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).
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
06 SES 11 B: Multimodal Learning in the Classroom
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
06. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Paper Developing Secondary School Students’ Listening Comprehension of Broadcast Texts University of Tartu, Estonia Presenting Author:Understanding oral language is the basis for the development of not only students’ communication skills, but also general language skills. Comprehending spoken text is a complex activity in which students need to decode words, and receive, engage, analyse, and summarise the information (Butcher & Kintsch, 2012; Nouwens et al., 2018). Of all language skills, students use listening skills the most in everyday life (Janusik & Wolvin, 2009; Gleitman et al., 2014). At the same time, media consumption habits have changed. Moreover, the authenticity of information and language authenticity have become a problem in broadcast media. Therefore, the use of social media and other forms of written communication in recent decades has led to a greater focus on developing reading skills and understanding written text, with less attention paid to the conscious teaching of listening skills (Aruvee, 2023; Hogan et al., 2014). Compared to other countries, Estonia focuses significantly less on students’ listening comprehension, its development, and related research than on the assessment of other skills (e.g., Cain, 2010; Oakhill et al., 2015). Ehala et al. (2015) state that education in Estonia does not provide sufficient preparation for higher education in terms of listening comprehension. Comparative studies (Clinton-Lisell, 2022; Freed & Cain, 2021) and Estonian language national tests include both listening and reading tasks, but as they use different types of texts and tasks, it is not possible to assert in which skills Estonian students excel (see Toime, Ots, Bogdanova, 2021). The article focuses on secondary school students’ ability to understand hearing texts and how they master various comprehension strategies for understanding hearing texts. Text comprehension strategies are defined as sets of cognitive and metacognitive, intentional and purposeful activities undertaken to improve the understanding of texts by enabling readers to control, monitor and foster their level of comprehension (Kong, 2019). Five strategies were chosen from the previous empirical studies: writing a summary based on the text; answering questions; identifying the main idea; understanding figurative language; and formulating pro and con arguments (Boulware-Gooden et al., 2007; Elleman, 2017; van Keer & Verhaeghe, 2005). Aim and research questions The ability to understand oral language and teaching this skill in school is important, as listening skills are necessary both in everyday life and for academic success. This article is based on a pilot study that used broadcasts of the Estonian Public Broadcasting. It examines how well secondary school students (in grades 10 to 12) understand oral language news. It also examines what strategies students use to comprehend oral language in the tasks that require open-ended answers. The research questions are as follows:
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Participants. The sample consisted of 87 students from two secondary schools. One of them was a city school with a homogeneous group of high-achieving students (N = 46), and the other was a rural comprehensive school with students of varying abilities (N = 41). The students were aged 16 to 19. Instruments. The listening tasks were based on a broadcast covering four topics: 1) Restrictions on social media use for minors, which assessed the students' ability to argue, express their opinion, and understand the different points of view presented in the text; 2) The impact of artificial intelligence on the labour market, which assessed the ability to write a summary based on the text heard (within a specified maximum number of words); 3) Inequality in the recognition of scientific achievements, where students were asked to formulate the main idea of the text in one sentence and answer questions to test their understanding of the text; 4) Introduction to a radio play, which assessed students’ understanding of figurative language. Text excerpts were selected from the broadcast, which the students first listened to and then completed different tasks (e.g., multiple-choice questions; text writing. In the case of open-ended tasks, spelling, sentence coherence, and accuracy of the facts used in the text were assessed. Description of tasks * Talk show “Reporter Hour”: Representatives from various fields discussed the imposition of social media restrictions on minors. Description of tasks: 1) multiple-choice tasks; 2) an open-ended task; 3) answering a question. * Popular science opinion piece: The speaker discussed the impact of artificial intelligence on jobs, drawing several parallels with previous turning points in human history. The speaker gave examples and connected them with other areas of life. Description of tasks: Writing a summary based on the text. * Opinion piece “A mediocre intellect receives undeserved recognition in the age of artificial intelligence”: The speaker used various examples to discuss an ethical problem that exists in the scientific world. Description of tasks: 1) open-ended tasks; 2) writing the correct number in a blank space, which was concluded from the broadcast; 3) summarising the content and main idea in one sentence. * Introduction of the quiz show “Smart Club”: The host used varied language (metaphors, synonyms, comparisons with historical events) to introduce the time, place, and participants of the game. Description of tasks: Answering questions based on the text. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The pilot study revealed that the task related to the broadcast on ethics in the scientific world was best solved by students when they had to listen carefully to notice how many groups the speaker divided intellectually capable people into. However, the students had difficulty identifying repeated words in the text (they had to choose two words from a list of five). The students also encountered difficulties when following the introduction to the quiz show: most made a mistake in determining the date of the show (May) because the host used a figurative expression instead of common language. The problem with the tasks based on quiz show text was that the students did not use their background knowledge (for example, they did not know the date of Europe Day) and were unable to integrate their prior knowledge with the information presented in the text. This task proved to be the most difficult because it used a high density of figurative language. Based on these results, several recommendations can be made. First, since modern teaching methods include more audio-visual teaching aids, attention should be paid to the development of students’ listening skills. Second, teachers should consider the appropriateness and relevance of the text, and recognise the need to expand the students’ vocabulary and background knowledge, as well as choose learning materials that would increase their ability to understand the oral language. Focusing on keywords is an important comprehension strategy that requires more explanation for students. Further studies, based on the results of this pilot study, would identify problems that students experience in oral language comprehension and the development of their text comprehension skills. References Aruvee, M. (2023). Text-centered approach to content and language teaching: Theoretical framework and practical implications. Doctoral thesis. Tallinn University. Boulware-Gooden, R., Carreker, S., Thornhill, A., & Joshi, R. M. (2007). Instruction of metacognitive strategies enhances reading comprehension and vocabulary achievement of third-grade students. The Reading Teacher, 61(1), 70–77. Butcher, K. R., & Kintsch, W. (2012). Text comprehension and discourse processing. In I. B. Weiner, A. F. Healy, & R. W. Proctor (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology: Experimental Psychology (2nd ed., vol. 4, pp. 578–605). Somerset: Wiley. Cain, K. (2010). Reading development and difficulties. Chicester: British Psychological Society and Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Clinton-Lisell, V. (2022). Listening ears or reading eyes: A meta-analysis of reading and listening comprehension comparisons. Review of Educational Research, 92(4), 543–582. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211060871 Elleman, A. M., Steacy, L. M., Gilbert, J. K., Cho, E., Miller, A. C., Coyne-Green, A., Pritchard, P., Fields, R. S., Shaeffer, S., & Compton, D. L. (2022). Exploring the role of knowledge in predicting reading and listening comprehension in fifth grade students. Learning and Individual Differences, 98, 102182, 1–13. Freed, J., & Cain, K. (2021). Assessment of inference‐making in children using comprehension questions and story retelling: Effect of text modality and a story presentation format. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 56(3), 637–652. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12620. Ehala, M., Kerge, K., Lepajõe, K., & Sõrmus, K. (2015). Kõrgkoolide üliõpilaste eesti keele oskuse tase. Uuringukokkuvõte. Tartu: Tartu Ülikool. Gleitman, H., Gross, J., & Reisberg, D. (2014). Psühholoogia. Tartu: Hermes. Hogan, T. P., Adlof, S. M., & Alonzo, C. N. (2014). On the importance of listening comprehension. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 16(3), 199–207. Janusik, L. A., & Wolvin, A. D. (2009). 24 hours in a day: A listening update to the time studies. International Journal of Listening, 23(2), 104–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/10904010903014442. Nouwens, S., Groen, M. A., Kleemans, T., & Verhoeven, L. (2018). The role of semantic retrieval in children’s reading comprehension development in the upper primary grades. Journal of Research in Reading, 41(3), 597–614. Oakhill, J., Cain, K., & Elbro, C. (2015). Understanding and Teaching Reading Comprehension. London: Routledge. Toime, N., Ots, A., & Bogdanova, O. (2021). Lühikokkuvõte 2021/2022. õppeaasta 7. klassi eesti keele e-tasemetöö tulemustest. Haridus- ja Teadusministeerium. https://projektid.edu.ee/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=94446869 van Keer, H., & Verhaeghe, J. P. (2005). Effects of explicit reading strategies instruction and peer tutoring on second and fifth graders’ reading comprehension and self-efficacy perceptions. The Journal of Experimental Education, 73(4), 291–329. 06. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Paper Not As Bad as Their Reputation? Using Decorative Pictures to Enhance Learning in Elementary School University of Wuppertal, Germany Presenting Author:“Students learn better from words and pictures than from words alone” – It has been 25 years since Richard Mayer stated his Multimedia Principle (CTML; Mayer, 2001, p. 63), and since then, a vast amount of research has been conducted on the question of how such combinations of words and pictures should look like. Many of according recommendations are based on assumptions on how information is processed in working memory. In short, we process incoming information mainly through two channels, a verbal (ears) and a visual (eyes), and it is recommended to combine these two so that both channels are being used instead of overloading only one (cf. Cognitive Load Theory; Sweller et al., 2011). In line with this, research has provided a range of guidelines including the recommendation that materials that do not directly contribute to comprehension and schema construction, should be removed from learning materials. According to the CTML’s Coherence Principle (Mayer, 2020), this also applies to decorative pictures that are added to an explanatory text. Such pictures are assumed to cause unnecessary extraneous processing, because they might distract learners and draw their attention away from relevant information. In a worst-case-scenario, they might contain so called seductive details (Harp & Mayer, 1998) that lead learners to focus their information processing on the wrong parts of the learning materials, or in other words, learn the wrong information. On the other hand, these strict views have also been criticized for neglecting individual learner characteristics, especially affective variables. The Cognitive-Affective Theory of Learning with Media (CATLM; Moreno & Mayer, 2007) takes into account affective variables and emphasizes the importance of the emotional state of learners. That is, factors such as (situational) interest and motivation play a crucial role in information processing and are seen as the starting point for learning processes (Klauer, 1985). This might be especially important for younger learners, and in this regard, research shows that motivated children indeed learn better in terms of higher performance, and that might also be due to their higher engagement and perseverance during learning (Pintrich, 2003). Motivation and interest, in turn, could be induced by using decorative pictures along with instructional text. Among the first to show this empirically were Lenzner and colleagues (2007) who found that learning gains for decorative pictures were at least comparable to those of instructional pictures. In addition, decorative pictures were perceived as being more aesthetic and interesting, and they caused higher arousal. Furthermore, the highest learning gains were achieved with a combination of decorative and instructional pictures, which supports the assumption that decorative pictures indeed add something that is relevant for learning “on top” of the explanatory value of instructional pictures. In line with these findings, newer research in general shows that the use of decorative pictures in learning materials is not as detrimental as could be expected from the above-mentioned instructional principles. When learning with decorative or “emotionally designed” pictures (e.g., warm colours, smiling faces) compared to merely instructional pictures, learners often perform equally well (Lindner, 2020; Muller et al., 2008; Schneider et al., 2018), are more motivated and report less perceived difficulty (see also Paas & Van Merriënboer, 2020; Um et al., 2012). However, the studies described here have been conducted either with university students or children who attend at least junior high or middle school. Studies investigating whether elementary school children could also benefit from the provision of decorative pictures are largely missing. This is the gap that our study tries to fill at least to some extent. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Participants and materials Our study was conducted at German elementary schools. 136 fourth-graders with an average age of 8.76 years took part, 57% of them were boys. All children learned with the same text about the circulatory system and depending on experimental condition, without pictures or with instructional or decorative pictures. The text was given to the children in a booklet that consisted of 11 double pages, each page had ~80 words in 2-3 short paragraphs on the left side. The right side was either empty or contained an instructional or decorative picture. Learning took place in the children’s classes as part of the normal lessons they attended. After reading, children answered a post-test containing 15 multiple-choice text items mainly assessing declarative knowledge and 5 multiple-choice pictorial items. Children also indicated how interesting and useful they perceived the learning materials to be and their cognitive load during learning and during answering the post-test. Results To our surprise, decorative pictures outperformed text only and instructional pictures for the overall post-test as well as for the 15 text questions. Just for the 5 pictorial questions, the instructional pictures led to slightly better performance. For the overall post-test, a two-factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that this main effect of pictures was significant with a small to medium effect (F(2,130)=3.11; p=.048; part. η2=.046). Post-hoc analyses showed that indeed, learning with decorative pictures was more successful than learning with text only (p=.027) or with text and instructional pictures (p=.039). With regard to cognitive load, similar analyses showed a main effect for pictures with a medium effect (F(2,130)=4.76; p=.010; part. η2=.070). More specifically, children perceived instructional pictures to be more difficult than decorative pictures (p=.047) or text only (p=.002). In sum, our results show that learning about the circulatory system at elementary school is most successful and causes the lowest perceived difficulty, when decorative pictures are added to an instructional text. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Our study showed that decorative pictures do not seem to impair learning. Children learned best with decorative pictures, perceived them as most interesting and useful and experienced lower cognitive load compared to instructional pictures. This is in line with research emphasizing motivation and emotions in learning (Lindner, 2020). It might be that decorative pictures induced a positive mood and made children want to know more about the heart and the blood and that they were still not looked at long enough to unfold detrimental effects (cf. Lenzner et al., 2013). This could also undermine the assumption made by Muller et al. (2008) that “interest may mitigate the effects of the coherence principle” (p.211). On the other hand, the instructional pictures in our study were not per se beneficial for learning. They were perceived as being more difficult, less interesting, and (surprisingly) led to lower performance. This is in line with earlier findings that too much instructional support might overload and distract learners instead of helping them (Authors, 2015, 2022). It has to be noted, though, that the decorative pictures we used in this study were not fully out of context. They also focused on the heart and blood. For instance, one picture actually shows blood circulation to and from the heart correctly, just in a very cute way (smiling droplets dancing to and from the heart). In this regard, we might have hit something between decorative pictures and emotional design (Um et al., 2012). Applying these results to everyday work at elementary schools, we would recommend not to hesitate using decorative pictures in learning materials, especially when they still contain explanatory elements. These pictures are obviously able to initiate motivation in children and arouse interest for learning contents, which in turn are important prerequisites for conscious and persistent information processing. References Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: a theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 414-434. Klauer, K. J. (1985). Framework for a theory of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 1, 5–17. Lenzner, A., Schnotz, W., Müller, A., & Horz, H. (2007). Emotional and motivational effects of decorative pictures in knowledge communication. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI). Budapest, Hungary. Lenzner, A., Schnotz, W., & Müller, A. (2013). The role of decorative pictures in learning. Instructional Science, 41, 811–831. Lindner, M. A. (2020). Representational and decorative pictures in science and mathematics tests: Do they make a difference? Learning and Instruction, 68, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101345. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Mayer, R. E. (2020). Multimedia learning. 3rd edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Moreno, R. (2005). Instructional technology: Promise and pitfalls. In L. PytlikZillig, M. Bodvarsson und R. Bruning (Eds.), Technology-based education: Bringing researchers and practitioners together (pp. 1-19). Information Age Publishing, Greenwich. Muller, D. A., Lee, K. J., & Sharma, M. D. (2008). Coherence or interest: Which is most important in online multimedia learning? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24, 211-221. Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2020). Cognitive Load Theory: Methods to manage working memory load in the learning of complex tasks. Current directions in psychological science, 29, 394-398. Pintrich, P. R. (2003). Motivation and classroom learning. In W. M. Reynolds und G. E. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Educational psychology (pp. 103-122). Wiley, New York. Schneider, S., Nebel, S., Beege, M., & Rey, G. D. (2018). Anthropomorphism in decorative pictures: Benefit or harm for learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 110, 218-232. Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Springer, New York. Um, E. “R.”, Plass, J. L., Hayward, E. O., & Homer, B. D. (2012). Emotional design in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 485–498. 06. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Paper Educational Space and SKILL: Creative, Participatory Exploration of AI and Privacy Literacy in Schools 1: Goethe University, Germany; 2: Codenauten - The Next Gen Developer School; 3: Ostfalia University of Applied Sciences Presenting Author:Accelerating social transformations, driven by datafication, artificial intelligence (AI), and shifting regulatory, social, and educational conditions, are fundamentally reshaping contemporary education systems. Schools increasingly operate as Educational Spaces, as the special call addresses it, in which pedagogy, media, digital technologies, social orders, and communities intersect. Within these constraints, learning is no longer confined to content transmission but unfolds through socio-technical environments that actively shape knowledge practices, participation, and power relations. This proposed contribution draws on an interdisciplinary collaborative research project SKILL (Serious Games for AI and Privacy Literacy in Schools) and focuses on investigating AI imaginaries among teachers and students. It responds directly to the NW 06 call by conceptualising schools as open, media-rich learning environments that must respond to social transformations through participatory, resilient, and reflexive educational practices. AI systems often embedded invisibly in educational technologies are treated not merely as tools but as constitutive elements of Educational Space that reconfigure pedagogical agency, data practices, and notions of responsibility. The paper addresses two interrelated research questions:
Theoretically, the contribution integrates perspectives from media education, learning environment research, and critical data studies. It conceptualises Educational Space as a dynamic configuration of material infrastructures, media environments, cultural imaginaries, and pedagogical practices (Berges et al., 2025). Drawing on Creative Data Literacy (D’Ignazio, 2017), Privacy Literacy and Privacy Awareness (Heuer et al., 2021; Hillman, 2022), and Knowledge-Creating Communities for Teachers (Robertson et al., 2023), the project foregrounds learning as a situated, collaborative, and culturally embedded process. AI imaginaries are understood as culturally and professionally shaped interpretative frameworks that mediate how social transformations are perceived and enacted in educational practice. In line with the special call, the paper positions Innovative Learning Environments not as technologically driven solutions but as pedagogical ecosystems and educational entanglements that enable teachers and students to actively co-construct knowledge, negotiate values, and develop critical orientations toward AI and data practices (Lenke & Schulte, 2025). At a European level, the project engages with ongoing transformations shaped by the GDPR, the EU Data Strategy, and the AI Act, highlighting the role of Educational Space in fostering democratic participation, ethical sensitivity, and resilience under conditions of uncertainty. The proposal primarily addresses Technology Integration and Emerging Learning Formats (3) and Roles and Participation (4) as outlined in the special call, by examining how AI reshapes Educational Space and by engaging teachers and students as co-designers of participatory, media-rich learning environments through serious games. It additionally contributes to Theoretical and Methodological Approaches (5) by adopting a participatory, design-based research perspective that conceptualises AI and datafication as conditions of technological uncertainty shaping pedagogical action.
This work was funded by the Federal Ministry of Research, Technology and Space under grant nos. 16KIS2252K, 16KIS2253 and 16KIS2254. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Methodologically, the project adopts a participatory, qualitative approach informed by research on Innovative Learning Environments and Science and Technology Studies. Educational spaces are examined empirically as lived and negotiated environments shaped by practices, imaginaries, and material arrangements (Tedre et al., 2021; Ahlborn & Verständig 2024). Data collection includes narrative interviews (Nohl, 2010) with teachers and focus groups with teachers and students across different regions, focusing on experiences with AI, data practices, and educational technologies. These materials are complemented by co-creative workshops, which function as experimental learning environments in which participants explore AI applications embedded in everyday educational and media contexts. In these settings, AI systems are not approached merely as technical tools but are deliberately situated as creative technologies (Henriksen et al., 2025), enabling practices of exploration, appropriation, and critical reflection. The data will be analysed using the documentary method (Nohl, 2017), which enables the reconstruction of implicit orientations, shared frameworks of meaning, and habitualised practices underlying participants’ accounts and interactions. By distinguishing between communicative knowledge (explicit articulations) and conjunctive knowledge (tacit, practice-based orientations), the analysis moves beyond surface-level attitudes toward AI to examine how teachers and students collectively make sense of, negotiate, and enact AI-related practices in educational contexts. Comparative analysis across interviews, focus groups, and workshops allows for the identification of recurring patterns, tensions, and variations in AI imaginaries, pedagogical orientations, forms of agency, and perceptions of privacy risks (Finn et al., 2013) across regions and institutional settings. The study provides empirical insights into how AI and datafication shape educational practice and emerging AI and privacy literacy in schools. A core concept is the co-creative development of serious games, including ML-based escape boxes and interactive demonstrators to creatively engage with computational systems and foster AI literacy (Ahlborn & Verständig, 2024) and privacy literacy (Hillman, 2022). Embedded in workshop settings, they serve both as pedagogical tools and as probes for understanding how participants make sense of algorithmic processes, privacy risks, and data relations. The games materialise Educational Space by connecting physical, digital, and social dimensions of learning. Analytically, the study combines qualitative analysis with interpretative reconstruction of imaginaries, pedagogical orientations, and interactional dynamics within learning environments. Iterative reflection loops with participants support the refinement of educational designs and ensure that learning environments remain responsive to participants’ needs and contexts. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The contribution advances understanding of educational space as a key analytical concept for researching knowing and acting under conditions of technological uncertainty (Verständig & Koglin 2025). Rather than treating crises as singular events, the study conceptualises AI and data-driven technologies as producing ongoing epistemic instability. Knowledge about how computational systems function, what they infer, and how they affect learners remains partial, contested, and unevenly distributed. By empirically examining teachers’ and students’ AI imaginaries, the contribution shows how educational engagements with creative technologies become sites in which this uncertainty is interpreted, negotiated, and translated into pedagogical action. At a practical level, the project develops transferable design patterns and serious game–based learning environments that explicitly address technological uncertainty. These formats make algorithmic processes, data relations, and privacy risks experientially accessible and support open, participatory, and resilient educational settings. Rather than reducing uncertainty through simplification or standardisation, they engage it productively through collective inquiry, reflection, and co-creation. Emerging professional development formats strengthen teachers’ capacity to act pedagogically under conditions of opacity, rapid technological change, and evolving regulatory frameworks. At a broader level, the paper argues that educational space, as addressed in the special call, should be understood as a socio-cultural, media-based, and epistemic environment shaped by persistent technological uncertainty. In this perspective, technological change, ethical reflection, and pedagogical practice are inseparably intertwined. By foregrounding critical computational literacy, participation, and co-construction, the contribution indicates how media educational research can respond to poly-crisis not by offering definitive solutions, but by enabling educational actors to navigate uncertainty while preserving pedagogical agency, epistemic plurality, and the public responsibility of education. References Ahlborn, J., & Verständig, D. (2024, October 24). Imagine Uncertainty: Exploring the Space In-between Complex Human Machine Interaction. Ninth International Conference on Communication & Media Studies, Buenos Aires. https://cgscholar.com/cg_event/events/P24en/proposal/70577 Berges, M., Eickhoff-Schachtebeck, A., Engbring, D., Gapski, H., Schulte, C., Strecker, K., & Verständig, D. (2025). «AI Education! Six Theses on the Relationship Between Artificial Intelligence, Education, and Society: An Interdisciplinary Perspective». MedienPädagogik: Zeitschrift Für Theorie Und Praxis Der Medienbildung, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.21240/mpaed/00/2025.07.07.X D’Ignazio, C. (2017). Creative data literacy: Bridging the gap between the data-haves and data-have nots. Information Design Journal, 23(1), 6–18. https://doi.org/10.1075/idj.23.1.03dig Finn, R. L., Wright, D., & Friedewald, M. (2013). Seven Types of Privacy. In S. Gutwirth, R. Leenes, P. De Hert, & Y. Poullet (Eds.), European Data Protection: Coming of Age (pp. 3–32). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5170-5_1 Henriksen, D., Oster, N., Mishra, P., & McCaleb, L. (2025). Generative AI, Creativity, Culture, and the Future of Learning: A Conversation with Mairéad Pratschke. TechTrends, 69(1), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-024-01036-y Heuer, T., Schiering, I., & Gerndt, R. (2021). Privacy framework for context-aware robot development. Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics, 12(1), 468–480. https://doi.org/10.1515/pjbr-2021-0032 Hillman, V. (2022). Data Privacy Literacy as a Subversive Instrument to Datafication. International Journal Of Communication, 16, 22. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/17639 Lenke, M., & Schulte, C. (2025). Enhancing AI Interaction through Co-Construction: A Multi-Faceted Workshop Framework. 2025 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON62633.2025.11016326 Nohl, A.-M. (2010). Narrative Interview and Documentary Interpretation. In N. Pfaff & W. Weller (Eds.), Qualitative analysis and documentary method in international educational research (pp. 195–217). Budrich. Nohl, A.-M. (2017). Interview und Dokumentarische Methode: Anleitungen für die Forschungspraxis. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-16080-7 Robertson, J., Abaci, S., Linklater, H., Farrell, K., & Kanwal, J. (2023). Knowledge Creating Communities for teacher professional learning about data literacy [Preprint]. EdArXiv. https://doi.org/10.35542/osf.io/zye4g Tedre, M., Denning, P., & Toivonen, T. (2021). CT 2.0. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3488042.3488053 Verständig, D., & Koglin, J. (2025). Self, Society, and Data: Data Literacy for Media Education. In C. Schumacher & D. Ifenthaler, International Perspectives on Educational Data Literacy (1st ed., pp. 81–103). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003511991-4 | ||