The document summarizes a presentation about issues with the digitalization debate and how the field of technology-enhanced learning (TEL) research can address them. Some key points discussed include: - There are deterministic and oversimplified perspectives on digitalization that ignore social realities and contexts. - TEL research needs to take a more interdisciplinary approach and consider responsibilities like ethics. - The gap between TEL research and educational practice needs to be reduced through approaches like design-based research. - Institutions and governance models should promote didactic diversity to support localized development in digitalization.

1. Digitalisierungswahnsinn oder
Nebeneffekte des Mainstream?
Prof. Dr. Marco Kalz
Professor für Mediendidaktik
kalz@ph-heidelberg.de
Frankfurt, 12. 09. 2018

2. Über mich
12. September 2018 2
http://www.marcokalz.de

3. Struktur des Vortrages
3
• Was läuft falsch bei der Digitalisierungsdebatte?
• Unintendierte Effekte
• Mainstreaming vs. Sidestreaming
• Was können wir als Wissenschaftler beitragen?
• Wie können unsere Organisationen reagieren?
12. September 2018

4. Terminologische Unschärfe
4
• Digitales Lernen, Elearning, Digitalisierung
des Lernens, technologiegestütztes
Lernen, EduTech, EdTech etc.
12. September 2018

5. Digitalisierung der Gesellschaft
512. September 2018
The term ‘digitised society’ refers to a society that
is dependent on digital technologies, software,
platforms, media and social and digital networks
for interaction, connectedness, both at work and
in people’s everyday lives. This implies a society
characterised by an ongoing and increased
digitisation and more advanced technologies.
Fransson, 2016

6. Zielunschärfe
6
• Zieldefinition: Nutzung von digitaler
Technologie, um das Lernen effizienter,
effektiver oder zugänglicher zu machen
• Hingegen: Digitalisierung erscheint als
Selbstzweck!
• Lebenswelt-Argument: Weil die
Gesellschaft immer digitaler wird, muss
die Hochschule und das Lernen dort auch
immer digitaler werden
12. September 2018

7. Holistische Annahmen
7
• Was im Kontext x funktioniert, funktioniert
auch im Kontext y
• Hingegen: Bildungswissenschaft als
„Hard-to-do-science“ Berliner (2002) zitiert
in Reinmann (2009)
12. September 2018

8. Äquivalenzannahmen
8
• Die Digitalisierung der Verwaltung, der
Forschung und der Lehre sind ein Prozess
• Hingegen: Alle drei beschäftigen sich mit
unterschiedlichen Prozessen und Zielen
und erfordern andere Aktionen und
Interventionen
12. September 2018

9. Populismus/Popularisierung
9
• Wissenschaft wird im öffentlichen Diskurs
über Digitalisierung oft ignoriert
12. September 2018

10. 10
Technologischer Determinismus
12. September 2018

11. Zentralisierung von Governance
11
• Digitalisierung impliziert oft Zentralisierung
– Auf Hochschulebene (Digitalisierungsstrategie)
– Auf Ebene der Forschungsförderung
– Auf Ebene der Schulverwaltung
– Auf Ebene des Bundes
12. September 2018

12. Reduktion statt Erweiterung
12
• Digitalisierung wird oft über das Ersetzen von
nicht-digitalen Bildungsprozessen
argumentiert
• Hingegen: Wissenschaft sieht
technologiegestütztes Lernen oft als
Ergänzung oder Erweiterung
12. September 2018

13. Epistemologische Dimension
1312. September 2018
From such a position, the
enactment of digital technologies in
education has ontological and
epistemological implications for
the educational system that
schools, teachers and pupils need
to relate to.Fransson, 2016

14. Unintendierte Effekte
1412. September 2018
Qualitative Studie von Fransson et al. (2018)
zeigt gut die Dilemmata, in denen sich
verschieden Typen von Lehrpersonen beim
Thema der Digitalisierung befinden
• Vorteilhafter Einsatz von digitalen Medien
hängt ab von der Persönlichkeit und
Kompetenzen der Lehrperson
• Digitalisierungsdebatte kann das Selbstbild
von Lehrern negativ beeinflussen

15. Mainstreaming vs. Sidestreaming
15
Mainstreaming Sidestreaming
Zentralisierte Prozesse Dezentrale Expertise
Klare Ursache-Wirkungserwartungen Chance für lokale Entwicklung
Standardisierung von Technologie Technologische Diversität
Weniger Support durch Standards Supportstrukturen
Heeks, 2010
12. September 2018

16. Was können wir tun?
1612. September 2018
Uns ernsthaft mit der
Kritik an unserem
eigenen Feld
auseinandersetzen!

17. TEL as a research domain
17
Technology-Enhanced Learning was
established around the year 2000 as a new
concept to
• overcome the limitations of the technology-
centric „electronic learning methaphor“ (E-
Learning)
• to stress that technology is an enhancement,
but learning in itself remains learning
12. September 2018

18. TEL as a research domain
18
• to fully embrace the interdisciplinary potential
of latest findings from education, psychology
and computer science
• to not only use but also to create technological
artifacts
• Enhancement implies improvement (Kirkwood
& Price, 2013)
12. September 2018

19. TEL as a research domain
19
Technology-enhanced learning encompasses
the development and application of (latest)
technologies based on educational theories and
theories of learning to validate the impact on
effectiveness, efficiency and accessibility
12. September 2018

20. Criticism on the TEL paradigm (Bayne, 2015)
20
Technology-enhanced learning „has been
adopted as an apparently useful, inoffensive
and descriptive shorthand for what is in fact a
complex and often problematic constellation of
social, technological and educational change“.
12. September 2018

21. 21
• Technology decoupled from social realities
• Technology as an actor in the network
(Latour)
• Reducing education to learning
• „We need to ask not only what
technologies can do, but where they fail in
relation to our expectations of education“
(Hamilton & Friesen, 2013)
Criticism on the TEL paradigm (Bayne, 2015)
12. September 2018

22. 22
• Over-optimistic rhetoric
• Reform overwrites reform
• Limited replicability
• Always backed up by market interest
(EdTech as example)
Criticism on the TEL domain (Al Lily..Kalz, et al, 2017 )
12. September 2018

23. Was können wir tun?
2312. September 2018
Den Fokus wieder
erweitern!

24. Thematic focus
24
Micro
Meso
Macro
The learning situation
The learning context
The learning organisation
animations, feedback, learning strategies, learner
dashboards
orchestration, seamless learning, learning design,
augmented reality
MOOCs, LMS, PLE, learning networks
12. September 2018

25. TEL research
Zawacki-Richter & Latchem, 2018
12. September 2018

26. TEL research
Zawacki-Richter & Latchem, 2018
12. September 2018

27. TEL research
 Learning analytics
 Mobile and seamless learning
 Augmented reality applications
 Technology-enhanced assessment
 MOOCs and OER
 Learning networks
 AI and ML in education
 Serious games and gamification
 Robots and computational thinking
12. September 2018

28. TEL research
12. September 2018
Wo sind
unsere
Institutionen?

29. Was können wir tun?
2912. September 2018
Interdisziplinarität
neu denken!

30. TEL and Interdisciplinarity
30
Meltzoff et al., 2009
12. September 2018

31. 31
Technology-enhanced
learning
Psychology
Educational Sciences
Computer Science
TEL and Interdisciplinarity
12. September 2018

32. 32
Technology-enhanced
learning
Educational Sciences
• Educational theories
• Didactics
• Instructional theories
• Anchor domain
• Policy background
TEL and Interdisciplinarity
12. September 2018

33. 33
Technology-enhanced
learning
• Educational psychology
• Cognitive theories
• Theories of knowledge
acquisition
• Social psychology
• Methodological foundation
Psychology
TEL and Interdisciplinarity
12. September 2018

34. 34
Technology-enhanced
learning
• Artifact development and
adaptation
• Methodological foundation
• User-driven development
• Standardisation
Computer science
TEL and Interdisciplinarity
12. September 2018

35. 35
Kalz & Specht, 2014
TEL and Interdisciplinarity
12. September 2018

36. 3612. September 2018
TEL and Interdisciplinarity

37. 37
ResponsibleResearch
andInnovation
Technology
Assessment
Ethics
Science,
Technology, Society
Grunwald, 2011
12. September 2018
TEL and Interdisciplinarity

38. 38
Worldbank, 2016
5.) TEL and the digital divide
12. September 2018

39. 39
• SES (socio-economic status) & access to
internet/technology
Roswell, Morrell, & Alvermann, 2017
5.) TEL and the digital divide
12. September 2018

40. 40
 Warschauer (2003) as alternative to the
divide metaphor a social inclusion
methaphor:
„(T)he ability to access, adapt and create
new knowledge using new information and
communication technology is critical to
social inclusion in today´s era“ (Warschauer,
2003)
5.) TEL and the digital divide
12. September 2018

41. 41
Hillbert, 2011
5.) TEL and the digital divide
12. September 2018

42. Social reproductionRRI-Principles
42
Technology-enhanced
learning
Psychology
Educational Sciences
Computer Science
Rethinking our research agendas
12. September 2018

43. Was können wir tun?
4312. September 2018
Die Theorie-Praxis-
Lücke verringern!

44. 44
Why should I bother with practice problems?
Why should I bother with science?
1.) Research/practice gap
12. September 2018

45.  Too little impact of TEL research on
practice
 Structural division between research
context and practice context
 High amount of experimental research,
low transfer to practice
 Optimalisation problem between internal
validity and ecological validity?
 Lack of implementation science
45
1.) Research/practice gap
12. September 2018

46. Brown (1992): Focus on engineering
innovative educational environments and
simultaneously conduct experimental
studies of those innovations.
46
1.) Research/practice gap
12. September 2018

47. 47
Brown, 1992
1.) Research/practice gap
12. September 2018

48. „a systematic but flexible methodology
aimed to improve educational practices
through iterative analysis, design, develop‐
ment, and implementation, based on
collaboration among researchers and
practitioners in real - world settings, and
leading to contextually sensitive design
principles and theories” (Wang and
Hannafin, 2005)
48
1.) Research/practice gap
12. September 2018

49. 49
DBR vs. Predictive Research (Reeves, 2006)
12. September 2018

50. 1. Design of learning environments and
development of (proto-)theories are
aligned
2. Research and development through
cyclic processes of design,
implementation, data collection,
interpretation and redesign
3. Design in authentic context
50
5 aspects of DBR (DBRC, 2003)
20 June 2018

51. 4. Use of standardized methods
5. Goal: Sharable theories with relevancy
for practice and research
51
5 aspects of DBR (DBRC, 2003)
12. September 2018

52. DBR criticism (Orngreen, 2015)
• Methodological overload (Dede,
2004)
• Researcher is too much involved with
the outcome
• Cyclic development leads to
uncomparable cycles
5212. September 2018

53. • Too linear view on the learning
process (Engeström, 2011)
• Too much focus on artifacts and fast
„solutions“ (Dede, 2004)
• How can we describe and exchange
designs? (Reimann, 2006)
53
DBR criticism (Orngreen, 2015)
12. September 2018

54. 54
Implementation Science 4 TEL
12. September 2018
Tabak et al., 2012

55. Was können wir tun?
5512. September 2018
Deterministische
Positionen erkennen
und vermeiden!

56. 56
2.) Deterministic positions
12. September 2018

57. Technological determinism (Chandler,
1995)
• Reductionism: Mono-causality
• Reification: homogeneous traits
• Technological autonomy
• Neutrality of technology
57
2.) Deterministic positions
12. September 2018

58. Social determinism
• Ignoring/denying the influence of
technology
• Overestimating agency
• Ignoring that technologies are made
by people
58
2.) Deterministic positions
12. September 2018

59. Was können wir tun?
5912. September 2018
Die Objektivierung von
digitaler Technologie
vermeiden!

60. 60
3.) Technology as an object
• Technology as a “discrete force with a
discernible direction and influence”
(Pannabecker, 1991)
• Berry (2014) “The digital world is increasingly
creating destabilizing amounts of dis-embedded
knowledge, information and processing
capabilities that undermine the enlightenment
subject – this forms an important background to
critical approaches to computation“
• New epistemological realities
12. September 2018

61. 61
3.) Technology as an object
1. Bring your own device practices in school
2. Mobile learning vs. personal notification
preferences
3. Search and information evalution tasks in
personalised search engines
12. September 2018

62. Was können wir tun?
6212. September 2018
Die Lücke zwischen
politischen Entscheidungen
und der Forschungslage
schließen!

63. Gap between policy decisions and
evidence from research
• Exclusion of tablets from the
„Digitalpakt“
• Adoption of country-wide OER
initiatives without a strong empirical
basis for effects
63
6.) Policy/research gap
12. September 2018

64. 64
Technology
Psychology
Education
6.) Policy/research gap
12. September 2018

65. 65
6.) Policy/research gap
12. September 2018

66. Was können wir tun?
6612. September 2018
Was können
unsere
Institutionen tun?

67. 67
Systemischer Ansatz
12. September 2018

68. Neue Governancemodelle
68
Didaktische Diversität fördern über
polyzentrische Governancemodelle
“polycentric,” the co-existence of “many
centers of decision-making that are formally
independent of each other” (V. Ostrom,
Tiebout, Warren 1961: 831; see also V.
Ostrom 1999a, 1999b).
12. September 2018

69. 69
Zusammenfassung
TEL needs to function as catalyst for new
technologies
• to evaluate their impact on learning,
education and society
• to understand the context of use
• to assess the interaction of users
• to estimate long-term effects
12. September 2018

70. Zusammenfassung (1/2)
70
Um uns als Community in die
Digitalisierungsdebatte einzubringen sollten
wir…
1. Viel kritischer mit deterministischen
Positionen umgehen
2. Unser Verständnis von Technologie
erweitern
3. Unser Verständnis von Interdisziplinarität
erweitern und RRI-Prinzipien integrieren
12. September 2018

71. 71
4. So eng mit der Praxis zusammenarbeiten
wie möglich (DBR & User-centred design)
5. Eine neue Kultur der
Implementationswissenschaft etablieren
6. Allianzen verstärken
7. Eine inklusive Forschungsagenda
entwickeln, die bewusst mit der sozialen
Reproduktion in DE umgeht
8. Unsere Institutionen beforschen
12. September 2018
Zusammenfassung (2/2)

72. EATEL
7212. September 2018

73. EC-TEL 2019
7312. September 2018

74. 17. April 2018 74
kalz@ph-heidelberg.de
http://twitter.com/mkalz
Vielen Dank!