Backstaging the teacher: On learner-driven, school-driven and data-driven change in educational technology discourse

Main Article Content

Felicitas Macgilchrist

Abstrakt

As digital technologies become more prominent in schools, and a host of new media products appear in classrooms, critical questions are being asked about the erasure of power and politics in contemporary education. To explore the discourse on digital education, this paper draws on discourse analysis of ethnographic interviews with for-profit and non-profit organizations in the field. It asks (i) what industry insiders describe as driving change in contemporary educational technology (edtech), and (ii) whether new actors/technologies shaping a novel educational hegemony, and if so, what this hegemony looks like. Initial findings suggest that while the teacher was seen as key to driving change in printed educational materials, three different discourses appear when describing change in today’s educational technology. In the first, learners drive change; the focus lies on the individual dimension. In the second, schools drive change; the systemic dimension. In the third, data drive change; the analytics dimension. Linking these three discourses is a shift from “education” to “learning”. The accounts of educational technology simultaneously advocate for improving opportunities for all students, especially weaker or disadvantaged learners, and also strengthen the hegemonic shift across policy and practice towards an instrumental understanding of education. Overall, the paper suggests that power and politics are by no means erased from the edtech industry’s accounts of digital technologies and datafication. The socio-material affordances engineered into the technologies invite particular teaching practices and thus affect power relations in education.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

Jak cytować
Macgilchrist, F. (2019). Backstaging the teacher: On learner-driven, school-driven and data-driven change in educational technology discourse. Kultura-Społeczeństwo-Edukacja, 12(2), 83-103. https://doi.org/10.14746/kse.2017.12.4
Dział
Artykuły
Biogram autora

Felicitas Macgilchrist, Georg Eckert Institute for International Textbook Research, Braunschweig. University of Goettingen

prof. dr, University of Goettingen

Bibliografia

  1. Adams E., Pierre St. (2008). Deleuzian concepts for education: The subject undone. [In:] I. Sementsky (ed.). Nomadic Education: Variations on a Theme by Deleuze and Guattari, Rotterdam, pp. 183–196.
  2. Adams E., Pierre St. (2011). Post qualitative research: the critique and the coming after. [In:] N.K. Denzin, Y.S. Lincoln (eds). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks, pp. 611–626.
  3. Apple M.W. (1986). Teachers and Texts: A political economy of class and gender relations in education. New York.
  4. Apple M.W. (2000). Official Knowledge: Democratic Education in a Conservative Age. 2nd ed. New York.
  5. Apple M.W. (2006). Educating the “Right” Way: Markets, Standards, God, and Inequality. New York.
  6. Ball S.J., Youdell D. (2009). Hidden Privatisation in Public Education. Brussels.
  7. http://download.ei-ie.org/docs/IRISDocuments/Research%20Website%20Documents/2009-00034-01-E.pdf.
  8. Biesta G. (2013). The Beautiful Risk of Education. London.
  9. Britzman D. (1998). Lost Subjects, Contested Objects: Toward a Psychoanalytic Inquiry of Learning. Albany. New York.
  10. Britzman D. (2009). The Very Thought of Education: Psychoanalysis and the Impossible Professions. Albany.
  11. Clapp E.P, Ross J., Ryan J.O., Tishman S. (2017). Maker-Centered Learning: Empowering Young People to Shape Their Worlds. San Francisco.
  12. Danaher J. (2014). Rule by algorithm? Big data and the threat of algocracy. [In:] Philosophical Disquisitions. http://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.de/2014/01/rule-by-algorithm-big-data-andthreat.html [28 Apr 2017].
  13. DeVault M.L., McCoy L. (2006). Institutional Ethnography: Using interviews to investigate ruling relations. [In:] D.E. Smith (ed.). Institutional Ethnography as Practice. Oxford. pp. 15–44.
  14. Dezuanni M., O’Mara J., Beavis C. (2015). “Redstone is like electricity”: Children’s performative representations in and around Minecraft. “E-Learning and Digital Media” Band 12, Heft 2, pp. 147–163.
  15. Doxtdator B. (2017). Maybe we’re not afraid: on Edtech’s inability to imagine the future. Retrieved 28 April, 2017, from http://www.longviewoneducation.org/maybe-not-afraid-edtechs-inabilityimagine-future/.
  16. Emejulu A., McGregor C. (2016). Towards a radical digital citizenship in digital education. “Critical Studies in Education”, pp. 1–17.
  17. Han B.-C. (2012). Transparenzgesellschaft. Berlin.
  18. Hartung S. (2016). Between assessments, digital technologies and big data: The growing influence of ‘hidden’ data mediators in education. “European Educational Research Journal” Band 15, Heft 5, pp. 523–536.
  19. Hepp A. (2016). Kommunikations- und Medienwissenschaft in datengetriebenen Zeiten. „Publizistik“, Band 61, Heft 3, pp. 225–246.
  20. Hodel J. (2013). Verkürzen und Verknüpfen. Geschichte als Netz narrativer Fragmente: Wie Jugendliche digitale Netzmedien für die Erstellung von Referaten im Geschichtsunterricht verwenden. Bern.
  21. Höhne T. (2015). Technologisierung von Bildungsmedien. „Die Deutsche Schule“ Band 2015, Heft 1, pp. 8–19.
  22. Jobrack B. (2011). Tyranny of the Textbook: An Insider Exposes How Educational Materials Undermine Reforms Lanham. Maryland.
  23. Jordan T. (2015). Information Politics: Liberation and Exploitation in the Digital Society. London.
  24. Laclau E. (2005). On Populist Reason. London.
  25. Law J., Afdal G., Asdal K., Lin W., Moser I., Singleton V. (2013). Modes of Syncretism: Notes on noncoherence. “CRESC Working Paper” 119.
  26. Lenz Taguchi H. (2012). A diffractive and Deleuzian approach to analysing interview data. “Feminist Theory“ Band 13, Heft 3, pp. 265–281.
  27. Macgilchrist F. (2011). Schulbuchverlage als Organisationen der Diskursproduktion: Eine ethnographische Perspektive. „Zeitschrift für Soziologie der Erziehung und Sozialisation“ Band 31, Heft 3, pp. 248–263.
  28. Macgilchrist F. (2017). Digitale Schulbücher: Chancen und Herausforderungen für den politischen Fachunterricht. [In:] H. Gapski, M. Oberle, W. Staufer (eds). Medienkompetenz als Herausforderung für Politik, politische Bildung und Medienbildung. Bonn.
  29. McGraw-Hill Education. (2017). McGraw-Hill Education Q4-2016 Update.
  30. Okamoto K. (2013). Making Higher Education More Affordable, One Course Reading at a Time: Academic Libraries as Key Advocates for Open Access Textbooks and Educational Resources. “Public Services Quarterly” Band 9, Heft 4, p. 267–283.
  31. O’Neill C. (2016). Weapons of Math Destruction. New York.
  32. Pangrazio L. (2016). Reconceptualising critical digital literacy. Discourse. “Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education” Band 37, Heft 2, pp. 163–174.
  33. Prinsloo P. (2016). Failing our students: Not noticing the traces they leave behind, Open distance teaching and learning. Retrieved 28 April, 2017, https://opendistanceteachingandlearning.wordpress.com/2016/11/07/failing-our-students-not-noticing-the-traces-they-leave-behind/.
  34. Roberts-Holmes G., Bradbury A. (2016). Governance, accountability and the datafication of early years education in England. “British Educational Research Journal” Band 42, Heft 4, pp. 600–613.
  35. Ross J., Sinclair C., Knox J., Bayne S., Macleod H. (2014). Teacher Experiences and Academic Identity: The Missing Components of MOOC Pedagogy. “MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching” Band 10, Heft 1, pp. 57–69.
  36. Sammler S., Macgilchrist F., Müller L., Otto M. (2016). Textbook Production in a Hybrid Age: Contemporary and Historical Perspectives on Producing Textbooks and Digital Educational Media. Eckert.Dossiers 6.
  37. Selwyn N. (2012). Ten suggestions for improving academic research in education and technology. “Learning, Media and Technology” Band 37, Heft 3, pp. 213–219.
  38. Selwyn N. (2016). “There’s so much data”: Exploring the realities of data-based school governance. “European Educational Research Journal” Band 15, Heft 1, pp. 54–68.
  39. Selwyn N., Henderson M., Chao S.-H. (2015). Exploring the role of digital data in contemporary schools and schooling – ‘200,000 lines in an Excel spreadsheet’. “British Educational Research Journal” Band 41, Heft 5, pp. 767–781.
  40. Selwyn N., Nemorin S., Johnson N. (2016). High-tech, hard work: an investigation of teachers’ work in the digital age. “Learning, Media and Technology” pp. 1–16.
  41. Strommel J. (2014). Critical Digital Pedagogy: a Definition. Hybrid Pedagogy. “A Digital Journal of Learning, Teaching and Technology”, http://www.digitalpedagogylab.com/hybridped/criticaldigital-pedagogy-definition/.
  42. Süssenguth F. (ed.). (2015). Die Gesellschaft der Daten. Bielefeld.
  43. Thompson G., Cook I. (2016). The logic of data-sense: thinking through Learning Personalisation. “Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education”. pp. 1–15.
  44. Todd S. (2003). Learning From The Other. Albany.
  45. Tufekci Z. (2015). What Happens to #Ferguson Affects Ferguson: Net Neutrality, Algorithmic Filtering and Ferguson, 14 August 2014, https://medium.com/message/ferguson-is-also-a-net-neutralityissue-6d2f3db51eb0.
  46. Veletsianos G., Moe R. (2017). The Rise of Educational Technology as a Sociocultural and Ideological Phenomenon. “EduCauseReview”. http://er.educause.edu/articles/2017/4/the-rise-of-educational-technology-as-a-sociocultural-and-ideological-phenomenon.
  47. Williams R. (1977). Marxism and Literature. Oxford.
  48. Williamson B. (2016). Digital education governance: data visualization, predictive analytics, and ‘realtime’ policy instruments. “Journal of Education Policy” Band 31, Heft 2, pp. 123–141.