Session Information
99 ERC SES 05 M, Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Paper Session
Contribution
Educational inequality in Europe is prevalent: PISA results show educational opportunities are highly unequal (OECD 2023). Existing structures of inequality depend on different levels of social, economic and cultural capital (Bourdieu 1978), further reproducing educational disadvantages among youth (Jünger 2008; Lareau 2011). While formal education is often prioritised in the discussion, non-formal (e.g. voluntary after school youth clubs) and informal education are considered essential in the acquisition of relevant skills (Spanhel 2020). In the last decade, non-formal educational settings have been discussed as increasingly indispensable for the acquisition of skills, especially in the context of digitalisation (Jeong et al. 2018).
In accordance with the German tradition of “Bildung”, educational participation is understood as a transformation of self-world-relations, further highlighting non-formal and informal arrangements. Digital media have become essential for self-world-relations, as they have created new options for participation as well as new requirements and obstacles for orientation (Jörissen and Marotzki 2009). This proceeds from the assumption that youth centres as non-formal educational providers offer a great opportunity of transformative education.
In line with the concept of “lifeworld orientation” (Grunwald and Thiersch 2009), educational programmes are becoming increasingly digitalised in view of the increasing mediatisation of everyday life, e.g. non-formal educational arrangements revolve around the usage of digital media, such as coding, 3D-printing or gaiming (“non-formal digitalised educational arrangements”).
The question emerges, whether non-formal institutions with digitalised educational arrangements succeed in enabling participation of youth, therefore reducing social and digital inequalities (Kutscher and Iske 2020).
In analysing different modes of interaction, the study examines conditions of participation in non-formal digitalised educational arrangements. The study aims at reconstructing social practices of interactions between pedagogues and youth as well as between humans and digital artefacts (e.g. programmes, tablets, 3D printers) that lead to participation of youth in processes of learning with and about digital artefacts.
Considering different conditions in those non-formal, educational arrangements, the pedagogical everyday life in both educational organisations is examined through Focused Ethnographies (Knoblauch 2001).
The study employs a qualitative research design: In order to empirically reconstruct the mechanisms of interaction towards educational participation, the participants’ and employees’ practices within those contexts are examined on the basis of Focused Ethnographies (Knoblauch 2001); Participatory Observation (e.g. Kelle 2018) and Documentary Video Analysis (e.g. Baltruschat 2010). In an ethnographic and reconstructive approach, the study identifies conditions under which these arrangements enable or constrain meaningful participations, thus facilitating the transformation of self-world-relations.Within the research process, structures and practices produced by artefacts such as digital hardware and software as well as non-digital artefacts are considered.
Field access is ensured via two institutions that offer a variety of non-formal digitalised educational arrangements involving activities such as coding, 3D-printing, gaming and streaming. The activities are offered free of charge and mostly take place after school. They do not aim at any formal qualification, thus they are considered to be “non-formal”.
Preliminary findings are based on a broad empirical data base collected: So far, 8 programmes in two different institutions have been filmed, allowing for in-depth analysis.
This paper fits in with the ECER’s 2024 theme “Education in an Age of Uncertainty” as, on one hand, ‘Bildung’ in relation to digitality is characterised by contingencies while, on the other hand, it may confront institutions, staff and youth to the new and unknown and may enable them to adapt to circumstances of digitalisation (Jörissen and Marotzki 2009).
Method
In order to empirically reconstruct different modes of interactions and the mechanisms of educational participation, the employees’ as well as participants’ practices within both non-formal institutions are examined through Focused Ethnographies (Knoblauch 2001); Participatory Observation (e.g. Kelle 2018) and Documentary Video Analysis (e.g. Baltruschat 2010). Data analysis is conducted with the Documentary Method, which is based on Karl Mannheims “sociology of knowldge” (Bohnsack 2009). The Documentary Method enables empirical access to (1) theoretical / explicit knowledge; (2) implicit, habitualised knowledge; as well as (3) incorporated practices of the ‘actual doings’ of the actors within its social contexts (Asbrand et al. 2013). The interactions captured on video in pedagogical settings are a comparatively new research object for the Documentary Method, as it challenges some of its principles. At the same time, it is attributed innovative power (Bohnsack 2017; Nohl et al. 2021): Interactions are characterised by "double complexity": (1) interactions are ambiguous as they arise between several actors with different habitus and roles (2) interactions develop simultaneously and sequentially. Video-based analysis of data using the Documentary Method can take this double complexity into account by considering two elements of interaction: orientations of different actors as well as the different manifestations of the modes of interaction (Nohl et al. 2021). Video analysis is not limited to spoken utterances. It focuses on communicative modalities that can be captured visually, thereby broadening its scope compared to ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (Tuma et al. 2013). Therefore, in this study not only speech, but also gestures and facial expressions are integrated into video transcriptions to make them accessible for analysis. Following the Documentary Method, data analysis consists of three steps (1) formulating interpretation, (2) reflecting interpretation and (3) comparison (Bohnsack et al. 2010). The comparison includes contrasting different cases of interactions as well as comparing both non-formal institutions regarding their institutional conditions, professional backgrounds of staff, resources and location which helps to understand how these conditions prevent or enable interactions and participation of youth. The data analysis culminates in the development of a typology that contributes to theory formation (Bohnsack 2021). In this study, the analysed interaction dynamics of professionals as well as youth are condensed into different modes of interaction and typified in terms of orientations, taking into account the sequence of the different modes of interaction (Nohl et al. 2021).
Expected Outcomes
Implementing an ethnographic and reconstructive research approach, the study identifies different modes of interactions in non-formal institutions with a focus on participation of youth. Due to the digitalised educational arrangements of both researched youth centres, the study reconstructs conditions for participating in digitalised educational processes, thus facilitating the transformation of self-world-relations. In order to empirically reconstruct different modes of interactions and the mechanisms of educational participation, the participants’ and employees’ practices within both non-formal institutions are examined through Focused Ethnographies (Knoblauch 2001); Participatory Observation (e.g. Kelle 2018) and Documentary Video Analysis (e.g. Baltruschat 2010). This praxeological approach enables the identification of practices and conditions of participation. Data analysis is implemented with the Documentary Method (Bohnsack 2009) enabling empirical access to (1) theoretical / explicit knowledge; (2) implicit, habitualised knowledge; as well as (3) incorporated practices of the ‚actual doings‘ of the actors within its social contexts (Asbrand et al. 2013). Video-based analysis of data using the Documentary Method takes this double complexity into account by considering two elements of interaction: orientations of different actors as well as the different manifestations of the modes of interaction (Nohl et al. 2021). This paper will introduce the methodological approach and the research process of this study. Moreover, first analytical stances on conditions in non-formal digitalised educational arrangements enabling or reinforcing educational participation of youth will be discussed. Provided data extracts will transparently illustrate the empirical base of the analytical stances.
References
Asbrand, Barbara, Matthias Martens, und Dorthe Petersen. 2013. „Die Rolle der Dinge in schulischen Lehr-Lernprozessen“. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft 16(S2):171–88. doi: 10.1007/s11618-013-0413-1. Baltruschat, Astrid. 2010. „Film Interpretation According to the Documentary Method“. S. 311–42 in Qualitative Analysis and Documentary Method in International Educational Research, herausgegeben von R. Bohnsack, N. Pfaff, und W. Weller. Verlag Barbara Budrich. Bohnsack, Ralf. 2009. „Dokumentarische Methode“. S. 319–30 in Qualitative Martkforschung. Konzepte - Methoden - Analysen. Bohnsack, Ralf. 2017. „Praxeological Sociology of Knowledge and Documentary Method: Karl Mannheim’s Framing of Empirical Research“. S. 199–220 in The Anthem companian to Karl Mannheim. Bohnsack, Ralf. 2021. Rekonstruktive Sozialforschung: Einführung in qualitative Methoden. 10., durchgesehene Auflage. Opladen Toronto: Verlag Barbara Budrich. Bohnsack, Ralf, Nicolle Pfaff, und Wivian Weller, Hrsg. 2010. Qualitative Analysis and Documentary Method in International Educational Research. Verlag Barbara Budrich. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1978. Die feinen Unterschiede: Kritik der gesellschaftlichen Urteilskraft. 29. Auflage. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Grunwald, Klaus, und Hans Thiersch. 2009. „The Concept of the ‘Lifeworld Orientation’ for Social Work and Social Care“. Journal of Social Work Practice 23(2):131–46. doi: 10.1080/02650530902923643. Jeong, Shinhee, Soo Jeoung Han, Jin Lee, Suravee Sunalai, und Seung Won Yoon. 2018. „Integrative Literature Review on Informal Learning: Antecedents, Conceptualizations, and Future Directions“. Human Resource Development Review 17(2):128–52. doi: 10.1177/1534484318772242. Jörissen, Benjamin, und Winfried Marotzki. 2009. Medienbildung eine Einführung ; Theorie - Methoden - Analysen. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt. Jünger, Rahel. 2008. Bildung für alle? Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Kelle, Helga. 2018. „Teilnehmende Beobachtung“. S. 224–27 in Hauptbegriffe qualitativer Sozialforschung, herausgegeben von R. Bohnsack, A. Geimer, und M. Meuser. Opladen: Verlag Barbara Budrich. Knoblauch, Hubert. 2001. „Fokussierte Ethnographie: Soziologie, Ethnologie und die neue Welle der Ethnographie“. 123–41. Kutscher, Nadia, und Stefan Iske. 2020. „Digitale Ungleichheiten im Kontext Sozialer Arbeit“. S. 115–28 in Handbuch Soziale Arbeit und Digitalisierung. Lareau, Annette. 2011. Unequal childhoods: class, race, and family life. 2nd ed., with an update a decade later. Berkeley: University of California Press. Nohl, Arnd-Michael, Morvarid Dehnavi, und Steffen Amling. 2021. „Interaktionsmodi und pädagogische Prozesse: Zur videographiebasierten dokumentarischen Interpretation von Interaktionen in Kindertagesstätten“. Jahrbuch Dokumentarische Methode 3(4):77–101. OECD. 2023. PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education. OECD. Spanhel, Dieter. 2020. „Kinder, Jugendliche und junge Erwachsene in digitalisierten Lernwelten“. S. 101–14 in Handbuch Soziale Arbeit und Digitalisierung, herausgegeben von N. Kutscher, T. Ley, U. Seelmeyer, F. Siller, A. Tillmann, und I. Zorn. Weinheim Basel: Beltz Juventa.
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.