En metode til undersøgelse af digitale interaktioner fra de studerendes perspektiv
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7146/lom.v15i26.130397Keywords:
agens, handlekraft, digitale interaktioner, gestalt, teknologiAbstract
In the last couple of years, research has called for studies that promote realistic accounts of digital technologies in teaching and learning rather than studies promoting technology's effectiveness. To address this challenge, this article presents a method to investigate students’ experiences of digital interactions. The method builds on student agency theory; however, it expands current approaches to agency as an individual phenomenon by integrating a relational perspective. Furthermore, this approach emphasises technology as neither neutral nor defining but co-constitutive of student actions. Based on this, the paper presents a model that applies the theoretical foundation, and three empirical examples are offered to show how the model produces valuable insights into practice. The examples include online peer-feedback using the platform Peergrade, online group discussions in Zoom’s breakout rooms and test of knowledge using Mentimeter and Zoom. Finally, the article discusses the strengths and challenges of the model and concludes by suggesting further use of the model.
Downloads
References
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
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Maria Hvid Stenalt
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Articles published in the Journal of Learning and Media are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 Unported Licens.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication; simultaneously articles are licensend under the Creative Commons Attribution license: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerviatives (by-nc-nd). Read about this license at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/
---
At LOM.dk, you will also find articles from the discontinued Journal for the Continuing and Further Education of the Danish Universities (UNEV). Note that special rules apply to UNEV articles:
It is the authors and any other copyright holder who have the copyright of articles published under the auspices of UNEV, and access to the articles is contingent on users acknowledging and complying with the associated legal guidelines:
- Users may download and print one copy of any UNEV publication for private studies or research.
- The redistribution of articles or the use of these for revenue-funded activities or commercial purposes are not allowed.
- It is not allowed to distribute the URLs of UNEV articles.
