The UK Sustainability and Climate Change policy paper – An analysis

The UK Sustainability and Climate Change policy paper – An analysis

by | BERA, NW 30 Environmental and Sustainability Education Research, ESER

In April 2022, the UK Department for Education (DfE) published a policy paper laying out a strategy for the education and children’s services systems on the topic of sustainability and climate change. Dr Athanasia Chatzifotiou, Senior Lecturer at the University of Sunderland in the UK took a closer look at the policy paper to help us understand its provisions and proposals.

Key Messages

  • The Strategy identifies the importance of sustainability and climate change aiming to reach teachers and other professionals engaged in a variety of children’s service systems.
  • The Strategy has limitations that emanate from the language used and its actual content that is not presented in a clear and coherent manner for different stakeholders.
  • The Strategy acknowledges the DfE’s role in sustainability, and it promotes mainly knowledge on its environmental aspect (e.g. focus on biodiversity, outdoor/nature knowledge, etc.). The social aspects of sustainability are hardly addressed, and the economic ones are presented as job opportunities.
  • The Strategy takes into consideration important policies, and national and international initiatives but it fails to show how these can inform the action areas and initiatives that drive the Strategy.
  • The Strategy does not enable practitioners to facilitate a thorough climate and sustainability education where both socio-economic and socio-scientific issues can be taken into consideration.

The Strategy

The policy paper Sustainability and climate change: a strategy for the education and children’s services systems (referred to as the Strategy onwards) should be welcomed. It had been missing from the wider political and educational context (Greer, King and Glackin, 2021).

The Strategy identifies the importance of sustainability and climate change and is aimed at teachers and other professionals engaged in a variety of children’s service systems. Aside from the positive note upon its entry, however, the Strategy has limitations. These limitations emanate from the language used and its actual content that is not coherently presented for different stakeholders (e.g. teachers, civil servants etc.). For instance, the vision presented aims to make the UK ‘…the world-leading education sector in sustainability and climate change by 2030’, but the Strategy applies to England only. This rhetoric is accompanied by principles (e.g. ‘..we will seek opportunities to work with others… Evidence will be at the heart of our activity… we will make the greatest impact. We will adopt a systems-based approach…’, etc.) that are hard to argue against, but it is also hard to see how these aims will be achieved. These limitations are discussed below in relation to the general provisions the Strategy makes and to climate education in particular.

The Strategy’s provisions

The Strategy acknowledges the DfE’s important role in all aspects of sustainability. It highlights the overall aim of reducing our environmental footprints in accordance with achieving Net Zero. Net Zero is the ‘umbrella’ UK policy for decarbonising all sectors of the UK economy by 2050.  However, there is a focus on environmental sustainability that creates a disequilibrium among the social, economic and environmental aspects. This also favours the country’s economic goals rather than its educational or environmental ones (Dunlop and Rushton, 2022).

While the Strategy acknowledges the DfE’s role in sustainability, its focus centres upon knowledge (e.g. biodiversity, outdoor/nature knowledge, etc.). Rushton and Dunlop (2022, p.3) identified a similar issue arguing that the Strategy: “…is on learning more about…not empowering young people to act for the environment or challenging the root cause of climate change.” This is evident in the Strategy’s identified Action areas (five in total) and initiatives (three in total).

The Actions are:

1) Climate Education,

2) Green Skills and careers,

3) Education Estate and Digital Infrastructure,

4) Operations and Supply Chains and

5) International

 

The initiatives are:

1) the National Education Nature Park (a virtual nature park)

2) the Climate Leaders Award (similar to other awards like the John Muir Award, Duke of Edinburgh’s Award, etc.)

3) Sustainability Leadership (noting support from senior management leadership).

Within the above, the social aspects of sustainability are barely identified, and the economic ones are presented as job opportunities. For instance, the Action area ‘Green skills and jobs’ highlights only the potential number of green jobs that will be created and nothing more; the Action area ‘Education Estate and digital technology’ contains information around heating solutions, water scarcity, etc. that links them to school buildings without clearly showing the role of teachers and children in these. 

Even though the Strategy takes into consideration important policies, national and international initiatives (e.g. the United Nations’17 Sustainable Development Goals and UNESCO’s ‘Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), the Paris Agreement and Glasgow Climate Pact, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child (UNCRC), the UK Climate Change Act (2008), etc.), it fails to show how these can inform the action areas and initiatives that drive the strategy. An example of such failure can be seen with the initiative National Education Nature Park. The focus seems to be mostly on environmental knowledge (e.g. ‘deliver improvements in biodiversity, contribute to the implementation of the nature recovery network, etc.); a ‘trend’ that shows in other counties as well (Monroe, Plate, Oxarart, Bowers and Chaves, 2019). Nowhere is visible how the 17 SD goals or the Convention on Children’s Rights can inform the above in a manner that professionals can make a change. The focus on environmental knowledge is prevalent throughout the Strategy including climate education.

Action Area 1 – Climate Education

I want to focus on Climate Education (Action Area 1) because the proposals are for children to learn about nature, the cause and impact of climate change and the importance of sustainability. These suggestions reflect once more an approach to ‘learning about’ rather than empowering action. Admittedly, the latter is much more difficult to achieve, especially in an educational context where mainly discipline and conformity are promoted amongst pupils.

The Strategy highlights particular National Curriculum subjects (e.g. science, geography, etc.) that can promote such learning from early years onwards. It highlights the GCSEs (General Certificate for Secondary Education) in design and technology, food preparation and nutrition, and economics as topics that can further enhance the importance of learning about sustainability while at the same time, it announces a new natural history GCSE by 2025 for ‘deeper knowledge of the natural world’.

This interest in knowledge is further enhanced by the proposed annual Climate Literacy Survey from 2022 to benchmark progress in improving the climate knowledge of school leavers. Knowledge is important, but Rushton and Dunlop (2022) identified that teachers and students alike were asking for more critical thinking, doing research, taking action, communicating and networking with others. Knowledge alone does not necessarily lead to environmental action (Skamp, Boyes and Stannistreet, 2009). Still, the Strategy sees science knowledge as most fitting for climate education. This is reflected in science teachers’ Continuing Personal Development (CPD) and on developing a Primary Science Model Curriculum to include ‘an emphasis on nature to ensure all children understand the world’.

This ‘knowledge overload’ manifests itself in the implicit alignment that the Strategy brings between Climate Education and Education for Sustainable Development. However, throughout the Strategy there is neither a clear distinction between the two nor any links made for teachers to see how they relate to each other.

Climate change and political impartiality

Finally, and most disappointingly, the section on Climate Education closes with a message on political impartiality.

The message, amongst other things, says: “Teaching about climate change, and the scientific facts and evidence behind this, does not constitute teaching about a political issue and schools do not need to present misinformation or unsubstantiated claims to provide balance.” 

Climate education is a socio-scientific issue (Henderson, Long, Berger, Russell, and Drewes, 2017) and as such it carries socio-political dimensions. A systematic review of effective education strategies in climate change education highlighted a distinction between ‘just the facts’(that is, ‘learning about’) and ‘also the actions’ approaches which refer to an apolitical and a political approach to the issue of climate change education (Monroe et.al, 2019).

When priority is given to ‘just the facts’, then the socioeconomic dimensions of climate and sustainability education – which are explicitly included in the United Nations Sustainable Goals – are compromised. Scholars like Gayford and Dillon (1995) have clearly shown since the ‘90s the dilemmas and difficulties that teachers face when teaching environmental issues precisely because they span through all domains (social, economic, physical). There needs to be a balance between the scientific information and the value-laden nature of climate and sustainability education. This kind of balance is missing from the said Strategy.

Conclusion

The Strategy has given schools an opportunity to consider their sustainability and climate education approaches. In a way, it is contributing towards ‘spreading the word’ on the importance of educating and acting upon environmental and climate issues. Acquiring scientific knowledge about these issues is paramount; but also of paramount importance are the socio-economic dimensions of these issues.

Other blog posts on similar topics:

Dr Athanasia Chatzifotiou

Dr Athanasia Chatzifotiou

Senior Lecturer, University of Sunderland, UK

Athanasia Chatzifotiou gained her Ph.D. from Durham University in the UK. She examined primary school teachers’ knowledge and awareness of environmental education in two European countries, namely England and Greece. Her subsequent work addressed issues concerning the status of education for sustainable development in the National Curriculum in England and Greece, policy initiatives in England, the Eco-school approach in early years and primary schools, etc. She teaches in the BA Hons Childhood Studies degree at Sunderland University where she is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Social Sciences.

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8517-598X

References and further reading

Department for Education, (2022). Policy paper: Sustainability and climate change: a strategy for the education and children’s services systems. Retrieved from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sustainability-and-climate-change-strategy/sustainability-and-climate-change-a-strategy-for-the-education-and-childrens-services-systems

Dunlop, L. and Rushton, A.C. (2022). Putting climate change at the heart of education: Is England’s strategy a placebo for policy? British Education Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3816

Dunlop, L. and Rushton, A. C. (2022). Five ways the new sustainability and climate change strategy for schools on Englabd doesn’t match up to what young people actually want. The Conversation, https://theconversation.com/five-ways-the-new-sustainability-and-climate-change-strategy-for-schools-in-england-doesnt-match-up-to-what-young-people-actually-want-181966 [Accessed 5/4/2023]

Gayford, C. and Dillo, P. (1995). Policy and the practices of environmental education in England: a dilemma for teachers. Environmental Education Research, v.1, p.173-183.

Greer, K. King, H. and Glackin, M. (2021). The ‘web of conditions’ governing England’s climate change education policy landscape, Journal of Education Policy, DOI: 10.1080/02680939.2021.1967454

Henderson, J. Long, D. Berger, P. Russell, C. and Drewes, A. (2017). Expanding the foundation: climate change and opportunities for educational research. Educational Studies, v.53, n.4, p.412-425. DOI: 10.1080/00131946.2017.1335640

 Monroe, M. Plate, R. Oxarart, A. Bowers, A. and Chaves, W. (2019). Identifying effective climate change education strategies: a systematic review of the research, Environmental Education Research, 25:6, 791-812, DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2017.1360842

 Skamp, K. Boyes, E. Stannistreet, M. (2009). Global warming responses at the primary secondary students’ beliefs and willingness to act. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, v. 25, p.15-30

You’ve been hired! Exploring the future of learning design using speculative methods

You’ve been hired! Exploring the future of learning design using speculative methods

by | ESAI, NW 13 Philosophy of Education, NW 16 ICT in Education and Training

The latest annual survey from the Association for Learning Technology (ALT) highlights the changes in the profession of those who work in the spaces where technology, teaching, and learning intersect. The brokers who work in these vital in-between places of education have been referred to as “third space professionals”.

A range of titles is reported in the ALT annual survey by respondents, with the most common being “learning technologist”. For real, paid work, people apply for more prosaic-sounding jobs than that of a “third space professional”. There may be gaps, if not tensions, between academic parlance and how we speak in the real world.

If this resonates with you, and you are a pragmatic person who seeks tangible, real-world solutions, rather than abstract academic notions, then stop reading now. If, however, you would like to work at a more-than-real posthuman University – in an entanglement of technology, plants, animals, emotions, gods, and demons, where you would write learning designs directly onto other people’s hearts – then read on.

Key Messages

  • Learning designer/technologist roles continue to increase greatly both in number and their scope.
  • The roles of learning designers/academic developers/learning technologists/heads of teaching and learning centres are vitally important but complex.
  • Speculative methods are being increasingly used in both teaching and educational research.
  • Speculative methods (specifically speculative fiction) can be used to think about the impact of learning design roles and imagine strange but bright university futures for and of them.

Conceptualising learning design roles

A recent exercise conducted with learning designers in Ireland aimed to creatively analyse, conceptualise and represent the role of learning designer. It proceeded from the contention that a digital learning consultant, or an academic developer, or a head of digital education, are more than their titles. And they are more than their skills. Indeed, they are more than human. We do not live as job titles, as bunches of disembodied skills and competencies, nor even as perfectly differentiated individual human beings. Rather, we live deeply entangled in the language that describes us, in the tools we use [1], in each other, and in the non-human beings of this world [2].

To make sense of this provocation, and to learn how learning designers actually feel and live this entanglement, we adopted a more-than-real speculative approach. Speculative methods are not premised on measurement or “what works” but rather on “not-yetness”. They attempt to create or leave space for dreaming about what is yet to come. They are approaches “aimed at envisioning or crafting futures or conditions which may not yet currently exist, to provoke new ways of thinking and to bring particular ideas or issues into focus” (Ross, 2007).

In our study, we analysed a collection of job postings for learning technology roles advertised in Ireland during the pandemic. Based on these, we interviewed several fictional learning designers. These people had just been hired into a strange university that exists in the near future. Below is an excerpt from one such fictional interview, adapted from the preprint version of our article, the full version of which you can read in the journal Learning Media and Technology. 

Christine:

What was your last question? My learning design super-power? Ha ha, I like it! Well, we took this Info Lit class one time on posthumanism and speciesism. Also, that year we were editing Wikipedia, to fill in gaps on famous women, so I did Frances Power Cobbe. She campaigned for animal rights and the rights of women to vote and attend university. I went down a bit of a rabbit hole then, and read all about the Brown Dog affair, but I had to stop after a while because it was just so horrible that someone could be cutting up a dog who was clearly in distress. When I read about the medical students taking down the statue that commemorated the dog, I just felt my body shaking and I took both hands off my iPad and let it drop to the ground.

 Anyway, long story short, I pick the ability to speak to animals as my superpower. I look after all the animals here in the Animal Aid Division of the Learning Design Deck. Me, and my friend Pema.

It all started with Isha. As a blind student, she had to fight for literally everything during her time in the University and for her dog Sandy too. But one time we were doing all this big data stuff, trying to catch people cheating in exam halls. An algorithm checked the similarity of students who sat close together and triangulated with sweat levels the system could see on their skin. We were looking at all these mood maps and I noticed that people sitting near Sandy in the exams seemed calmer. So that’s how the project of allowing dogs in exam halls started, because they had such a positive effect on people. And then we were loaning dogs out to students to take walks with. That evolved into our Library Dogs initiative. Later, I went back and looked at the data and realised that there was some uplifting effect for students in exams sitting near windows. Turns out, just seeing some plant life is good for you, a little bit of green. So, we started working connecting students with trees. The researchers were all excited and talking about oxytocin levels and so on, but it just seems like basic sense to me. It’s like something I heard once about how you need connection but you don’t need another person necessarily, just one tendril of love to something, and that could be looking in a dog’s eyes or touching a tree [3].

And the whole thing grew from there really, and we are rewilding parts of the University now. I look after all the animals, primarily the dogs, but also the ones that are part of other projects: cats, monkeys, snails, kites, buzzards, crows. And the sand martins who do this like hunting ballet over the lake in the evening when I’m walking home – sweeping through invisible clouds of insects. There was some dispute I think, a student protest, as the University wanted to build something where the lake is – maybe a carpark.

How does that one go? University (noun): A set of warring fiefdoms united around a common cause of parking. That’s the biggest threat to the plant and animal projects – new university buildings and developments. But my favourite part of the Uni is a patch of old scrub out back of the library. It must be earmarked for a building because it’s not landscaped or mowed or anything. It’s just thistles and poppies and stones but sometimes I go in and lie down there. I try to feel the world under me to see if I’m still here or maybe if it’s still there.

Conclusion

This blog post attempts to give a flavour of how speculative methods, in this case, design fiction, can be used to represent and explore evolving educational roles. The next step of the research involved analysing the above persona, along with two others, by presenting them to real-life learning designers to seek their feedback on the fictions’ validity, and resonance or otherwise, with their own lived experience.

We drew on literature related to ethics of care in education and the philosopher and theorist Simone Weil to help frame this analysis. You can read about what happened next in the full version of the associated article. Our work tried to show people with complex embodied existences that spread beyond the formal boundaries of their work in educational settings. We attempted to counter the neoliberal construction of identities of workers that are comprised of disembodied skills. Instead, we tried to problematise this question of who and what people do in particular roles, not according to their skills alone, but as people who have bodies that experience joy and suffering.

We attempted to show learning designers as existing in a tangled web of objects, people, and experience. In this way, we hopefully shone some light on the complex roles these people play in the messy territories of contemporary, and near future, education.

Acknowledgements

A wonderful team of learning design and learning design-adjacent superheroes contributed to the published article (Costello et al, 2022): Steve Welsh, Fiona Concannon, Tom Farrelly, Clare Thompson and Lily/Prajakta Grime (who is doubly acknowledged as the creator of the beautiful images).

Dr Eamon Costello

Dr Eamon Costello

Associate Professor of Digital Learning

Dr Costello has worked in industry and university settings for over 25 years. He is deeply curious about how we learn in different environments. He is also concerned with how we actively shape our world so that we can have better and more humane places in which to think, work, live, and learn. He has taught and researched a wide range of topics in the places where people and technology mingle. He is an advocate of using the right tool for the job or sometimes none at all, for not everything can be fixed or should be built.

Twitter: https://twitter.com/eam0 RG: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eamon-Costello Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/eamoncostello?originalSubdomain=ie Website: https://www.dcu.ie/stemeducationinnovationglobalstudies/people/eamon-costello

Other blog posts on similar topics:

References and Further Reading

[1] Fawns, T. (2022). An Entangled Pedagogy: Looking Beyond the Pedagogy—Technology Dichotomy. Postdigital Science and Education, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-022-00302-7

[2] Gourlay, L., Littlejohn, A., Oliver, M., & Potter, J. (2021). Lockdown literacies and semiotic assemblages: academic boundary work in the Covid-19 crisis. Learning, Media and Technology, 46(4), 377-389. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2021.1900242

[3] Brach, T. (2012). Radical Acceptance: Awakening the Love that Heals Fear and Shame. London: Random House.

Costello, E., Welsh, S., Girme, P., Concannon, F., Farrelly, T., & Thompson, C. (2022). Who cares about learning design? Near future superheroes and villains of an educational ethics of care. Learning, Media and Technology, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2022.2074452

EERJ Special Issue: The Bologna process – diverse harmonisation 

EERJ Special Issue: The Bologna process – diverse harmonisation 

by | EERJ, NERA, NW 22 Research in Higher Education, NW 28 Sociologies of Education

The European Educational Research Journal  (EERJ) was created by EERA to further the aims of the association and its members, educational researchers across Europe. It is a scientific journal interested in the changing landscape of education research across Europe. It publishes double-blind peer-reviewed papers in special issues and as individual articles. As part of the ongoing cooperation with EERJ, the EERA blog will share updates and information about upcoming and published special issues and articles alongside blog posts from EERJ contributors. 

You can find out more about the EERJ and the benefits of a European journal presenting international educational research at the end of this blog post.

The EERJ March 2023 Special Issue was dedicated to the topic of student tradition patterns, from bachelor to master’s level in post-Bologna Europe. We asked the guest editor, Lars Ulriksen, to share his research with the EERA blog.

Special issue: Student transition patterns from bachelor to master’s level in post-Bologna Europe

Vol 22, Issue 2, 2023

First published online March, 2023

Lars Ulriksen

Jens-Peter Thomsen

David Reimer, Ulrike Schwabe

Elisabeth Hovdhaugen, Lars Ulriksen

Lene Møller Madsen, Henriette Tolstrup Holmegaard

Heather Mendick, Anne-Kathrin Peters

When, during the past two decades, I have attended conferences and seminars on higher education, ‘the Bologna process’ has been a recurrent theme, sometimes linked to a discussion of ‘the European Higher Education Area’. One of the intentions behind the formation of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) was to make it easier for students to move between higher education institutions and programmes in different European countries. The Bologna process was launched to achieve this goal, setting up various principles and guidelines with which the countries that had decided to join the process had to align.

 

What is the Bologna process?

At the heart of the Bologna process is an idea of harmonisation. To allow for a smooth transition between different institutions across countries, there had to be a similarity that allowed students to transfer credits. A key part of this harmonisation was (and is) the 3+2 structure, stipulating that university programmes should be structured in two cycles, a three-year bachelor programme and a two-year Master’s programme. In some countries, this structure caused substantial changes, e.g., in countries where Master’s programmes had previously been integrated entities rather than two separate stages of a bachelor’s degree and a Master’s degree.

This harmonisation has been an object of criticism [1]. At the same time, it has been questioned to what extent the implementation of the EHEA was, in fact, as uniform as assumed [2]. The adoption of the Bologna principles into national policies was affected by national agendas and developments. Thus, the harmonisation unfolded differently in different countries. One could argue that diversity would be an advantage in order to benefit from the possibility of studying in different countries, but in all events, the Bologna process has harmonised the EHEA, but with national differences.

A student’s perspective on Bologna

However, what does it look like from the perspective of the students who have to navigate the structures and principles of EHEA? What happens when the policy is made into text, as Ball puts it [3]? The March EERA Special Issue of EERJ addresses this with an emphasis on the student perspective. Previous studies of the Bologna process have tended to focus on the policy and curriculum level, but at the end of the day, it is students who experience the consequences of the way policy documents are interpreted and transformed into specific study conditions at courses and study programmes.

The papers in the special issue discuss this with different focuses and methods. Some consider the effects at a macro level based on quantitative data. Others use qualitative methods to investigate the way students at an individual level act within the changed framework of a 3+2 structure. In both approaches, the focus is on the consequences at a national level: What are the implications of changes implemented as a part of the Bologna process for students in different countries and programmes? However, what becomes visible when looking across the papers is that the consequences not only vary across countries, but that even at the same institution, disciplinary differences mean that students are affected differently by the new structure.

Differences between countries

One example is the papers by Thomsen [4] and by Reimer & Schwabe [5]. The two papers take a quantitative approach to explore the consequences at a macro level of the introduction of the 3+2 structure in educational systems that had previously been characterised by integrated master’s degrees. The papers analyse data from Denmark and Germany respectively. While each paper offers interesting results at a national level, together they provide a comparative look at differences across systems. A striking result is the effect on access to higher education for different socio-economic groups. In Germany, it seems that introducing the transition state from the bachelor to the master’s level has made the system less equal (contrary to one of the expressed intentions of the process (Prague Communique, 2001)). In Denmark, on the other hand, this does not seem to be the case. The structure does not affect the chances of students of different socio-economic backgrounds – instead, the inequality has remained depressingly unchanged since the 1990s.

Differences between disciplines

Another example is a comparison of the reflections and experiences of students in two different study programmes at the same university [6]. While the students in the integrated programme could just follow the traditional path of the discipline with a long history in science, students in the other programme found choosing what to do after the bachelor’s degree more challenging and uncertain. This is because they attended an interdisciplinary bachelor programme without a long tradition. Thus, differences between disciplines and the institutional capital linked to the disciplines present the students with different opportunities and difficulties.

The benefits of the EERJ Special Issues

For me, the papers of this special issue show why we should have an EERJ journal and special issues, and why we should use different methods in educational research. Looking across national contexts makes us aware of similarities as well as differences, and it reminds us of both what is different and what is common across borders. Bringing analyses of the same topic in different contexts together in one issue emphasises precisely this point because the separate analyses engage in a conversation with each other. This conversation concerns national differences, but also the contributions of different methods and levels of analysis – that the patterns at the macro level are lived in individual practices that, in turn, are reflected at an aggregate level in the statistical analyses. The dialogue between the papers invites curiosity and further study of the dual process of harmonisation and diversity.

Contributions to the EERJ March Special Issue

Students’ choices and paths in the Bologna degree structure: An introduction to the special issue
Lars Ulriksen

Moving to opportunity: Student trajectories in the post-Bologna university system in Denmark
Jens_Peter Thomsen

Stability or change? Social inequality at the transition from bachelor’s to master’s degree programmes in Germany. Empirical evidence from four graduate cohorts
David Reimer and Ulrike Schwabe

The historic importance of degree structure: A comparison of bachelor to master transitions in Norway and Denmark
Elisabeth Hovdhaugen and Lars Ulriksen

Science students’ post-bachelor’s choice narratives in different disciplinary settings
Lene Møller Madsen and Henriette Tolstrup Holmegaard

How post-Bologna policies construct the purposes of higher education and students’ transitions into Masters programmes
Heather Mendick and Anne-Kathrin Peters

Key Messages

  • The Bologna process has mostly been studied at a policy level, but we should also consider what it looks like from the students’ perspectives
  • Even though the Bologna process introduces a uniform structure, its implementation does not always have the same consequences in different countries, e.g., concerning how it affects equal access to higher education
  • Even within the same country, students at different study programmes may experience the 3+2 structure differently because the disciplines have different institutional capital
  • The special issue is an example of what is gained by using different methods and bringing together different contexts
Dr Lars Ulriksen

Dr Lars Ulriksen

Professor at the Department of Science Education, University of Copenhagen

Lars Ulriksen is a professor at the Department of Science Education at the University of Copenhagen. His research focuses on the encounter between students and the higher-education programmes with a particular focus on students’ transitions into higher education and onwards. He is the head of the University Science Education research group.

ORCID: 0000-0002-7094-132X

https://www.ind.ku.dk

Other blog posts on similar topics:

References and Further Reading

[1] Wihlborg, M. (2019). Critical viewpoints on the Bologna Process in Europe: Can we do otherwise? European Educational Research Journal, 18(2), 135-157. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904118824229

[2] Broucker, B., De Wit, K., Verhoeven, J. C., & Leišytė, L. (Eds.). (2019). Higher Education System Reform. An International Comparison after Twenty Years of Bologna. Brill Sense.

[3] Ball, S. J. (1993, 1993/04/01). What is Policy? Texts, Trajectories and Toolboxes. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 13(2), 10-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/0159630930130203​

Ball, S. J. (2015, 2015/05/27). What is policy? 21 years later: reflections on the possibilities of policy research. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 36(3), 306-313. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2015.1015279

 [4] Thomsen, J.-P. (2023). Moving to opportunity: Student trajectories in the post-Bologna university system in Denmark. European Educational Research Journal, 22(2), 146-169. https://doi.org/10.1177/14749041211046748

[5] Reimer, D., & Schwabe, U. (2023). Stability or change? Social inequality at the transition from bachelor’s to master’s degree programmes in Germany. Empirical evidence from four graduate cohorts. European Educational Research Journal, 22(2), 170-197. https://doi.org/10.1177/14749041221101293

[6] Madsen, L. M., & Holmegaard, H. T. (2023). Science students’ post-bachelor’s choice narratives in different disciplinary settings. European Educational Research Journal, 22(2), 216-235. https://doi.org/10.1177/14749041221095151

Language scaffolding as a complex craft

Language scaffolding as a complex craft

by | NW 31 LEd – Network on Language and Education, VOR (Netherlands)

Worldwide, an ever-increasing number of students undertakes (part of) their education in a second language.[1] And although Dutch exceptionalism would sometimes like us to believe otherwise, this development is also visible in the Netherlands.[2] Language–focused subject education is tailored to these multilingual educational contexts, as it supports specific knowledge and skills, as well as language development. [3][4] Nevertheless, a focus on language is not always an integral part of subject teachers’ teaching in multilingual environments. [5] Yet, very few studies have focused on the kinds of support that are provided.

Our research examines the types of language support teachers in Dutch bilingual secondary education do provide and the reasons they have for providing it. In these multilingual settings, the languages of instruction are Dutch and English. [6]

The Dutch Network of Bilingual Schools currently has more than 130 members [7] and most of the schools follow a curriculum that is similar to non-bilingual schools. The national curriculum guidelines include elements of citizenship education in subjects such as geography. Comparing practices across citizenship-related subjects [8] [9] allows for comparisons across schools and classrooms.

We asked eight teachers across four schools about the ways they support learning through English in their classrooms. We observed three lessons by the first seven teachers, and two lessons by the last one. After observing the lessons, we used Stimulated Recall Interviews to discuss the observed instances of language scaffolding to ask about their motivations for providing these types of support. We are currently trying to make sense of this data by using the concepts of whole-class scaffolding, language levels and scaffolding motivations.

 

We believe that these two examples make three important points. First, teachers do support students’ writing assessments. Second, when they do, it is not only for language or content reasons, but also for reasons related to disciplinary or broader academic literacy. Third, and perhaps most importantly, we need to view teaching as a complex craft where teachers do sometimes engage beyond the word level to help their students to create complex texts.

Perhaps they do not engage in these supports constantly. Perhaps it would be better if they did it more often. Perhaps we should just appreciate the language supports teachers manage to provide in demanding classroom environments where language support is one of the many important educational and psychological student needs that require attention at various moments. We believe that rather than dividing teaching up into checkboxes and deliverables, we should keep investigating the things teachers do well so that we can understand them better and spread good practices.

What is scaffolding?

Scaffolding is a rather contentious concept. [10] [11] Within this research, scaffolding is understood as a process by which a teacher responds to students’ needs by gradually adding support. By focusing on the type of scaffolding that helps students to continue with a difficult task individually, we are able to look at language support in both a focused and a broad way. [12]

The language part of language scaffolding is covered by language levels, as teachers modify their language support according to the varying needs of the students. In this way, we can see whether the scaffold is geared towards the word, sentence or text level, and also whether students are helped in more active or passive skills. [13]

Finally, we were interested in scaffolding motivations, or the reasons teachers have to engage in language scaffolding, whether it is to support students’ language or content development or disciplinary literacy. [14] Whereas content development refers to assisting students in coping with the subject matter, disciplinary literacy is about ‘learning to think like a historian, mathematician, […]’ [15], or in this case, like a social scientist.

A common problem for teachers in contexts is bridging the gap between the knowledge that students access through reading in class, and the type of knowledge they must display in written assessments. [16] After the work of Maton and others, we use the word unpacking to refer to the process by which a teacher helps students to access knowledge. Repacking is used to describe the process by which a teacher helps a student to display this knowledge in writing. [17]

 

Maton, 2013, p. 14

As in previous research, [18] rather than supporting students in producing difficult texts, our teachers mostly support the ways students access knowledge and help them to unpack difficult concepts.

 

Maton, 2013, p. 14

Examples of Repacking

Although this is an interesting finding in itself, some teachers do repack. And they do so not just for language or content reasons. Let me illustrate this with two examples, both from geography classes.

When asked about their language scaffolding practices, the first teacher describes a situation where they help students to answer questions.

‘… the kids write their answers on the board, and I go, okay: this is a peer review and how can we look at improving …the style of answering, the method of answer.

Where is the piece of information, where is the point of information we want, where is the next point? We are looking, we are coming back and highlighting: this is what the question is asking, this is the question word, this is the question phrase, this is the term, have we answered and seen these two question terms in your answer, build it up, and they write.’  

 

We believe that this illustrates that this teacher is engaging in repacking as they help the students to formulate answers to difficult questions. And when asked about the reasons for engaging in this type of language scaffolding, they state that it is about ‘building up a habit’ and ‘how they understand my subject’.

In the second instance, another teacher describes the scaffold they provide for writing an essay.

 

‘I mainly use the interaction with the class to decide what goes up on the board. So the points, the explanations, and the examples are put on the board…

 And for that, I took a number of slides I got from an English teacher with all kinds of linking words and asked them: ‘how can you link these sentences?’

So first, I showed them on the screen what the class already knew, these are also words that you can use to make this link, and also what should be in your final conclusion, what should be in there?’

 

And this teacher also does not see this instruction as something that focuses solely on language or content: 

‘I don’t necessarily think it’s subject specific, I really think it’s quite general. I think most subjects use that [point-example-explain, ed.] structure. I do make my assignments so that this can be integrated so that I can help with this.’

Key Messages

  • Language supports are important for a variety of educational contexts
  • Teaching is a complex craft where teachers attend to many important educational and psychological student needs
  • A framework combining whole-class scaffolding, language levels, and scaffolding motivations can provide insights into the ways language scaffolds unfold in classrooms
  • Teachers support students’ writing assessments beyond language or content, including disciplinary or broader academic literacy
  • Finding out what teachers do, rather than what they should be doing can contribute to spreading good practices
Errol Ertugruloglu

Errol Ertugruloglu

Ph.D. student at Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands.

Errol Ertugruloglu is a Ph.D. student at Leiden University Graduate School of Teaching (ICLON). His background is Political Science (BSc. and MSc.). His doctoral research investigates the ways subject teachers support language in multilingual educational settings in the Netherlands. Among other things, he is interested in multilingual education, migration, and classroom practices.

References and Further Reading

[1] Jessica G. Briggs, Julie Dearden, and Ernesto Macaro, “English Medium Instruction: Comparing Teacher Beliefs in Secondary and Tertiary Education,” Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 8, no. 3 (August 27, 2018): 673–96, https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.3.7

[2] Emmanuelle Le Pichon-Vorstman and Sergio Baauw, “EDINA, Education of International Newly Arrived Migrant Pupils,” European Journal of Applied Linguistics 7, no. 1 (February 28, 2019): 145–56, https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2018-0021.

[3] Adam Tyner and Sarah Kabourek, “Social Studies Instruction and Reading Comprehension: Evidence from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study” (Thomas B, September 2020), https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED609934.

[4] Joana Duarte, “Translanguaging in Mainstream Education: A Sociocultural Approach,” International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 22, no. 2 (February 17, 2019): 150–64, https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1231774.

[5] Huub Oattes et al., “Content and Language Integrated Learning in Dutch Bilingual Education: How Dutch History Teachers Focus on Second Language Teaching,” Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics 7, no. 2 (December 31, 2018): 156–76, https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.18003.oat.

[6] Tessa Mearns and Rick de Graaff, “Bilingual Education and CLIL in the Netherlands: The Paradigm and the Pedagogy,” Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics 7, no. 2 (December 31, 2018): 122–28, https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.00002.int.

[7] Nuffic, “Alle Tto-Scholen in Nederland,” accessed January 24, 2023, https://www.nuffic.nl/onderwerpen/tweetalig-onderwijs/alle-tto-scholen-in-nederland.

[8] Wolfram Schulz et al., IEA International Civic and Citizenship Education Study 2016 Assessment Framework (Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2016), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39357-5 (p. 97).

[9] Margarita Ivanova Jeliazkova, “Citizenship Education: Social Science Teachers’ Views in Three European Countries” (PhD, Enschede, The Netherlands, University of Twente, 2015), https://doi.org/10.3990/1.9789036540056.

[10] Janneke van de Pol, Monique Volman, and Jos Beishuizen, “Scaffolding in Teacher–Student Interaction: A Decade of Research,” Educational Psychology Review 22, no. 3 (September 1, 2010): 271–96, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6.

[11] Esmaeel Hamidi and Rafat Bagherzadeh, “The Logical Problem of Scaffolding in Second Language Acquisition,” Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education 3, no. 1 (December 2018): 19, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-018-0059-x.

[13] Jantien Smit, Henriëtte A. A. van Eerde, and Arthur Bakker, “A Conceptualisation of Whole Class Scaffolding,” British Educational Research Journal 39, no. 5 (October 2013): 817–34, https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3007.

[13] Y. Y. Lo and A. M. Y. Lin, “Designing Assessment Tasks with Language Awareness: Balancing Cognitive and Linguistic Demands,” 2014, http://hub.hku.hk/handle/10722/213641.

[14] E Ertugruloglu, T Mearns, and W Admiraal, “Scaffolding What, Why and How? A Critical Thematic Review Study of Descriptions, Goals, and Means of Language Scaffolding in Bilingual Contexts,” accessed January 24, 2023, Manuscript submitted for publication.

[15]Steven Z. Athanases and Luciana C. de Oliveira, “Scaffolding Versus Routine Support for Latina/o Youth in an Urban School: Tensions in Building Toward Disciplinary Literacy,” Journal of Literacy Research 46, no. 2 (June 2014): 263–99, https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X14535328.

[16] J.R. Martin, “Embedded Literacy: Knowledge as Meaning,” Linguistics and Education 24, no. 1 (April 2013): 23–37, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2012.11.006.

[17]Karl Maton, “Making Semantic Waves: A Key to Cumulative Knowledge-Building,” Linguistics and Education 24, no. 1 (April 2013): 8–22, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2012.11.005.

[18]Yuen Yi Lo, Angel M. Y. Lin, and Yiqi Liu, “Exploring Content and Language Co-Construction in CLIL with Semantic Waves,” International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, August 30, 2020, 1–22, https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1810203.

 

Procrastination, teachers, and posthuman theories – when social media and educational research collide

Procrastination, teachers, and posthuman theories – when social media and educational research collide

by | BERA, NW 6 Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures

The use of social media by teachers and education researchers is a topic that generates a lot of debate – much of it, ironically, on social media. Jo Albin-Clark found unexpected benefits from using Twitter and agreed to share these with us. 

If you’d like to join in the discussion on Twitter, here’s where to find the EERA twitter account and Jo on Twitter. 

Procrastinating with Twitter

Twitter is a gift to the procrastinating researcher. As anyone with a writing deadline will attest, you get very creative.  At times I can write fluently, collaborate with ease and produce abstract after abstract. But other times, I can find so many reasons not to write.

The ultimate procrastination tool nestles in the palm of my hand. Twitter is the gift that keeps on giving. Discovering other people’s research, snorting at funny memes, and networking with like-minded souls has brought fresh collaborations (Albin-Clark et al., 2021). Twitter has me hook, line and sinker, and it can stall my writing plans if I let it. But what I had not expected was how Twitter would become a means to write. I didn’t see that coming. 

Researching with Twitter

As a teacher of young children and now a university-based researcher of documentation practices, I started to notice how my subject manifested through Twitter. I’m interested in teachers’ documentation practices, where photography, video and/or written narration capture playful learning (Albin-Clark, 2021).

I’ve found posthuman and feminist materialism theories happy bedfellows for researching documentation. Through this, you can imagine the rich, dynamic entanglements afoot (Strom et al. 2020 p 2). Documentation is re-imagined as lively and agentic matter (Lenz Taguchi, 2010; Elfström Pettersson, 2017; Merewether, 2018).  When you start thinking about a non-human thing (like documentation) having an agency, teachers slip from the central focus. Such moves have enabled leaps from questions about the meanings of documentation to what documentation is doing (Albin-Clark, 2021).

Now I’ve started wondering about how teachers engage with Twitter and in what ways documentation can become a digital doing (Albin-Clark, 2022; Thompson, 2016).

Teachers using Twitter

Teachers are always looking for the new and have employed technology through digital documentation (Flewitt and Cowan, 2019; Flewitt and Clark, 2020). Mobile documentation is gaining in popularity, where mobile devices connect home and school (Lim and Cho, 2019). But once I started to pay attention, teachers were tweeting documentation all over the show.

Klinkenborg (2012 p.127) attests that; ‘Being a writer is an act of perpetual self-authorization’.

So, it seems I can combine procrastination with research practice! 

Twitter and documentation of children’s learning

Most days, Michelle, the teacher I researched with, put documentation to work. It adorned classroom walls; shared endlessly with children’s families.  Charged and troubled planning-assessment cycles (Albin-Clark, 2019). What got me thinking was a tweet Michelle made called ‘Rainbow Spaghetti’. It told stories of exploratory play with unconventional materials. ECEC teachers have an eye for the unorthodox.

In the tweet, Michelle’s home kitchen countertop provides the setting, with cold, cooked, brightly coloured spaghetti sitting in bags.  Counterposed with the day after, sociable little fingers lunge into an overspilling spaghetti-filled tray (Albin-Clark et al., 2021). Michelle explained how the hashtags came about (#readytowrite, #sensory play, #messy play). They gesture towards playful learning as instrumental to curricula progress and associated learning with active and sensory exploration.

If you notice the mobile documentation of Rainbow Spaghetti, the more-than-human comes into view. Bags of cold spaghetti on the kitchen top are timestamped and reveal evening time activity. Social media here becomes an additional labour; the personal and professional blur. As Michelle’s family kitchen becomes visible, vulnerabilities become observable in digital spaces (Stratigos and Fenech 2020).

Implications for tweeting teachers (and procrastinating researchers)

So, what were these tweets doing in the “digital-material-sensory-affective-spatial assemblage”? (Ringrose and Renold 2016, 238).

I have only just scratched the surface. But mobile documentation performs. For teachers, it blurs the boundaries between personal and professional subjectivities. Hidden labours lurk in liminalities, ethical tensions remain for children being documented and objectified in cultures of surveillance (Lindgren, 2012).

Further enquiries might investigate socially mediated multiplicities. Diverse and lively intra-actions abound in creating, sending, hashtagging, reading, liking, commenting, datafying and much more besides (Albin-Clark, 2022; Mertala, 2019).  

Amongst the liveliness of timestamps and hashtags we glimpse more.  Whole discourses vibrate with the phone’s materiality in teachers’ back pockets. And pedagogical tools present themselves (Luo and Xie 2019).

Now more than ever, teachers need to tell stories (Moss, 2015). Storytelling what is important could open fractures to resist dominant neo-liberal narratives (Moss and Roberts-Holmes, 2021; Archer and Albin-Clark, 2022). Twitter, therefore, offers accessible ways for teachers (and researchers) to swiftly operationalise digital doings that are hopeful, bite-size and accessible storytelling.  

I am telling you; Twitter is where procrastination is at!  It can be a productive space. So, use social media to connect to like-minded souls.  You never know where it may take you.

Key Messages

  1. Social media is not just procrastination, with theories from posthumanism, they can bring interesting lenses for early childhood research practices.
  2. Social media offers accessible ways for teachers (and researchers) to swiftly operationalise digital doings that provide hopeful, bite-size and accessible storytelling. 
  3.  Documentation of young children’s learning in digital spaces brings ethical questions and recent platform changes may add further complications. 

Other blog posts on similar topics:

Dr Jo Albin-Clark

Dr Jo Albin-Clark

Senior Lecturer Early Education

Dr. Jo Albin-Clark is a senior lecturer in early education at Edge Hill University. Following a teaching career in nursery and primary schools, Jo has undertaken a number of roles in teaching, advising and research in early childhood education. She completed a doctorate at the University of Sheffield in 2019 exploring documentation practices through posthuman and feminist materialist theories in early childhood education. Her research interests include observation and documentation practices and methodological collaboration and research creation through posthuman lenses. Throughout her work, teachers’ embodied experiences of resistances to dominant discourses has been a central thread.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6247-8363

https://research.edgehill.ac.uk/en/persons/joanne-albin-clark 

References and Further Reading

Alasuutari, M., A. Markström, and A. Vallberg-Roth. 2014. Assessment and Documentation in Early Childhood Education. Abingdon: Routledge.

Albin-Clark, J. 2019. “What Forms of Material-Discursive Intra-Action are Generated through Documentation Practices in Early Childhood Education?” Educational Doctorate thesis, University of Sheffield.

Albin-Clark, J. 2020. “What is Documentation Doing? Early Childhood Education Teachers Shifting from and between the Meanings and Actions of Documentation Practices.” Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood: 1-16. doi:10.1177/1463949120917157

Albin-Clark, J., Latto, L., Hawxwell, L. and Ovington, J. (2021). ‘Becoming-with response-ability: How does diffracting posthuman ontologies with multi-modal sensory ethnography spark a multiplying femifesta/manifesta of noticing, attentiveness and doings in relation to mundane politics and more-than-human pedagogies of response-ability?’, entanglements, 4(1): 21-31 https://entanglementsjournal.org/becoming-with-response-ability/

Albin-Clark, J., 2022. What is mobile documentation doing through social media in early childhood education in-between the boundaries of a teacher’s personal and professional subjectivities?. Learning, Media and Technology, pp.1-16. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17439884.2022.2074450

Archer, N., & Albin-Clark, J. (2022, Jul 7). Telling stories that need telling: A dialogue on resistance in early childhood education . (2 ed.) Lawrence Wishart. https://journals.lwbooks.co.uk/forum/vol-64-issue-2/abstract-9564/

Elfström Pettersson, K. 2017. “Teachers’ Actions and Children’s Interests. Quality Becomings in Preschool Documentation.” Tidsskrift for Nordisk Barnehageforskning 14 (2): 1-17. doi:10.7577/nbf.1756.

Flewitt, R. and K. Cowan. 2019. Valuing Signs of Learning: Observation and Digital Documentation of Play in Early Years Classrooms the Froebel Trust Final Research Report. Edinburgh: Froebel Trust.

 

Lenz Taguchi, H. 2010. Going Beyond the Theory, Practice Divide in Early Childhood Education. 1. publ. ed. London: Routledge.

Lim, S. and M. Cho. 2019. “Parents’ use of Mobile Documentation in a Reggio Emilia-Inspired School.” Early Childhood Education Journal 47 (4): 367-379. doi:10.1007/s10643-019-00945-5.

Lindgren, A. 2012. “Ethical Issues in Pedagogical Documentation: Representations of Children through Digital Technology.” International Journal of Early Childhood 44 (3): 327-340. 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2007.01517.x.

Luo, T. and Q. Xie. 2019. “Using Twitter as a Pedagogical Tool in Two Classrooms: A Comparative Case Study between an Education and a Communication Class.” Journal of Computing in Higher Education 31 (1): 81-104. doi:10.1007/s12528-018-9192-2.

Mertala, P. 2019. “Digital Technologies in Early Childhood Education – a Frame Analysis of Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions.” Early Child Development and Care 189 (8): 1228-1241. doi:10.1080/03004430.2017.1372756.

Merewether, J. 2018. “Listening to Young Children Outdoors with Pedagogical Documentation.” International Journal of Early Years Education 26 (3): 259-277. doi:10.1080/09669760.2017.1421525.

Moss, P. 2015. “Time for More Storytelling.” European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 23 (1): 1-4. doi:10.1080/1350293X.2014.991092.

Moss, P. and G. Roberts-Holmes. 2021. “Now is the Time! Confronting Neo-Liberalism in Early Childhood.” Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood:  doi:10.1177/1463949121995917.

Ringrose, J. and E. Renold. 2016. “Cows, Cabins and Tweets: Posthuman Intra-Active Affect and Feminist Fire in Secondary School.” In Posthuman Research Practices in Education, edited by C. Taylor and C. Hughes, 220-241. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. doi:10.1057/9781137453082_14.

Sparrman, A. and Lindgren, A. 2010. “Visual Documentation as a Normalizing Practice: A
New Discourse of Visibility in Preschool.” Surveillance & Society 7 (3/4): 248-261. 10.24908/ss.v7i3/4.4154

Stratigos, T. and M. Fenech. 2020. “Early Childhood Education and Care in the App Generation: Digital Documentation, Assessment for Learning and Parent Communication.” Australasian Journal of Early Childhood,46 (1): 1-13. doi:10.1177/1836939120979062.

Strom, K., J. Ringrose, J. Osgood, and E. Renold. 2020. “PhEmaterialism: Response-Able Research & Pedagogy.” Pedagogy . Reconceptualizing Educational Research Methodology, 10 (2-3): 1-39. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10091313.

Thompson, T. 2016. “Digital Doings: Curating Work-Learning Practices and Ecologies.” Learning, Media and Technology 41 (3): 480-500. doi:10.1080/17439884.2015.1064957.

EERJ Special Issue: Researching space and time making in Education

EERJ Special Issue: Researching space and time making in Education

by | ABCEduc, DFG, EERJ, NW 28 Sociologies of Education

The European Educational Research Journal  (EERJ) was created by EERA to further the aims of the association and its members, educational researchers across Europe. It is a scientific journal interested in the changing landscape of education research across Europe. It publishes double-blind peer-reviewed papers in special issues and as individual articles. As part of the ongoing cooperation with EERJ, the EERA blog will share updates and information about upcoming and published special issues and articles alongside blog posts from EERJ contributors. 

Introduction―Space-and time-making in education: Towards a topological lens

Vol 21, Issue 6, 2022

First published online February 16, 2022

Mathias Decuypere
KU Leuven, Belgium

Sigrid Hartong
Helmut Schmidt University Hamburg, Germany

Karmijn van de Oudeweetering
KU Leuven, Belgium

Have you ever had the feeling that time is going faster than it used to? That this acceleration is doing something with our idea of what good education is, or should be? That the pandemic has done something to our understanding of what it means to teach and learn physically ‘here’, or digitally ‘there’? That it is hard to say where and when exactly the workday of an educator starts or ends?

Space and time are made

These questions show us that it is increasingly getting more difficult to talk about space and time as if they are naturally just ‘out there’, surrounding us and our social lives. Contrary to such an instrumental and ‘neutral’ understanding of space and time, nowadays, we equally often hear that space and time are (partly) human constructions, and that our understanding of them changes continuously. For instance, the emergence of online educational platforms and other digital tools allow people from all over the world and across different time zones to be simultaneously present in a class or lecture.

Like a magnifying glass, the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic has powerfully invigorated and accelerated processes of digitization, and even more clearly illuminated how much impact they have on the educational field. As living rooms have transformed into do-it-yourself classrooms, as computer screens have served as both blackboards and lecturing halls, and as after-school programs have spread over the day, the pandemic has concretely shown how space and time are not only abstract ‘givens’. Rather than that, they have turned the self-evident and previously somehow “tacit” character of space- and time-making in education, into a topic of crucial concern.

Social topology at work

In our Special Issue in the European Educational Research Journal, we discuss and elaborate on one approach that allows us to research such processes of space- and time-making: (social) topology. The usage of topology is not necessarily new in educational research, but it has hitherto merely been used in very complex, theoretical, and abstract manners. In this Special Issue, our aim is to bring together various empirical studies that work within the framework of social topology. In adopting a topological lens, all the studies contained in the Special Issue show topology ‘at work’: they make it very concrete how you can, by means of this framework, research different sorts of space(s) and time(s) in educational practices.

Making educational spaces and times

Topology thus focuses on space and time as relational constructions that are made by humans, and that at the same time have a very profound impact on humans. A very intuitive example of this is the switching of the clock when we enter and exit daylight saving time – we then all very clearly feel the impact of our (human) tinkering with time. In our Special Issue, we have collected various contributions that show the different sorts of spacetimes that exist in the field of education; most of the time even existing at once. Where, for instance, does a lecture take place when it is being distributed in a digital form as a lecture capture and when it is equally being discussed online on Twitter?

Similarly, when and where does something like a borderless ‘European education’ take place when it is happening online? Where does it begin and where does it end?

These are the kind of questions that are addressed in our Special Issue, and that show the importance of using a topological lens in order to do research that focuses on the making of educational spaces and times. Moreover, as the Special Issue shows, these newly emerging spaces and times, when they are introduced in our educational systems, are doing something with and to do those systems. For instance, they create new sorts of professions and new types of professionalities. Equally, they are rhetorically deployed in such a way that they install particular future visions and desires into students and teachers.

Conclusion

In summary, then, our Special Issue focuses on educational spaces and times as things that are continuously being made. Moreover, the articles in the collection do so by giving mutual attention to space(s) and time(s).

As such, the collection greatly advances our understanding of how the spatial and the temporal continuously interact with each other, and thus makes a clear case for the importance of analyzing both conjointly, without seeking to privilege one over the other.

You can access the EERJ Special Issue here (open access). If you are interested in submitting to the EERJ, you can find the Submission Guidelines here.

Prof. Mathias Decuypere

Prof. Mathias Decuypere

Associate Professor of Qualitative Research at KU Leuven, Belgium.

Mathias Decuypere is Associate Professor of Qualitative Research at KU Leuven, Belgium. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mathias-Decuypere

Professor Sigrid Hartong

Professor Sigrid Hartong

W3-Professor of Sociology at Helmut Schmidt Universität Hamburg, Germany.

Sigrid Hartong is W3-Professor of Sociology at Helmut Schmidt Universität Hamburg, Germany. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sigrid-Hartong

Karmijn van de Oudeweetering

Karmijn van de Oudeweetering

Doctoral candidate at KU Leuven, Belgium.

Karmijn van de Oudeweetering is a doctoral candidate at KU Leuven, Belgium. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Karmijn-Van-De-Oudeweetering

7 things I liked about EERA’s Summer School in Porto

7 things I liked about EERA’s Summer School in Porto

by | Emerging Researchers' Group, LUXERA

Just as each of us is unique, our PhD journeys will also be unique. However, very often, there are common elements. Engaging in networking activities with other doctoral candidates at an early stage of one’s PhD journey, therefore, proves to be a very enriching experience.

We asked Daniela Clara Moraru to share her personal experience of participating in her first EERA summer school in Porto.

To give you some background information, I have just finished the 3rd semester of my PhD programme at the University of Luxembourg. My research topic is “Perceptions and attitudes of the vocational education and training actors related to soft skills needed for employment”, a critical topic, especially in today’s context where local employers are increasingly finding it challenging to find employees equipped with industry-ready skills. 

In this context, I am very grateful to have been one of the lucky few – and the only one from Luxembourg – accepted at EERA’s Summer School 2022 at the University of Porto in Portugal. I also wish to express my gratitude to my Doctoral School of Humanities and Social Sciences for supporting my participation in this one-week intensive summer school.

I love Portugal for many reasons, the amazing food being just one of them. However, what made me place the host country as my #1 was the fact that being in a different time zone allowed me to gain 1 hour in the morning, which offered a great extra time to explore and discover the beautiful city of Porto.

As a self-funded student, the summer school was an incredible opportunity to meet and interact with other researchers who are at the same research stage as me. It helps to know that I am not the only one struggling with the research design at times, for example, in making sure that the proposed research questions and the methodology are aligned. 

This summer school was a great chance to benefit from tutoring by experienced researchers. My group tutors were Xana Sá Pinto and Joana Lúcio, who both took their job to heart. I am grateful for their generosity, encouragement and support throughout the summer school.

My doubts about one of my research questions are now gone, and I can focus confidently on the current research design. 

The organisation of the summer school was perfect! Only someone who has arranged such an event could understand the complexity of the undertaking – how many resources are required and how much time and energy is needed.

First, the logistical tasks, such as finding hotels for participants within a 10-minute metro trip from the university, arranging meals, providing the buses for our trip to the University of Minho, assigning people to small groups by research topic and tutors to each group, planning the rooms, and so on.

Then there is the programme – arranging small hands-on group working sessions and plenary sessions featuring keynote speakers who are experts on topics of general interest for all researchers. In addition, the organisation of field trips.

Kudos to the organisation team. You’ve done a fantastic job! 

This experience was an excellent motivational factor. The PhD journey can be quite a lonely one, especially for someone like me who is a self-funded student, and motivation has its ups and downs at times.

It was extremely enriching for me to be together with other emerging researchers from a variety of countries/universities, and to learn about the diversity of their topics of research.

In addition to the learning factor, I greatly appreciate the motivation and enthusiasm I feel now, upon my return home, to further work on my research project. 

I highly valued the multicultural aspect of the training, enhanced by the diversity of participants.
Beyond our research projects, we also exchanged views about our universities, PhD programmes and supervisors. It was fascinating to discover that some universities offer different PhD programmes than those we have at the University of Luxembourg.
Our diverse backgrounds and experiences also contributed to the rich discussions and varied perspectives on the same topics of discussion, a valuable aspect of the summer school.

This event allowed us to establish direct contact with the editors of the Portuguese Journal of Education.

During our visit to the University of Minho in Braga, we were offered the opportunity to get in touch with the editorial team of a prestigious education journal indexed by Scopus.

During her sabbatical year, Board/Deputy Director, Iris Pereira, took the time to present the Portuguese Journal of Education to us, explained the publication process, and offered us tips on how to write a journal article.Thank you very much!

To sum up, the EERA summer school offered its participants incredible value. I highly appreciated the quality of the activities provided, the networking opportunities, and the motivational factor. 

I sincerely thank the entire team of EERA for another amazing job done, and I highly recommend all EERA’s events to emerging researchers. I look forward to seeing some of the participants again at the Emerging Researchers’ Conference in Yerevan, face-to-face or online. 

EERA Summer School – Porto 2023

26 – 30 June 2023 , University of Porto, Portugal

Photo by Dominik Kuhn on Unsplash

The European Educational Research Association (EERA), the Centre for Research and Intervention in Education (CIIE) of the University of Porto, the Center for Research in Education (CIEd) of the University of Minho, the Research Centre on Didactics and Technology in the Education of Trainers (CIDTFF) of the University of Aveiro and the Adult Education and Community Intervention Research Centre (CEAD) of the University of Algarve, with the SPCE – Sociedade Portuguesa de Ciências da Educação (Portuguese Educational Research Association), are pleased to announce the 2023 EERA Summer School “Participatory approaches in educational research” which will be held 26 – 30 June 2023 at the University of Porto, Portugal.

Theme and Aims

The EERA Summer School 2023 “Participatory approaches in educational research” aims to support doctoral students interested in bringing participants’ voices and actions to the core of educational research.
Read more

University of Porto and the City of Porto

Founded in 1911, the University of Porto (U.Porto) is a benchmark institution for Higher Education and Scientific Research in Portugal and one of the top 200 European Universities according to the most relevant international ranking systems.
Read more

EERSS 2023 Partners and Supporters

We are thankful to the following partners and supporters
Read more

Application / Cost / Terms of registration

Applicants are doctoral and advanced research students who primarily come from or study in EERA‘s member countries. Their thesis must relate to educational research.
Read more

EERSS 2023 Dates

Applications
15 November 2022 – 31 January 2023
Information on acceptance
1 March 2023
Registration/Payment
2 March – 15 April 2023
Summer School
26 – 30 June 2023

Other blog posts on similar topics:

Daniela Clara Moraru

Daniela Clara Moraru

CEO, Languages.lu, PhD candidate, University of Luxembourg

Ms. Daniela-Lacramioara (Clara) MORARU is an educator, author of 11 publications, and serial entrepreneur from Luxembourg. She is the founder of the main women’s association of Luxembourg: Fédération des Femmes Cheffes d’Entreprises (FFCEL) in 2004, Femmes Leaders du Luxembourg in 2007, and Inspiring Wo-Men in 2009.

She holds an MBA from Jack Welsh College of Business, Sacred Heart University, with a double concentration in International Business and Marketing, and a Master in Management from the Faculty of Engineering, University Lucian Blaga of Sibiu. She is a PhD candidate at the University of Luxembourg. Her research focuses on the topic: Perceptions and attitudes of vocation education actors related to soft skills for employment.

Since 2004, she is the CEO of Languages.lu, a language school and translation center based in Luxembourg. Ms. Moraru is also an international independent director certified by INSEAD (France), where she obtained a Certificate in Corporate Governance (2015) and a Certificate in Global Management (2017). She has been teaching Marketing at the University of Cooperative Education in Germany and regularly gives lectures and presentations in Luxembourg and abroad, mainly on entrepreneurship and education.

In 2013, Ms. Moraru was elected “Women inspiring Europe” by the European Commission’s European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) for her contribution to promoting inspiring female role models.

Gently down the stream(ing): Can digital literacy help turn the tide on the climate crisis? 

Gently down the stream(ing): Can digital literacy help turn the tide on the climate crisis? 

by | ESAI, NW 16 ICT in Education and Training, NW 30 Environmental and Sustainability Education Research, ESER, NW 6 Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures

The ubiquitous availability of digital content and web services has transformed the way we live, work, and learn (List et al., 2020). Technology provides us with tools to manage and accomplish work, content to entertain us, and applications to document, store and share our lives online. It is within this context that digital literacy features prominently in policy documentation and educational literature, recognising digital literacy as an essential skill for 21st-century living (Pérez-Escoda et al., 2019). However, as we stand on the precipice of climate disaster, is it time for digital literacy to focus its attention on the impact our increasing digital activity has on the environment?

Environmental impact of users’ digital lives

In education circles, conversations around the impact of educational technology on our environment have begun in earnest (Facer & Selwyn, 2021), however, this is less evident regarding the use of digital content and tools in our day-to-day lives. The usage of streaming services, for example, has soared in recent years and while providers such as Netflix have improved efficiencies in these services, their carbon footprint is still significant (Stephens et al., 2021).

Our music consumption habits have also shifted away from physical media, but overall greenhouse gas emissions from storing and distributing music online have doubled since 2000 (Brennan, 2019). Social media activity continues to increase at a remarkable pace, and a significant carbon cost (Perrin, 2015), and popular apps like TikTok and Reddit have a disproportionately large carbon footprint. Our regular scrolling of ‘news feeds’ contributes carbon emissions equivalent to a short light vehicle journey, per person, per day (Derudder, 2021).

This online activity, coupled with our desire to store data in the cloud, means data centres account for 1% of the global energy demand (Obringer et al., 2021). The continued desire for the latest phone is also costing more than our wallets, with the environmental impact of the device lifecycle being well documented (MacGilchrist et al., 2021). Current figures suggest that over half of consumers in many EU countries renew their devices every 18 – 24 months.

In our work environment, too, our digital impact must be acknowledged. While conferencing platforms such as Zoom come with great environmental benefits when compared with face-to-face meetings and conferences, further efficiencies can be achieved by challenging ‘camera on’ policies. A seemingly innocuous task like sending 65 text emails can cost as much carbon as a short car journey, and when factors such as attachments are considered, the cost is even higher (Duncan, 2022). This snapshot reveals just some of the impacts of our digital lives, some of which our students are unaware of.

Current focus of digital literacy and digital literacy frameworks

An acknowledgment of the need to develop our students’ digital literacy has existed since Gilster (1997) first coined the term and defined it as “the ability to understand and use information in multiple formats from a wide range of [digital] sources”.

Definitions of digital literacy have remained remarkably consistent in the decades that followed, focusing on the ability to source, evaluate and use digital information. In recent years, there has been an increased emphasis on content creation and communicating using digital channels. However, academic definitions of digital literacy lack any real focus on the environmental cost of our digital activities. In fact, there is little evidence of this aspect of digital literacy being discussed in academic literature.

There are many digital literacy frameworks available to help academics and other users understand digital literacy and its competencies. Only the UNESCO and DigiComp frameworks refer to the environmental impact of technologies and their use, and this is nestled under the ’digital safety’ strand. The range of digital literacy frameworks (e.g. DigiComp, UNESCO, JISC) and volume of journal publications suggests that academics and policymakers are committed to the development of digital literacy, however, it appears that the impact of our digital lives on the environment has been largely left out of the debate. 

Shifting our focus

Calls for action to avert a climate catastrophe are becoming more strident. The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report (2022) paints a very troubling picture regarding the widespread and severe impacts of climate change. We must act now. We must adapt our practices and become more sustainable in everything we do.

I believe we can refocus our attention on digital literacy to guide our students to being more critical users of technology and understanding its impact on our world. Using familiar language and strategies, we might encourage students to identify their current digital activities and analyse their carbon footprint, before evaluating areas where improvements can be made. Students could be encouraged to construct new meaning from their investigations by capturing trends associated with work, study and social practices, and communicating these findings with a wider audience.

This shift in focus is essentially a repurposing of what we already ask our students to do with regard to digital content, but targeted at addressing the authentic and urgent issue of climate change. While frameworks such as DigiComp and UNESCO should be commended for including environmental impact, further development of this area should be encouraged.

Digital literacy frameworks should provide a detailed scaffold which encourages a multidimensional understanding of digital tools, their impact on the environment, and consideration of actions that can be taken to affect change. Developing this aspect of digital literacy would increase students’ awareness of the ‘cost’ of technology and promote a more critical use of the tools and services they use in their day-to-day lives.

Conclusion

The coming years present major challenges for society to tackle the climate emergency. It is crucial that we shift our mindset and begin to understand the impact our actions have on the environment, and make the necessary changes to recalibrate our relationship with nature.

Changes are required in all aspects of our lives, from energy and waste, to the provision and rewilding of natural spaces. While a refocussing of digital literacy and digital competencies in this way is not the panacea to the situation, it can act as a move in the right direction, one more component of our lives where we begin to understand and address our toll on the environment.

The post is an abridged version of an article in the upcoming (October 2022) issue of the Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy

Key Messages

Society’s use of digital and online content is increasing

Digital literacy is recognised as a set of competencies for this digital world

Our day-to-day use of technology has an environmental impact

Digital literacy definitions and frameworks largely ignore the environmental impact

We should begin including environmental impact in our digital literacy definitions, frameworks, and discussions

Other blog posts on similar topics:

Dr Peter Tiernan

Dr Peter Tiernan

Assistant Professor in Digital Learning and Research Convenor for the School of STEM Education, Innovation and Global Studies in the Institute of Education at Dublin City University.

Peter is an Assistant Professor in Digital Learning and Research Convenor for the School of STEM Education, Innovation and Global Studies in the Institute of Education at Dublin City University. He lectures in the areas of digital learning, digital literacy and entrepreneurship education. His current research focuses on digital literacy at post-primary and further education level as well as entrepreneurship education for third level lecturers and pre-service teachers.

Peter was shortlisted for the DCU President’s Award for Excellence in Teaching and Learning in 2021.

Find Peter on Twitter.

References and Further Reading

A framework of pre-service teachers’ conceptions about digital literacy: Comparing the United States and Sweden https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360131519303380

Dimensions of digital literacy based on five models of development (Pérez-Escoda et al., 2019) https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/11356405.2019.1603274

Digital technology and the futures of education – towards ‘non-stupid’ optimism (Facer & Selwyn, 2021) https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000377071″>https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000377071

Carbon impact of video streaming (Stephens et al., 2021), https://prod-drupal-files.storage.googleapis.com/documents/resource/public/Carbon-impact-of-video-streaming.pdf

MUSIC CONSUMPTION HAS UNINTENDED ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS (Brennan, 2019) https://www.gla.ac.uk/news/archiveofnews/2019/april/headline_643297_en.html

Social Media Usage: 2005-2015
65% of adults now use social networking sites – a nearly tenfold jump in the past decade (Perrin, 2015) https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2015/10/08/social-networking-usage-2005-2015/

What is the environmental footprint for social media applications? 2021 Edition (Derudder, 2021) https://greenspector.com/en/social-media-2021/

The overlooked environmental footprint of increasing Internet use (Olbringer et al., 2021) ​https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344920307072?via%3Dihub

Shifting scales of research on learning, media and technology, (Mcgilchrist, et al, 2021) https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17439884.2021.1994418

Text Messaging & Emails Generate Carbon Emissions (Carbon Footprint), (Duncan, 2021) https://8billiontrees.com/carbon-offsets-credits/reduce-carbon-footprint/texts-emails/

A Global Framework of Reference on Digital Literacy Skills for Indicator 4.4.2 http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/ip51-global-framework-reference-digital-literacy-skills-2018-en.pdf

Digicomp https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/digcomp_en

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report https://www.ipcc.ch

Featured Image Photo by Marvin Meyer on Unsplash