29 SES 12, Arts, creativity and cultural education
The digital revolution is changing and shaping the life of our societies. This has dramatic effects on the education sector, in particular within the field of aesthetic, arts and cultural education (ACE; Jörissen, Kröner, & Unterberg, in press; OECD, 2015). While digitalisation can cause substantial disruption (Zuboff, 2019), it has considerable promise for cultural education, and can provide enhanced access to cultural participation (Fromme, Jörissen, & Unger, 2008; KMK, 2016). Therefore, it is essential for us to develop a good understanding of the field through study. Unfortunately, published material referring to digitalization in the field of aesthetic and cultural education (D-ACE) is not keeping up with technical development. This is in part due to its fragmentation into many, only loosely connected, research fields within several academic disciplines (educational/social sciences, psychology, neurosciences, the academic study of the various arts such as music, theatre or visual arts; see Fink, Hill, Reinwand, & Wenzlik, 2012). Consequently, heterogeneous theoretical frameworks, partially incompatible approaches and a high level of diversity across the different spheres of activity of D-ACE obscure the state of knowledge in the field (Liebau et al., 2013). Moreover, research results often do not permeate the borders of their respective academic disciplines. For instance, publications concerning learning and entertainment in music or dance are not mutually recognized across subdiscipline borders. This fragmentation of (D-)ACE intensified during the last 15 years (Fink et al., 2012). This is a major obstacle for studying the field and generating evidence, as published research syntheses may not be recognized as relevant for D-ACE. Therefore, there is a need for a systematical search for existing reviews and their critical appraisal and integration in a tertiary review. Such a review of reviews would be a promising first step towards charting the field and identifying research gaps (Torgerson, Hall, & Lewis-Light, 2017). The present study aspires to catalogue and categorise meta-analyses and systematic reviews on D-ACE published in international, scientific, peer-reviewed publications listed in the research database Scopus. Screening and appraisal of title and abstract of N = 5124 hits resulted in n = 36syntheses. When classifying these according to spheres of activity, video games accounted for the highest amount of research syntheses (n = 23), while the field of digital social and cultural participation ranked second (n = 7 syntheses). Literature and film were described in n = 4 syntheses, followed by music (n = 3) and performing arts (n = 2).
Next, we determined which effects were described in the reviews. We found n = 10 papers reviewing effects of cultural activities on the subjective experiences and the enjoyment related to those pursuits (category 1). Moreover, there were n = 19 syntheses reviewing the effects of cultural projects on individual cognitive, affective, motivational or personality outcomes beyond the actual activity (category 2). Additionally, effects on experiences with cultural activities or the enjoyment thereof, resulting from specific design parameters or interface of the cultural digital artefact, were reviewed in n = 9 papers (category 3). In n = 5 papers, effects of design of the cultural artefact on individual cognitive, affective, motivational or personality outcomes beyond the activities were analysed (category 4). Finally, n = 5 sysntheses focused on the effects of individual predispositions on cultural activities or on the subjective experiences and the enjoyment related to those (category 5). Note that due to the wide variety of the examined effects, across many papers, it was not possible to narrow every research question down to a single effect. Regarding affiliations of the authors, colleagues from the USA and UK were responsible for the largest share (14 of 36 syntheses).
We first compiled a preliminary set of search terms related to the core facets of this review (digitalization, education and culture). All overarching terms were expanded using the synonym finder of thesaurus.com, as well as via brainstorming. To generate positive and negative anchor examples for the three main categories, i.e. a) aesthetic, b) arts, c) "cultural relation", "cultural education relation" and "digitalisation", we used a random sample of n = 30 papers for a preliminary screening. These anchor examples were utilized to inductively differentiate the three categories and to further develop our inclusion and exclusion criteria for screening and appraisal. Then, we applied this set in a search, which resulted in N = 5124 studies. Studies with irrelevant titles were excluded, leaving only n = 441 remaining articles for further consideration. Analogous to the screening of titles, we applied our in- and exclusion criteria to scrutinize the abstracts of the remaining article set. For this procedure, and for the subsequent full-text appraisal, only studies with content congruent to our inclusion criteria were selected. The screening of abstracts reduced our results to n = 73 articles, these were further analysed on a full-text basis. As a consequence, we excluded n = 34 studies due to a lack of direct relevance to ACE in the full text. Three additional papers were excluded, one for not being published within our investigation period, one due to the unavailability of the full text in English, and one for not satisfying our definition of digitalisation. The remaining n = 36 research syntheses (n = 22 systematic reviews and n = 14 meta-analyses) were further processed by assigning every paper up to three labels of spheres of cultural activity. Building upon a categorisation of central research topics, we identified each paper’s central research question(s) to enable a more differentiated classification of current research trends in D-ACE. In this, we rated each article's respective exo- and endogenous variables with a deductive two-dimensional classification scheme consisting of the aspects “cultural activity and experience” and “person”.
This tertiary review systematically charts the field of D-ACE across disciplinary boundaries. Our searches showed that an increasing number of meta-analyses and systematic reviews on D-ACE has been published in the last decade. Most of the reviews focus on the effects of either design of cultural activities or cultural experiences themselves on cognitive, affective and motivational outcomes. It is noteworthy that a major share was related to inherently digital fields such as video games and social and cultural participation via social networking sites. However, many other spheres of activity were either underrepresented or missing. This involved the more classical spheres of cultural activity such as music, performing arts, visual arts and museums. Whether this is merely based on a dearth of published material on these spheres or an indicator of an underlying lack of original studies with relevant research questions, is yet to be determined. These gaps in the current literature present a disadvantage for both investigators and practitioners. Thus, researchers interested in investigating effects of digitalisation on cultural education should systematically consider research in all relevant sub-disciplines of cultural education. To provide practitioners with guidelines in the field of cultural education, further systematic reviews are warranted. In subsequent tertiary reviews, additional research databases, non-systematic reviews as well as unpublished syntheses and original work should be considered to broaden the empirical basis of the analyses and thus shed more light on this issue. Together with our results, such research syntheses may further contribute to the unification of hitherto dispersed research on D-ACE.
Fink, T., Hill, B., Reinwand, V.-I., & Wenzlik, A. (2012). Begrifflich, empirisch, künstlerisch: Forschung im Feld der Kulturellen Bildung [Conceptual, empirical, artistical: Research in the field of cultural education]. In T. Fink (Ed.), Kulturelle Bildung: Vol. 29. Die Kunst, über Kulturelle Bildung zu forschen [The art to conduct research on cultural education] (pp. 9–21). München: kopaed. Fromme, J., Jörissen, B., & Unger, A. (2008). Bildungspotenziale digitaler Spiele und Spielkulturen [Educational potential of digital games and playing cultures]. Zeitschrift Für Theorie Und Praxis Der Medienbildung, Themenheft No. 15/16, 1–23. Jörissen, B., Kröner, S., & Unterberg, L. (Eds.). (in press). Forschung zur Digitalisierung in der Kulturellen Bildung [Research on digitalization in aesthetics, arts, and cultural education]. München: kopaed. KMK. (2016). Strategie der Kultusministerkonferenz „Bildung in der digitalen Welt“ [Conference of Ministers of Education Strategy paper “Education in the digital world“]. Berlin: KMK. https://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/Dateien/pdf/PresseUndAktuelles/2016/Bildung_digitale_Welt_Webversion.pdf Liebau, E., Jörissen, B., Hartmann, S., Lohwasser, D., Werner, F., Klepacki, L., . . . Schelter, F. (2013). Forschung zur Kulturellen Bildung in Deutschland: Bestand und Perspektiven: Projektbericht [Research on cultural education in Germany: Inventory and prospects. Project report]. Retrieved from https://www.paedagogik.phil.fau.de/files/2012/10/Liebau-Jo%CC%88rissen-e.a.-2013.-Forschung-zur-Kulturellen-Bildung-in-Deutschland-Projektbericht.pdf OECD. (2015). Students, computers and learning: Making the connection. PISA. Paris: OECD. Torgerson, C., Hall, J., & Lewis-Light, K. (2017). Systematic Reviews. In R. Coe, M. Waring, L. V. Hedges, & J. Arthur (Eds.), Research methods and methodologies in education (2nd ed., pp. 166–179). Los Angeles: SAGE. Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power (1st edition). New York: PublicAffairs.
00. Central Events (Keynotes, EERA-Panel, EERJ Round Table, Invited Sessions)
Network 1. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations
Network 2. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)
Network 3. Curriculum Innovation
Network 4. Inclusive Education
Network 5. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education
Network 6. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Network 7. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Network 8. Research on Health Education
Network 9. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement
Network 10. Teacher Education Research
Network 11. Educational Effectiveness and Quality Assurance
Network 12. LISnet - Library and Information Science Network
Network 13. Philosophy of Education
Network 14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Network 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Network 16. ICT in Education and Training
Network 17. Histories of Education
Network 18. Research in Sport Pedagogy
Network 19. Ethnography
Network 20. Research in Innovative Intercultural Learning Environments
Network 22. Research in Higher Education
Network 23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Network 24. Mathematics Education Research
Network 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Network 26. Educational Leadership
Network 27. Didactics – Learning and Teaching
The programme is updated regularly (each day in the morning)
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.