Session Information
01 SES 02 C, Digital Tools and Competences
Paper Session
Contribution
Abstract
Reflecting on what happens when a digital quality tool is introduced in a preschool setting, a system owner expresses: “[I]t’s a process in itself, it becomes a new way of working really. It may be that you work with the systematic quality work on paper today, or in another digital product, however, you do it, it changes things” (Quote from an interview with a system owner). The quote is a description of what happens when a digital tool for quality is introduced. Things change and new ways of working appear. The quote above is also representative of how different processes of digitalization seem to challenge professional knowledge, e.g. how to work with quality in preschools, and how this leads to processes of sensemaking (cf. Weick, 1995) among practitioners. Thus, introducing a digital quality tool affects professional settings and challenges traditional ways of working. The specific digital tool investigated in this study, consisting of an integrated app and a web interface, has an outspoken aim to organize and develop the work with quality. As such, the new digital quality tool has the intention to create new ways of working as well as change. Thus, the introduction of a digital quality tool does things and it needs to be made sense of by organizations and individuals. The following is as such an investigation of these new ways and changes related to how pre-schools work with issues of quality and how they are made sense of within their professional context.
Based on these initial observations the research questions in this study address:
- How is an introduction of a digital quality tool carried out in a Swedish pre-school setting?
- How do pre-school actors make sense of the digital quality tool?
In relation to the above, it can be stated that implementing a digital quality tool is not a simple transport from one situation to the next one. Thus, the implementation is to be considered a challenge. It affects both preschool actors (teachers, children, parents, principals, etc.) as well as Education technology (EdTech) company's digital products on how to digitalize different aspects of education. Digitalization of education thus functions at the very hub of education where desires, ambitions, and practices are formulated and acted on (see for instance SALAR, 2019). The present study engages in this phenomenon and provides knowledge on how an introduction of a digital tool is carried out, what kind of intentions, purposes, and experiences appear, and how education is made sense of by involved actors when a digital quality tool is introduced.
Method
Method The study was designed as a qualitative case study with the digital quality tool as framing the case (Denzen & Lincoln, 2018; Yin, 2018; Simons, 2009; Stake, 2006). It was conducted in four Swedish municipalities and four different preschools. Methods in use were focus group observations of the introduction meeting and semi-structured interviews with follow-up questions (Denzen & Lincoln, 2018; Edward & Holland, 2013). The collection of data comprises observations from August and September, and interviews taking place from September until November 2021. The observations took place in conjunction with four introduction meetings held by the system owner of the observed digital quality tool. After the introduction, semi-structured interviews at all four preschools were performed. These interviews were audio-recorded with a total time of eight hours and fifty-one minutes. The interviews were held with a focus on how the participants experienced the introduction of the digital quality tool. The questions were circulating about what experiences the participants had during and after the introduction and if they considered anything missing, and if any questions occurred afterward. The data analysis is based on an approach of reflexive thematic analysis (see for instance Braun et al., 2019). With this approach, thematic analysis is understood as a reflexive and recursive open coding process. The work with reflexive and open coding can be considered an ongoing and critical conscious process where data content is interpreted by the researcher to reflect on the participants meaning. Data were generated into a thematic coding, organized by the same and coherent content (Emerson et al., 2011) visualizing different aspects of sensemaking of the digital quality tool by preschool actors.
Expected Outcomes
Findings The study visualizes that, how the introduction is carried out makes a difference for the preschool actors. These differences entail nuanced variations in sense-giving; meaning how the introduction is performed, but also with what intentions the digital quality tool is presented. Differences in the length of the introductions were rather small, but it resulted in substantial variances in giving sensemaking opportunities; especially in the form of peer discussions and opportunities to ask questions for the participants. Another difference that was evident in the collected data was the rhetoric about opportunities for enhancing professional development. For instance, the presenting system owner frequently referred to the digital tool as a new way of working with quality. Among the preschool actor, this rhetoric of change and new ways of working is in no way that evident. Another result emanating from the data was that sensemaking among the practitioners seems to be dependent on receiving the information and being given opportunities to discuss in small groups. This is because making sense in small groups was considered to give opportunities for interaction, to stop for questions, understand each other’s needs, and stepwise introduce different functions in the digital quality tool. Another observation worth mentioning is that teachers were ambiguous concerning how much time they were willing to invest in learning. A reason for this was that for the teachers it did not seem clear how long the digital tool would stay. Thus, the pre-school teachers reflected on the introduction of new techniques as something uncertain and changing and by that investing time in learning was seen as risky.
References
References Braun, V, Clarke, V, Hayfield, N, Terry, G. (2019). Thematic Analysis. In P. Liamputtong (ed.), Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences. Singapore: Springer. Denzen, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. Fifth edition (2018). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Edwards, R., & Holland, J. (2013). What is qualitative interviewing?. A&C Black. Emerson R M, Fretz R I, & Shaw L L. 2011. Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. SALAR. (2019). Lägesbeskrivning november 2019: Nationell handlingsplan för digitalisering av skolväsendet. Retrieved from Swedish Ministry of Education. (2017). Nationell digitaliseringsstrategi för skolväsendet. (Diarienummer: U2017/04119/S ). Simons, H. (2009). Case Study Research in Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Stake, Robert E. (2006). Multiple Case Study Analysis. New York. London: The Guilford Press. Yin, K, Robert. (2018) Case study research and applications: Design and methods. 6th edition. Thousand Oak, London and New Delhi: SAGE Publications. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations (Vol. 3). Sage
Search the ECER Programme
- 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.