices in data collection directly influence algorithmic bias and output (Pope et al., 2025a; Pope & Tedre, 2025). In the context of Engaging with AI, the Breakable Machine game inverts the traditional paradigm by rewarding students for "spoofing" (tricking) an image classifier. This failure-driven approach exposes the brittleness of AI systems and fosters critical evaluation of machine certainty (Hilke et al., 2025). Finally, supporting Managing AI, the Somekone simulator visualizes real-time profiling and clustering, allowing students to adjust recommendation parameters and observe the immediate impact on their information environment (Pope et al., 2025b). This study indicates that effective AI education requires moving beyond the use of pre-existing applications to pedagogies that open the technical and ethical "hood" of AI. By combining the CEDE model’s phases with functional design and simulation tools, educators can support the distinct competencies of designing, engaging, and managing AI as defined by the OECD. This approach is essential for cultivating transformative agency, ensuring that learners are equipped not only to adapt to an AI-infused society but to influence its structures through democratic and ethical means. References Hilke, O., Pope, N., Kahila, J., Vartiainen, H., Roos, T., Parkki, T., & Tedre, M. (2025). Failure as a learning opportunity in AI literacy. In Koli Calling ’25: Proceedings of the 25th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3769994.3770062 OECD. (2025). Empowering learners for the age of AI: An AI literacy framework for primary and secondary education (Review draft). OECD. https://ailiteracyframework.org Pope, N., Kahila, J., Vartiainen, H., & Tedre, M. (2025a). Children’s AI design platform for making and deploying ML-driven apps: Design, testing, and development. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 18, 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2025.3529994 Pope, N., Kahila, J., Vartiainen, H., Saqr, M., López-Pernas, S., Roos, T., Laru, J., & Tedre, M. (2025b). An XAI social media platform for teaching K-12 students AI-driven profiling, clustering, and engagement-based recommending. In Proceedings of the 39th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-25) (pp. 29203–29211). AAAI. Pope, N., & Tedre, M. (2025). A teachable machine for transformers. In Koli Calling ’25: Proceedings of the 25th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Article 3770061). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3769994.3770061 Vartiainen, H., & Tedre, M. (2025). The CEDE model: A learning-sciences based approach for critical and transformative K–12 AI education. In Koli Calling ’25: Proceedings of the 25th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Article 3770026). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3769994.3770026 06. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Paper Educational Franchises as Interventions in Response to Social Transformations: How TUMO is Negotiated as a Learning Space across Multiple Stakeholders FernUniversity in Hagen, Germany Presenting Author:Educational institutions and fields respond to social transformations – among them demands for digital skills, future-oriented skills, as well as STEM and creative competencies. International education franchises have emerged as a prominent response, promising scalable open learning environments. TUMO exemplifies this development. The internationally operating franchise for digital education targets youth aged 12–18, offers self-directed learning, workshops, and advanced learning labs across eleven learning fields – free of charge and with explicit claims to equity and inclusion. Central to TUMO's pedagogical vision is a claim to create a space where youth can try out different interests – supporting self-concept formation through exploration. Since 2020, more than a dozen TUMO centers have opened in over ten countries. In Germany, the KfW (Germany’s public development bank) supports the trend, envisioning to establish TUMO broadly “in the educational landscape – both in cities and in rural areas” (KfW 2026). The educational initiative, with public and philanthropic funding structures, is interesting for the context of the call, as it shapes what learning spaces become available and for whom. Three of the TUMO centers in Germany are being accompanied by evaluation studies (with an international perspective). The talk draws on the formative evaluation of one of the centers, addressing key dimensions raised in the network’s call: (1) Learning experiences and inclusiveness The talk examines participation patterns: who visits TUMO and how are claims to equity and inclusion negotiated in practice – within a franchise-model that is based on standardization? It then explores young people’s experiences of the learning environment through the lens of the concept of subjective wellbeing (Hascher & Hagenauer 2011; Chollet et al. 2024; Fattore et al. 2021) – which is regarded as both prerequisite and goal of educational processes (Fegter et al. 2024). The talk addresses several dimensions of wellbeing: whether youth develop positive attitudes toward visiting TUMO and experience positive emotions during visits (such as joy, fascination, and moments of resonance where content touches them); how youth experience support from pedagogical staff; how they handle uncertainties. Crucially, it also examines dimensions of agency and growth (eudaimonic well-being Soffia & Turner 2021; Ryff & Singer 2008; Faulstich & Grell 2005): Do young people experience themselves as actors, who can shape their learning and environment? Do they experience self-efficacy? Do they perceive personal development? Following Faulstich's learning theory (Faulstich & Ludwig 2004), these wellbeing dimensions are interpreted as indicators for expansive learning processes. Finally, the paper examines which wishes the young people articulate for how TUMO should configure its offerings and pedagogical relationships to support their wellbeing and learning.
(2) Challenges of pedagogical work: between franchise standardization and situative responsiveness How do pedagogical practitioners navigate multiple challenges in this context? First, the potential tensions between franchise protocols and the non-standardizable demands of professional pedagogical work: Professional pedagogical work inherently requires individualized accompaniment and situated responsiveness to specific youth and emerging learning situations – yet franchise models emphasize standardization. Second, the challenge of connecting to regional contexts: How do practitioners translate franchise content to connect meaningfully with youth's lifeworlds and the real-world contexts of their region? And third, the challenge of pedagogical work in self-directed learning environments.
(3) Negotiating TUMO across multiple stakeholders – and how the franchise shapes the educational field The franchise-intervention is not a neutral roll-out. Centers enter densely populated educational landscapes. How is TUMO – its program, formats, role, and legitimacy – negotiated as a learning space across multiple stakeholders? How does the educational field respond to the intervention? Which partnerships, roles, and boundaries emerge in this process? And how does the center shape the surrounding educational field and institutions?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The presentation is based on the formative evaluation of the TUMO Center in Lüdenscheid, Germany – with cross-national comparisons to other TUMO Centers. The evaluative research study integrated multiple qualitative and quantitative methods. Capturing the initial educational landscape and context. To reconstruct the field into which TUMO entered, several instruments were employed: A quantitative online survey (n=332, ages 12-18) examined youth's leisure interests, activities, and action spaces and explored their use and perception of existing non-formal education offerings. In addition, an analysis of 136 non-formal educational and cultural institutions mapped the densely populated institutional field. Qualitative interviews and focus groups with pedagogical staff from 16 institutions (25 persons) captured practitioners' perspectives on STEM+ education challenges. A group discussion with principals from all secondary schools examined cooperation interests and needs. Expert interviews with representatives from companies, alongside analysis of job postings and regional reports, captured economic framework conditions. Reconstructing negotiation processes. Since TUMO's opening, the study tracks unfolding dynamics through multiple instruments: Interviews and group discussions with school and non-formal education actors reconstruct negotiations between stakeholders. Ongoing standardized surveys with youth participants examine participation patterns, subjective wellbeing and learning setting experiences. Ethnographic observations and group discussions reconstruct appropriation processes and interactions within the center. Regular exchange formats with center actors and participation in regional networking events provide ongoing insight. Cross-national contextualization. Researchers visited other TUMO centers in Germany and internationally, conducting interviews with management and pedagogical staff, non-participant observations, and exchanges with youth. This comparative perspective enables distinguishing site-specific from franchise-wide dynamics. The combination of mapping (initial context), tracking (processes over time), and comparing (cross-site) enables comprehensive understanding of how the educational franchise becomes embedded in the educational field. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The talk addresses the questions addressed above. It shows for example, that despite its claim for inclusiveness, the center reaches a disproportionate number of students from academic-track schools (Gymnasium) – while students disproportionately affected by educational inequality remain absent. The standardized self-learning pathway creates systematic barriers - content feels inaccessible for some, many “click through without engaging”. In “superdiverse” contexts (El-Mafaalani 2023), providing an open space does not automatically create access - resonance and lifeworld connections require active pedagogical mediation. Coaches see themselves confronted with the challenge to actively cultivate both – and face structural dilemmas. Orienting primarily to the software's inherent logic risks missing youth's actual starting points, motivations, and needs; yet content-focused learning goals remain important. The franchise standardization exacerbates the conflict: The software's standardized pathways and predetermined sequences conflict with wishes for autonomy and with individualized responsiveness a diverse youth require. References Chollet, Delphine; Turner, Alexandra; Marquez, Jose; O’Neill, Jack & Moore, Louise (2024). The Good Childhood Report 2024. London: The Children’s Society. El-Mafaalani, Aladin (2023). Bildungsgerechtigkeit, Superdiversität und neue Ungleichheiten. Herausforderungen für multiprofessionelle Kooperation. S. 93-104 in: Fischer, Christian; Platzbecker, Paul (Hrsg.): Aufholen nach Corona? Was Schule zu mehr Bildungsgerechtigkeit beitragen kann. Münster: Waxmann. El-Mafaalani, Aladin; Kurtenbach, Sebastian & Strohmeier, Klaus Peter (2025). Kinder. Minderheit ohne Schutz. Aufwachsen in der alternden Gesellschaft. Köln: Kiepenheuer & Witsch Fattore, Tobia; Fegter, Susann & Hunner-Kreisel, Christine (Hrsg.) (2021). Children’s Concepts of Well-being. Challenges in International Comparative Qualitative Research. Springer Faulstich, Peter (2002). Lernen braucht Support. Aufgaben der Institutionen beim „selbstbestimmten Lernen“ S. 144-158 in (Hrsg.). Selbstgesteuertes Lernen in der Weiterbildung. Hohengehren: Schneider Verlag. Faulstich, Peter & Ludwig, Joachim (Hrsg.) (2004). Expansives Lernen. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Faulstich, Peter & Grell, Petra (2005). Widerständig ist nicht unbegründet – Lernwiderstände in der Forschenden Lernwerkstatt. S. 18.-93 in Faulstich, Peter; Forneck, Hermann J.; Grell, Petra; Häßner, Katrin; Knoll, Jörg & Springer, Angela (Hrsg.). Lernwiderstand – Lernumgebung – Lernberatung. Empirische Fundierungen zum selbstgesteuerten Lernen. Fegter, Susann, & Fattore, Tobia (2024). Child Well-being als Zugang zu Lebenswelten, Lebenslagen und Bildungsräumen. S. 123 – 150 In: Schierbaum, Anja; Diederichs, Miriam & Kristina Schierbaum (Hrsg.): Kind(er) und Kindheit(en) im Blick der Forschung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Hascher, Tina & Hagenauer, Gerda (2011). Wohlbefinden und Emotionen in der Schule als zentrale Elemente des Schulerfolgs unter der Perspektive geschlechtsspezifischer Ungleichheiten. S. 285-308 In: Hadjar, Andreas (Hrsg.). Geschlechtsspezifische Bildungsungleichheiten. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Ryan, Richard M. & Deci, Edward L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. In: American Psychologist. 55: S. 68–78. Ryff, Carol D. & Singer, Burton H. (2008). Know Thyself and become what you are: A eudaimonic approach to psychological well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9: S. 13-39 Soffia, Turner (2021). Measuring Children and Young People’s Subjective Wellbeing. Conceptual framework. Link | ||