En metode til undersøgelse af digitale interaktioner fra de studerendes perspektiv

Forfattere

  • Maria Hvid Stenalt Københavns Universitet

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7146/lom.v15i26.130397

Nøgleord:

agens, handlekraft, digitale interaktioner, gestalt, teknologi

Resumé

De senere år har forskere argumenteret, at vi ikke kun skal interessere os for, hvorvidt digitale interaktioner virker, men også hvordan digitale interaktioner virker. I et forsøg på at understøtte dette fokus præsenterer denne artikel en metode, der kan anvendes til undersøgelse af studerendes oplevelse af digitale undervisnings- og læringsinteraktioner. Metoden bygger på teori om studerendes agens (handlekraft), men udvider gængse tilgange til agens som et primært individuelt fænomen med en relationel tilgang. Den relationelle tilgang placerer teknologi som hverken neutral eller determinerende, men med-konstituerende for studerendes handlinger. Artiklen præsenterer en model til analyse af digitale interaktioner, der applicerer det teoretiske afsæt, og der gives tre eksempler på værdien af modellen i praksis. De tre eksempler angår hhv. online peer-feedback via Peergrade, online gruppediskussioner i Zooms breakout-rooms og afdækning af viden ved hjælp af Mentimeter i Zoom. Undervejs i artiklen diskuteres metodens styrker og svagheder, og der giver til sidst anbefalinger til den videre brug af modellen.

Referencer

Aagaard, J. (2017). Introducing postphenomenological research: a brief and selective sketch of phenomenological research methods. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 30(6), 519-533.

Aagaard, J., & Matthiesen, N. (2016). Methods of materiality: Participant observation and qualitative research in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 13(1), 33-46.

Adams, C., & Thompson, T. L. (2016). Introduction to Posthuman Inquiry. In C. Adams & T. L. Thompson (Eds.), Researching a Posthuman World (pp. 1-22). Palgrame Macmillan.

Ashwin, P. (2012). Analysing teaching-learning interactions in higher education: Accounting for structure and agency. A&C Black.

Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on psychological science, 1(2), 164-180.

Bayne, S. (2015). What's the matter with ‘technology-enhanced learning’? Learning, Media and Technology, 40(1), 5-20.

Bertelsen, O. W., & Pold, S. (2004). Criticism as an approach to interface aesthetics. Proceedings of the third Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction,

Biesta, G. (2012). Giving teaching back to education: Responding to the disappearance of the teacher. Phenomenology & Practice, 6(2), 35-49.

Biesta, G., & Tedder, M. (2007). Agency and learning in the lifecourse: Towards an ecological perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 39(2), 132-149.

Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: a systematic evidence map. International journal of educational technology in higher education, 17(1), 2.

Bowen, G. A. (2006). Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(3), 12-23.

Bowen, G. A. (2020). Sensitizing concepts. SAGE Publications Limited.

Brinkmann, S. (2018). The interview. In N. K. L. Denzin, Yvonna S. (Ed.), Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (5 ed., pp. 576-599). SAGE.

Burkitt, I. (2018). Relational agency. In The Palgrave handbook of relational sociology (pp. 523-538). Springer.

Carvalho, L., & Yeoman, P. (2021). Performativity of materials in learning: The learning-whole in action.

Castañeda, L., & Selwyn, N. (2018). More than tools? Making sense of the ongoing digitizations of higher education. International journal of educational technology in higher education, 15(1), 22.

Castañeda, L., & Williamson, B. (2021). Assembling New Toolboxes of Methods and Theories for Innovative Critical Research on Educational Technology. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 10(1), 1-14.

Clements, J. A., & Boyle, R. (2018). Compulsive technology use: Compulsive use of mobile applications. Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 34-48.

Damşa, C., Langford, M., & Uehara, D. (2021). Teachers’ Agency and Online Education in Times of Crisis. Computers in Human Behavior, 106793.

Damşa, C. I., Kirschner, P. A., Andriessen, J. E., Erkens, G., & Sins, P. H. (2010). Shared epistemic agency: An empirical study of an emergent construct. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 143-186.

Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American journal of sociology, 103(4), 962-1023.

Eteläpelto, A. (2017). Emerging conceptualisations on professional agency and learning. In M. P. Goller, Susanna (Ed.), Agency at Work - An agentic perspective on professional learning and development (1 ed., pp. 183-201). Springer.

Facer, K., & Selwyn, N. (2021). Digital Technology and the Futures of Education: Towards ‘Non-Stupid’Optimism.

Goller, M., & Harteis, C. (2017). Human agency at work: Towards a clarification and operationalisation of the concept. In M. P. Goller, Susanna (Ed.), Agency at Work - An agentic perspective on professional learning and development (1 ed., pp. 85-103). Springer.

Goodyear, P., Ellis, R. A., & Marmot, A. (2018). Learning spaces research: Framing actionable knowledge. In Spaces of Teaching and Learning (pp. 221-238). Springer.

Gourlay, L. (2014). Creating time: Students, technologies and temporal practices in higher education [Article]. E-Learning and Digital Media, 11(2), 141-153. https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2014.11.2.141

Henderson, M., Selwyn, N., & Aston, R. (2017). What works and why? Student perceptions of ‘useful’digital technology in university teaching and learning. Studies in Higher Education, 42(8), 1567-1579.

Hodgson, V., McConnell, D., & Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2012). The theory, practice and pedagogy of networked learning. In Exploring the theory, pedagogy and practice of networked learning (pp. 291-305). Springer.

Jääskelä, P., Poikkeus, A.-M., Vasalampi, K., Valleala, U. M., & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2016). Assessing agency of university students: validation of the AUS Scale. Studies in Higher Education, 1-19.

Jornet, A., & Damşa, C. (2019). Unit of analysis from an ecological perspective: Beyond the individual/social dichotomy. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 31(Part B), 100329.

Kahu, E. R., & Nelson, K. (2018). Student engagement in the educational interface: understanding the mechanisms of student success. Higher education research & development, 37(1), 58-71.

Klemenčič, M. (2015). What is student agency? An ontological exploration in the context of research on student engagement. Student engagement in Europe: Society, higher education and student governance, 11-29.

Klemenčič, M. (2017). From Student Engagement to Student Agency: Conceptual Considerations of European Policies on Student-Centered Learning in Higher Education [Article]. Higher Education Policy, 30(1), 69-85. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-016-0034-4

Lim, Y.-k., Stolterman, E., Jung, H., & Donaldson, J. (2007). Interaction gestalt and the design of aesthetic interactions. Proceedings of the 2007 conference on Designing pleasurable products and interfaces,

Lindgren, R., & McDaniel, R. (2012). Transforming Online Learning through Narrative and Student Agency. Educational Technology & Society, 15(4), 344-355.

Marín, V. I., de Benito, B., & Darder, A. (2020). Technology-Enhanced Learning for Student Agency in Higher Education: a Systematic Literature Review. Interaction Design and Architecture(s) Journal IxD&A, 45, 15-49.

Nelson, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional science, 37(4), 375-401.

Nieminen, J. H., & Tuohilampi, L. (2020). ‘Finally studying for myself’–examining student agency in summative and formative self-assessment models. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1-15.

Packer, M. J., & Goicoechea, J. (2000). Sociocultural and constructivist theories of learning: Ontology, not just epistemology. Educational psychologist, 35(4), 227-241.

Perrotta, C. (2021). Underdetermination, assemblage studies and educational technology: Rethinking causality and re-energising politics. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 10(1), 43-56.

Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in higher education. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).

Rosenberger, R. (2014). Multistability and the agency of mundane artifacts: From speed bumps to subway benches. Human Studies, 37(3), 369-392.

Rosenberger, R. (2017). The ICT Educator’s fallacy. Foundations of Science, 22(2), 395-399.

Selwyn, N. (2008). From state‐of‐the‐art to state‐of‐the‐actual? Introduction to a special issue. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 17(2), 83-87.

Selwyn, N. (2016). Digital downsides: exploring university students’ negative engagements with digital technology. Teaching in Higher Education, 21(8), 1006-1021.

Selwyn, N. (2020). Re-imagining ‘Learning Analytics’… a case for starting again? The Internet and Higher Education, 46, 100745.

Soini, T., Pietarinen, J., Toom, A., & Pyhältö, K. (2015). What contributes to first-year student teachers’ sense of professional agency in the classroom? Teachers and Teaching, 21(6), 641-659.

Starkey, L. (2019). Three dimensions of student-centred education: a framework for policy and practice. Critical Studies in Education, 60(3), 375-390.

Stenalt, M. H. (2021a). Digital Student Agency: Approaching Agency in Digital Contexts from a Critical Perspective. Frontline Learning Research, 9(3), 52-68.

Stenalt, M. H. (2021b). Researching student agency in digital education as if the social aspects matter: students’ experience of participatory dimensions of online peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(4), 644-658. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1798355

Stenalt, M. H., & Lassesen, B. (2021). Does student agency benefit student learning? A systematic review of higher education research. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1-17.

Toom, A., Pietarinen, J., Soini, T., & Pyhältö, K. (2017). How does the learning environment in teacher education cultivate first year student teachers' sense of professional agency in the professional community? Teaching and teacher education, 63, 126-136.

Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. The higher education academy, 11, 1-15.

Tsai, Y.-S., Perrotta, C., & Gašević, D. (2019). Empowering learners with personalised learning approaches? Agency, equity and transparency in the context of learning analytics. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1-14.

van Dinther, M., Dochy, F., & Segers, M. (2011). Factors affecting students’ self-efficacy in higher education. Educational Research Review, 6(2), 95-108.

Williamson, B. (2019). Policy networks, performance metrics and platform markets: Charting the expanding data infrastructure of higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(6), 2794-2809.

Downloads

Publiceret

2022-07-05

Citation/Eksport

Stenalt, M. H. (2022). En metode til undersøgelse af digitale interaktioner fra de studerendes perspektiv. Tidsskriftet Læring Og Medier (LOM), 15(26). https://doi.org/10.7146/lom.v15i26.130397