Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Automating Learning Situations in EdTech

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Automating Learning Situations in EdTech: Techno-commercial logic of assetisation

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Automating Learning Situations in EdTech: Techno-commercial logic of assetisation. / Hansen, Morten; Komljenovic, Janja.
In: Postdigital Science and Education, Vol. 5, No. 1, 31.01.2023, p. 100-116.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Hansen M, Komljenovic J. Automating Learning Situations in EdTech: Techno-commercial logic of assetisation. Postdigital Science and Education. 2023 Jan 31;5(1):100-116. Epub 2022 Dec 15. doi: 10.1007/s42438-022-00359-4

Author

Hansen, Morten ; Komljenovic, Janja. / Automating Learning Situations in EdTech : Techno-commercial logic of assetisation. In: Postdigital Science and Education. 2023 ; Vol. 5, No. 1. pp. 100-116.

Bibtex

@article{fe8687be33ad46f2b97089f3bcd9ad8e,
title = "Automating Learning Situations in EdTech: Techno-commercial logic of assetisation",
abstract = "Critical scholarship has already shown how automation processes may be problematic, for example, by reproducing social inequalities instead of removing them or requiring intense labour from education institutions{\textquoteright} staff instead of easing the workload. Despite these critiques, automated interventions in education are expanding fast and often with limited scrutiny of the technological and commercial specificities of such processes. We build on existing debates by asking: does automation of learning situations contribute to assetisation processes in EdTech, and if so, how? Drawing on document analysis and interviews with EdTech companies{\textquoteright} employees, we argue that automated interventions make assetisation possible. We trace their techno-commercial logic by analysing how learning situations are made tangible by constructing digital objects, and how they are automated through specific computational interventions. We identify three assetisation processes: First, the alienation of digital objects from students and staff deepens the companies{\textquoteright} control of digital services offering automated learning interventions. Second, engagement fetishism—i.e., treating engagement as both the goal and means of automated learning situations—valorises particular forms of automation. And finally, techno-deterministic beliefs drive investment and policy into identified forms of automation, making higher education and EdTech constituents act {\textquoteleft}as if{\textquoteright} the automation of learning is feasible.",
keywords = "Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous), Education, Social Sciences (miscellaneous)",
author = "Morten Hansen and Janja Komljenovic",
year = "2023",
month = jan,
day = "31",
doi = "10.1007/s42438-022-00359-4",
language = "English",
volume = "5",
pages = "100--116",
journal = "Postdigital Science and Education",
issn = "2524-4868",
publisher = "Springer",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Automating Learning Situations in EdTech

T2 - Techno-commercial logic of assetisation

AU - Hansen, Morten

AU - Komljenovic, Janja

PY - 2023/1/31

Y1 - 2023/1/31

N2 - Critical scholarship has already shown how automation processes may be problematic, for example, by reproducing social inequalities instead of removing them or requiring intense labour from education institutions’ staff instead of easing the workload. Despite these critiques, automated interventions in education are expanding fast and often with limited scrutiny of the technological and commercial specificities of such processes. We build on existing debates by asking: does automation of learning situations contribute to assetisation processes in EdTech, and if so, how? Drawing on document analysis and interviews with EdTech companies’ employees, we argue that automated interventions make assetisation possible. We trace their techno-commercial logic by analysing how learning situations are made tangible by constructing digital objects, and how they are automated through specific computational interventions. We identify three assetisation processes: First, the alienation of digital objects from students and staff deepens the companies’ control of digital services offering automated learning interventions. Second, engagement fetishism—i.e., treating engagement as both the goal and means of automated learning situations—valorises particular forms of automation. And finally, techno-deterministic beliefs drive investment and policy into identified forms of automation, making higher education and EdTech constituents act ‘as if’ the automation of learning is feasible.

AB - Critical scholarship has already shown how automation processes may be problematic, for example, by reproducing social inequalities instead of removing them or requiring intense labour from education institutions’ staff instead of easing the workload. Despite these critiques, automated interventions in education are expanding fast and often with limited scrutiny of the technological and commercial specificities of such processes. We build on existing debates by asking: does automation of learning situations contribute to assetisation processes in EdTech, and if so, how? Drawing on document analysis and interviews with EdTech companies’ employees, we argue that automated interventions make assetisation possible. We trace their techno-commercial logic by analysing how learning situations are made tangible by constructing digital objects, and how they are automated through specific computational interventions. We identify three assetisation processes: First, the alienation of digital objects from students and staff deepens the companies’ control of digital services offering automated learning interventions. Second, engagement fetishism—i.e., treating engagement as both the goal and means of automated learning situations—valorises particular forms of automation. And finally, techno-deterministic beliefs drive investment and policy into identified forms of automation, making higher education and EdTech constituents act ‘as if’ the automation of learning is feasible.

KW - Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)

KW - Education

KW - Social Sciences (miscellaneous)

U2 - 10.1007/s42438-022-00359-4

DO - 10.1007/s42438-022-00359-4

M3 - Journal article

VL - 5

SP - 100

EP - 116

JO - Postdigital Science and Education

JF - Postdigital Science and Education

SN - 2524-4868

IS - 1

ER -