This paper analyzes if the use of ICT in interactive groups improves the results of the learners.

Interactive groups become a unit of analysis because are one of the successful educational actions identified by Includ-Ed. The INCLUD-ED project (EU funded research) entitled Strategies for inclusion and social cohesion in Europe from education (6th FP, 2006-2011) studied successful schools across Europe and identified a series of successful educational actions that were leading both to school success of students and social inclusion of their communities, especially in socially disadvantaged contexts and in schools containing students of migrant or minority background (Flecha, 2015). Interactive groups are a type of classroom organization in which the participants are grouped in small heterogeneous groups and receive the support of a volunteer to encourage the interaction of the participants in a task following the principles of the dialogic learning (Flecha, 2000).

Our research hypothesis is that solidarity and the argumentation processes taking place in the interactive groups when the learners interact among them to solve the learning tasks presented, by means of the use of ICT, explain their success in terms of learning results.

To confirm or refuse this hypothesis we use data from the European research project DigiUp Project: Interactive groups for digital inclusion through intergenerational dialogue, funded by the European Commission (num. 2015-1-ES01-KA204-016150). The main aim of DigiUP is to improve the digital competence among disadvantage groups in Europe - 55-74 years old, low educated, unemployed, retired and inactive people - focusing on migrants and Roma people.

For this paper the data gathered and analysed is from a case study in Spain.

Context and theoretical framework

DigiUp studies how to achieve the five areas of ICT competence in the frame of interactive groups.

These interactive groups seek to provide basic ICT knowledge through innovative practices in a highly cultural diverse and intergenerational environment. 

The ICT competence are based on the digital European framework EUROPASS: 1) Information processing: Capacity to use advanced search strategies to find reliable information on the internet, to use web feeds to be updated with contents of interest, to assess information critically, to save information in different formats and to use cloud information storage services. 2) Communication: Capacity to use communication applications online, to create and manage contents with collaboration tools, to use online services, etc. 3) Content creation: Capacity to produce content in different formats (tables, text, images, etc.), to modify multimedia content, to create web page, apply, to apply licenses and copyrights, etc. 4) Safety: Capacity to protect electronic devices, to check the security configuration and systems of devices and applications, to react if a devise is infected by a virus, to configure the firewall of digital devices, to be able to apply filters to spam e-mails, etc. And 5) Problem solving: Capacity to choose the right tool, device, application, software or service to solve non-technical problems, to frequently update digital skills, etc.

The framework of DigiUp project is adult education. Interactive groups are based on dialogic learning (Flecha, 2000) which is composed by 7 principles (egalitarian dialogue, cultural intelligence, transformation, instrumental dimension, creation of meaning, solidarity, equality of differences) emphasizing the role of egalitarian dialogue for individuals to overcome their barriers in lifelong learning through solidarity and exchange of valid arguments. This idea comes from the theory of argumentation (Habermas, 1984), Wells dialogic inquiry (2000) and Freire problem-posing concept of education (1970).

Christou, M., Molina, S., (2009). Educational inclusión and critical pedagogy. Teoría de la Educación. Educación y Cultura en la Sociedad de la Información, 10, 31-55. Recuperado en http://tuxchi.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=201014898003 Flecha, R. (2000). Sharing words: Theory and practice of dialogic learning. Rowman & Littlefield. Flecha, R. (2015). The Communicative Methodology of the INCLUD-ED Research. In Successful Educational Actions for Inclusion and Social Cohesion in Europe (pp. 9-19). Springer International Publishing. Flecha, R., Gómez, A., Puigvert, L. (2011). Critical Communicative Methodology: Informing Real Transformation Through Research. Qualitative Inquiry. 17 (3), 234-245. DOI: 10.1177/1077800410397802 Flecha, R., & Soler, M. (2013). Turning difficulties into possibilities: engaging Roma families and students in school through dialogic learning. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(4), 451–465. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2013.819068 Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group. Gee, J. P. (2014). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. Routledge. Gómez, A., Racionero, S., & Sordé, T. (2010). Ten years of critical communicative methodology. International Review of Qualitative Research, 3(1), 17-43. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action, volume I. Boston: Beacon. Herrero, C., & Brown, M. (2010). Distributed cognition in community-based education. Journal of Psychodidactics, 15(2). Hutchins, E. (2006). The distributed cognition perspective on human interaction. Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition and interaction, 375-398. Puigvert, L.; Christou, M.; & Holford, J. (2012). Critical Communicative Methodology: including vulnerable voices in research through dialogue. Cambridge Journal of Education, 42(4), 513-526. DOI: 10.1080/0305764X.2012.733341 Wells, G. (2000). Dialogic inquiry in education. Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research, 51-85.