Fjernundervisningsrutiner på Maskinmesterskolen
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7146/lom.v17i29.140698Abstract
This article examines technology comprehension with teachers and students in remote learning routines at a school of marine and technical engineering. Using research and theories on dynamic organizational routines (Feldman, 2021; Feldman et al., 2021; Feldman & Pentland, 2003; Pentland & Feldman, 2008), an analysis of how technology comprehension is created in the dynamics of remote learning routines is conducted. The empirical foundation of the article is an ethnographic case study from 2021 comprised of shadowing of and interviews with three teachers and four students. The article presents new practice-oriented knowledge about development of technology comprehension among different actors and discusses the impact of organizational routines in that regard. The article concludes that practicing remote learning presupposes technology comprehension for both teachers and students. They repair, expand and strive for changes of the remote learning routine because its ostensive aspect represented in rules of dogma on one hand limits and enables the execution of the routine, but the routine itself does not always create and recreate the ostensive aspect of remote learning. The dynamic between the ostensive and performative aspect of remote learning is crucial to the development of the organizational capacity.
Downloads
References
Basballe, D. A., Hjorth, M., Iversen, O. S., Caspersen, M., Hansen, B. L., & Kanstrup, K. H. (2021). Gap-analyse af tek-nologiforståelse i det danske uddannelsessystem fra grundskole til ungdomsuddannelser.
Caspersen, M. E. (2021). Fra teknologiforståelse til informatik. MONA - Matematik og naturfagsdidaktik. Lokaliseret d. 14. februar 2023 på: https://tidsskrift.dk/mona/article/view/125075/171875
Czarniawska, B. (2007). Shadowing: And other techniques for doing fieldwork in modern societies. Copenhagen Busi-ness School Press DK.
Czerkawski, B. (2015). Computational Thinking in Virtual Learning Environments. 1227–1231. Lokaliseret d. 14. fe-bruar 2023 på: https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/152154/
D’Adderio, L. (2011). Artifacts at the centre of routines: Performing the material turn in routines theory. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(2), 197–230. Lokaliseret d. 14. februar 2023 på: https://doi.org/10.1017/S174413741000024X
D’Adderio, L. (2021). Materiality and Routine Dynamics. I Cambridge Handbook of Routine Dynamics (s. 85–100). Lokaliseret d. 14. februar 2023 på: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108993340.009
Dau, S. (2020). Læring på og i Blended Learning. Tidsskriftet Læring og Medier (LOM), 12(22), 23–23.
Ejsing-Duun, S., Gravesen, L. B., Ager, A. H. S., & Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2022). Åbn undervisningens ‘black boxes’: Fælles undersøgelses-og designprocesser af teknologibrug i omstillingen til online undervisning. Learning Tech, 11, 172–198.
Feldman, M. (2021). Practice Theory and Routine Dynamics. Cambridge Handbook of Routine Dynamics, 21.
Feldman, M. S. (2000). Organizational Routines as a Source of Continuous Change. Organization Science, 11(6), 611–629. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.6.611.12529
Feldman, M. S., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2011). Theorizing Practice and Practicing Theory. Organization Science, 22(5), 1240–1253. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0612
Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94. https://doi.org/10.2307/3556620
Feldman, M. S., Pentland, B. T., D’Adderio, L., Dittrich, K., Rerup, C., & Seidl, D. (Red.). (2021a). Cambridge Hand-book of Routine Dynamics. Cambridge University Press. Lhttps://doi.org/10.1017/9781108993340
Feldman, M. S., Pentland, B. T., D’Adderio, L., Dittrich, K., Rerup, C., & Seidl, D. (2021b). What Is Routine Dynamics? Cambridge Handbook of Routine Dynamics, 1–18.
Garrison, D., & Vaughan, N. (2008). Blended Learning in Higher Education: Framework, Principles, and Guidelines. I Blended Learning in Higher Education: Framework, Principles, and Guidelines. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118269558
Georgsen, M., Qvortrup, A., Gundersen, P. B., & Jørnø, R. L. V. (2021). Erfaringer og oplevelser med online undervis-ning
på 9 videregående uddannelsesinstitutioner i foråret 2020.
Giannakos, M. N., Mikalef, P., & Pappas, I. O. (2021). Systematic Literature Review of E-Learning Capabilities to En-hance Organizational Learning. Information Systems Frontiers, 1–17.
Goh, K. T., & Pentland, B. T. (2019). From Actions to Paths to Patterning: Toward a Dynamic Theory of Patterning in Routines. Academy of Management Journal, 62(6), 1901–1929. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.0042
Hansbøl, M. (2010). Researching relationships between ICTs and education: Suggestions for a science of movements. Lokaliseret den 14. februar 2023 på: https://www.ucviden.dk/en/publications/researching-relationships-between-icts-and-education-suggestions-
Hansbøl, M. (2010). Researching relationships between ICTs and education: Suggestions for a science of movements. Lokaliseret den 14. februar 2023 på: https://www.ucviden.dk/en/publications/researching-relationships-between-icts-and-education-suggestions-
Kiær, K. & Albrechtsen, T.R.S. (2024, in print). Dynamiske rutiner. Hvordan forandringer får fodfæste i
organisationer. Dansk Psykologisk Forlag.
McDonald, S. (2005). Studying actions in context: A qualitative shadowing method for organizational research. Quali-tative Research, 5(4), 455–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794105056923
Nicolini, D. (2009). Zooming In and Out: Studying Practices by Switching Theoretical Lenses and Trailing Connections. Organization Studies, 30(12), 1391–1418. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840609349875
Nicolini, D., & Monteiro, P. (2017). The practice approach: For a praxeology of organisational and management stud-ies. The Sage handbook of process organization studies, 110–126.
Parkes, M., Stein, S., & Reading, C. (2014). Student preparedness for university e-learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.10.002
Pentland, B. T., & Feldman, M. S. (2005). Organizational routines as a unit of analysis. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(5), 793–815.
Pentland, B. T., & Feldman, M. S. (2008). Designing routines: On the folly of designing artifacts, while hoping for pat-terns of action. Information and Organization, 18(4), 235–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2008.08.001
Rambøll. (2016). E-læring på videregående uddannelser. Lokaliseret d. 14. februar 2023 på: https://ufm.dk/publikationer/2017/filer/kortlaegning-e-laering-ved-de-videregaende-uddannelser.pdf
Riis, M., Hansen, J. J., & Holmboe, P. (2021). Teknologiforståelse for alle? – fagdidaktisk analyse af erhvervsuddan-nel-sernes nye grundfag Erhvervsinformatik. Learning Tech, 6(10), 351–381. https://doi.org/10.7146/lt.v6i10.125555
Riis, M., Mikkelsen, S. L. S., & Albrechtsen, T. R. S. (2022). Håbefuld pædagogik og online-undervisning på videregå-ende uddannelser. Tidsskriftet Læring og Medier (LOM), 15(26), Art. 26.
Tikva, C., & Tambouris, E. (2021). A systematic mapping study on teaching and learning Computational Thinking through programming in higher education. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 41, 100849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100849
Thomas, G (2015). How to do your case study (2. udgave). SAGE.
Valverde-Berrocoso, J., Garrido-Arroyo, M. del C., Burgos-Videla, C., & Morales-Cevallos, M. B. (2020). Trends in Educational Research about e-Learning: A Systematic Literature Review (2009–2018). Sustainability, 12(12), Art. 12. Lokaliseret d. 14. februar 2023 på: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12125153
Wang, M. (2018). Effects of Individual and Social Learning Support on Employees’ Acceptance of Performance-Oriented e-Learning. I M. Wang (Red.), E-Learning in the Workplace: A Performance-Oriented Approach Beyond Technology (s. 141–159). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64532-2_13
Åsvoll, H. (2014). Abduction, deduction and induction: Can these concepts be used for an understanding of method-ological processes in interpretative case studies? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 27(3), 289–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2012.759296
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Nichlas Olesen, Karina Kiær
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.
