Session Information
16 SES 08 A, Digital Governance, EdTech and Behaviour Modification
Paper Session
Contribution
Research in the field of education has explored the role of accountability policies in different contexts (e.g. Maroy, 2015) and how performance-based systems of accountability have increasingly been implemented to ensure that schools are held responsible for quality improvement on measurable policy-indicators (Camphuijsen, 2020). Recent research has also focused on how digital tools (such as Learning Analytic Platforms, abbreviated as LAPs) are used as policy tools for governance and accountability purposes (Martinez Lunde, 2022). However, less attention has been granted to processes of democratizing these tools by involving and making them transparent to the public. This study intends to address this gap in the literature and contribute to important insights to the intersection of digital and democratic governance of schools, especially in the Nordic countries. The paper is based on the premise that technological democratization is a 'moral imperative'. (Sclove, 1992, p. 143). The Nordic, and especially the Norwegian context emerges as an interesting case as researchers have highlighted tension between internal practice of educational professionals, and external practices such as national testing policy (Martinez Lunde, 2022). Additionally, research suggests that discursive tensions between a language of performance data and democracy has been rendered more visible in policies over time (Larsen et al., 2020).
The overarching research question guiding the study is as follows: How are current digital policy tools used by policymakers and school authorities related to students’ well being and learning outcomes subject to democratization? To address this question, I draw from three theoretical perspectives that inform the discussion. First, theories on accountability (O’day, 2002; Sinclair, 1995) provide a foundation for understanding how digital policy tools may provide transparency and ensure that schools are held accountable for students’ well-being and learning outcomes. This perspective emphasizes the workings of accountability when educational authorities aim to map schools’ practices when it comes to student learning and psychosocial well-being. Second, theories on professionalism (Anderson & Cohen, 2018; Sugrue & Solbrekke, 2014) highlights the importance of educators and policymakers’ autonomy to make informed decisions in the best interest of all students. Moreover, the perspective recognizes the importance of educational professionals’ judgements and contributes to a balanced discussion on the tensions between digital, “top down” governance on the one hand, and situated and contextually based professional judgement as a necessary ingredient in guiding local school development, on the other. Third, the perspective of phronesis or practical wisdom (Aristotle, 1999; Birmingham, 2004) emphasizes the need for ethical considerations and moral virtues in the process of decision-making in processes of digital governance. This perspective is chosen to add another layer of perspective to professional judgement in discussing challenges and opportunities in democratizing digital governance as it emphasizes the ethical and contextually situated judgement as key ingredients in the concept of phronesis. Additionally, the study considers the policy context in which these policy tools are situated and implemented. Even though educational policies and systems vary across countries and regions, these tools are somewhat similar across contexts. Accordingly, understanding the Nordic context will contribute to understanding the democratization of the tools in similar contexts, such as the Anglo-American and European. Also, how these tools are democratized will provide insight into how they can be used for future development of schools, and for the betterment of students’ well-being and learning outcomes.
Method
This study is inspired by a literature review anchored in the principles outlined by Boote & Beile (2005), meaning it draws from a range of sources, including books, articles, official documents, and research reports related to democratizing of digital governance tools in education over the last 10 years. Moreover, the article employs a post-structural approach to policy analysis (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016); critically examining the role of digital policy tools not only as a means to “solve” problems but are also intrinsically linked to producing them. To support the theoretical investigation, the study applies qualitative synthesis techniques informed by meta-ethnography (Noblitt & Hare, 1988). This method facilitates the synthesis of diverse qualitative studies, which enables the identification of themes and patterns in the findings from different studies utilizing different framework. In conjunction with the meta-ethnographic approach, the study also draws inspiration from the case-study approach (Yin, 2018). By examining several cases, such as the implementation of different digital policy-tools in Norway, the current article seeks to derive comparative insights into the dynamics of policy implementation, thereby aiming to account for contextual variations on how such tools represent challenges and opportunities for school authorities. The methodological synthesis of literature review, post-structural policy analysis, meta-ethnography, and case study-approach ensures a flexible and systematic approach to the complexity when investigating the democratization of policy tools. This synthesis allows for critically analyzing policy-dimensions of digital policy tools based on the first two approaches (literature review and post-structural analysis), while also considering the local and contextually situated studies based on the latter methodological approaches (meta-ethnography and case-study approach). This allows for including studies on how, e.g. municipalities in Norway use digital tools of governance and how these tools are subject to democratization, and what are the possible implications for students’ learning and well-being at school-level.
Expected Outcomes
The use of digital governance tools in education has the potential to leverage technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) to ensure cost efficiency and savings. For example, the widely used Conexus Insight in Norway shows a case of the benefits of AI in promoting technical and economic efficiency in the domain of education and accountability. However, this raises the challenge of balancing cost-savings and efficiency with the need for democratic digital governance as a ‘moral imperative’ (Sclove, 1992). Current research suggests that school authorities must exercise discretion to ensure that the use of digital policy tools does not undermine students’ well-being and learning outcomes (Southgate, 2021). The expected outcomes of this study include a contribution to understanding the complex challenges faced when authorities ensure the democratization of digital policy tools in digital governance. The research aims to identify opportunities and potential strategies for promoting transparency, participatory decision-making, and accountability in the use of digital policy tools in education. This understanding can inform policymakers, school authorities and other stakeholders in their efforts to create democratic and inclusive systems of governance, also in the sphere of digital systems of governance. Additionally, the study seeks to contribute to theoretical discussions by expanding the existing knowledge base on the intersection of digital governance, democracy, and the best interest of all students in education. Thus, by critically examining existing policies, theories and frameworks, the article sheds light on the complexities inherent in democratizing policy tools in the context of digital governance. In turn, this may contribute to understanding the role of ethics in professional judgement of school authorities when faced with the adoption and implementation of digital tools in educational settings. This may, in turn, inform the practices of school authorities and policy makers on the uses of digital tools.
References
Anderson, G. L., & Cohen, M. I. (2018). The New Democratic Professional in Education: Confronting Markets, Metrics, and Managerialism. Teachers College Press. Aristotle. (1999). The Nicomachean Ethics (p. 56). Blackwell. Bacchi, C., & Goodwin, S. (2016). Poststructural policy analysis (1st ed.) Palgrave Macmillan. Birmingham, C. (2004). Phronesis: A Model for Pedagogical Reflection. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(4), 313–324. Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars Before Researchers: On the Centrality of the Dissertation Literature Review in Research Preparation. In Educational Researcher (Vol. 34, Issue 6, pp. 3–15). https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x034006003 Camphuijsen, M. K. (2020). Coping with performance expectations: towards a deeper understanding of variation in school principals’ responses to accountability demands. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-020-09344-6 Larsen, E., Møller, J., & Jensen, R. (2020). Constructions of professionalism and the democratic mandate in education A discourse analysis of Norwegian public policy documents. Journal of Education Policy, 1–20. Martinez Lunde, I. (2022). Learning analytics as modes of anticipation: enacting time in actor-networks. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 1–15. Martinez Lunde, I. (2022). Digitization in school leadership and educational governance: Examples from policy and practice [PhD Dissertation]. University of Oslo. Maroy, C. (2015). Comparing Accountability Policy Tools and Rationales: Various Ways, Various Effects? In H.-G. Kotthoff & E. Klerides (Eds.), Governing Educational Spaces: Knowledge, Teaching, and Learning in Transition (pp. 35–59). Sense Publishers. Noblitt, G. W., & Hare, R. D. (1988). Meta-ethnography. SAGE Publications. O’day, J. A. (2002). Complexity, Accountability, and School Improvement. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3). Sclove, R. E. (1992). The Nuts and Bolts of Democracy: Democratic Theory and Technological Design. In L. Winner (Ed.), Democracy in a Technological Society (pp. 139–157). Springer Netherlands. Sinclair, A. (1995). The chameleon of accountability: Forms and discourses. In Accounting, Organizations and Society (Vol. 20, Issues 2–3, pp. 219–237). https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(93)e0003-y Southgate, E. (2021). Artificial Intelligence and Maching Learning: A Practical and Ethical Guide for Teachers. In C. Wyatt-Smith, B. Lingard, & E. Heck (Eds.), Digital disruption in teaching and testing. Routledge. Sugrue, C., & Solbrekke, T. (Eds.). (2014). Professional responsibility: New Horizons of Praxis. Routledge. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
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.