Digital utopia and dystopia of schools after the COVID-19 pandemic

Abstract

This paper aims to capture the digital imaginaries of Hungarian schools through the lens of digital utopianism as a theoretical framework. Employing a qualitative research approach and semi-structured interviews, this study contributes to the body of literature concerning organizational and policy-level educational management. It investigates utopian and dystopian visions of digitalized schools within the Hungarian education system, featuring participants comprising school leaders, teachers, and administrative staff drawn from five institutions, offering either general or vocational education, representing diverse ownership structures, including state and religious ownership. The study highlights prominent themes of the imaginaries, such as funding and infrastructure, equity, misuse, and social and pedagogical relations and suggests further research directions and methodologies applicable in this field.

Keywords

School general education vocational education digitalisation digital utopianism sociotechnical imaginaries

Introduction

Are schools going to be better as a result of digitalisation in the education sector? Whatever our answer to this question as school leaders or educational professionals might be, what counts is the response of our school communities. We need to gain a profound understanding of how digitalisation is perceived to find fitting development and implementation strategies and to lead digital transformation in a way that reacts to these perceptions and creates better schools for future generations.

Digitalisation in the education context has been widely researched (e.g. Hammond, 2014; Livingstone, 2012; Pettersson, 2018, 2021; Williamson, 2016b, 2016a), and has grown exponentially since 2019, but the research of future possibilities is less mature. The reviewed publications on the cross-section of education and digital futures appear from the 1980s, however, consequent growth of the literature started in the second half of the 2010s, doubling in 2022, probably as a result of the forced digitalisation wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. The articles have a strong Anglo-Saxon social, economic, and theoretical background. The majority of articles come from the USA, the UK, and Australia and are followed by Ireland and Canada, there are emerging discussions in the Nordic states, Finland, Sweden, and Norway, however, academic literature from continental Europe is scarce.

While European recommendations, frameworks, and strategies have been urging and supporting the development of digital competencies, in Hungary, a Central-and-Eastern-European country, schools seem to struggle to create their own understanding, positive relationship, and strategic approach to digital technologies in their operation and their pedagogical practices. This can be explained partly by the lack of focus on education policy and governance in this field, which is mirrored in the wider society too. Based on the Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) (European Commission, n.d), that is a comprehensive assessment tool used to gauge and compare the digital performance of European Union (EU) member states, measuring their progress in areas such as digital connectivity, digital skills, and the use of digital technologies, in 2022 Hungary was more than 5 years behind the No. 1 Finland, and three years behind the EU average's digital evolution trend, while barely before Bulgaria, closing the line.

This study sets out to answer the research question: What are the dreams and fears of school leaders and employees regarding digitalisation in schools influencing their attitudes toward increasing involvement of technology? The researcher used a qualitative approach to explore these anticipations within the Hungarian education system. This investigation focused on five schools, which offered either general or vocational education and were owned either by the state or by religious institutions. This research builds on the theoretical framework of digital utopianism (Dickel and Schrape, 2017), which is a novel approach in the field of education, and a specific contribution of this article. The paper aims to capture digital visions of Hungarian schools in the form of a utopia and dystopia, as a print of their attitudes towards digitalisation, contributing to organizational and policy-level educational management literature.

Theoretical background

Digital utopianism

Analysing images of wishes and fears of the future of modern, digitalised education provides an intriguing theoretical framework. The genre of utopian thinking and writing originates from Thomas More, who named his idealized and fictional island society using the Greek ou and topos expressions. While More’s utopia was singular and non-existent and was rather a critique of the status quo, later social utopian thinkers created utopias to serve as positive examples, models to be imitated and implemented into our societies (Picon, 2003).

Digital utopianism is a branch of technological or techno-utopianism, focusing on computer technologies or online technologies in a wide sense. According to Dickel and Schrape (2017), digital utopias are visions of futures that present a rhetoric of ’a potentiality already present in current technological designs, possibly to be released in a yet-to-be-arranged future’ and they treat new digital technologies as enablers for improving human lives (p. 1). The authors also argue that emerging technological and digital innovations, such as Web 2.0 and 3D printing, encourage a narrative of a prosumer society, where people not only consume goods in the online space and via digitally enhanced methods but produce them as well. Consequently, this evolution of digital technology leads to (1) democratization, (2) decentralization, and (3) emancipation and creates a new era of post-capitalistic maker-economy (Schrape, 2019).

Techno-dystopianism emerged as a response to the perceived damage technology creates in society, representing a pessimistic view. Starting with Huxley’s book, The Brave New World, in the twentieth century, dystopian thinkers pointed to how ‘technological advance can deprive people of freedom and dignity and ultimately bring destruction to humanity’ (Dai and Hao, 2018: 9). Dystopian thinking idealizes the past, stating that humans’ primaeval harmony with nature and the natural way of life is disrupted and sabotaged by technological progression (Dai and Hao, 2018).

However, even the most engaging digital utopias simplify our reality and are imperfect. Utopias disappoint by decoupling solidified social problems from their socio-economic contexts (factual dimension), generalizing the skills and motivations of early and tech-savvy users (social dimension), and dissociating a future visionary alternative from the past experiences, developments, and technologies (temporal dimension) (Dickel and Schrape, 2017; Schrape, 2019). Digital utopias, as highlighted by Ossewaarde and Gülenç (2020), often serve political agendas and align with Morozov’s (2013) notion of technological solutionism, suggesting the inherent benignity of technological solutions and their positive social impact.

Dai and Hao (2018) suggest transcending the binary opposition of utopias and dystopias, marked as an idealistic symmetric structure, as their relationship is not static. They state that both narratives are present at a given time, and as an outcome of historical junctions, the two ideologies build up new arguments. Consequently, the dominance of the two narratives shifts. This is called the realistic antisymmetric structure (p: 11).

Jasanoff (2015) avoids a dichotomous approach altogether and applies the term sociotechnical imaginaries. The term arches over the intertwined complexity of “descriptive and normative, structure and agency, material and mental, local and translocal” (p: 323) allowing multiple synchronous, parallel visions.

The present data analysis design kept the dual structure of utopia and dystopia, as a tool to portray hopes and fears for digital educational futures in a loud, clear, unanimous manner. This simplification and extremization of complexity were made to serve the understandability and applicability of the findings, while using the term imaginaries as well, to indicate the parallel natures and the inner diversity of the discussed visions.

Digital school imaginaries & educational futures

In educational futures research, the impact of computing and digitalisation has been a growingly prominent theme starting from the 1980s (e.g. Sullivan, 1983; Hedley and Ellsworth, 1992). Facer (2011) points out that current digital developments make such schools possible that are fundamentally detached from place and connected only by shared educational values, creating millions of fragmented personalized learning environments. However, she argues that we need the school as a physical space and a local organization, as “where community members are encouraged to encounter each other and learn from each other is one of the last public spaces in which we can begin to build the intergenerational solidarity, respect for diversity and democratic capability needed to ensure fairness in the context of sociotechnical change” (p: 28).

As a result of OECD’s educational futures research, we can discuss different future scenarios. The four scenarios published in 2020 are the following: (1) Schooling extended, (2) Education outsourced, (3) Schools as learning hubs, and (4) Learn-as-you-go. Although, the main dimensions of the scenarios don’t explicitly highlight digitalisation, distinctive characteristics of the different scenarios often stem from digitalisation trends, for example, massive digital learning platforms of an outsourced education system, national or international information systems of strong educational government systems, or independent, informal and de-institutionalized learning enabled by artificial intelligence, virtual and augmented reality and the Internet of Things, etc.

If we look at the literature on the cross-section of digital utopianism and schools, the main topics discussed in the reviewed literature are policy-level causes or implications (Gulson and Webb, 2017; Høydal and Haldar, 2022; Johnston and McGarr, 2022; Rahm, 2021; Rensfeldt and Player-Koro, 2020; Zufiaurre, 1999) future school scenarios (Gruszczynska et al., 2013; Kearney et al., 2022; Mateu et al., 2018), leadership and management (Keane and Keane, 2020; Webster, 2016, 2017), students’ digital visions (Rasa and Laherto, 2022; Schuck and Aubusson, 2010; Textor, 1985), public sector and ed-tech company involvement (McGarr and Engen, 2021; Williamson, 2018), equity (Nilsberth et al., 2021).

The main challenges in the use of digital technology in education are not technological, but social and cultural factors, which is why the main task is to re-imagine teachers’ roles and teaching in general, as well as learners and learning, and address both the ‘why’ and the ‘how’ of digital literacy (Gruszczynska et al., 2013; Mateu et al., 2018). The results of re-thinking education are digital educational scenarios, that are not all tech-positive; we encounter the issue of over-digitization and of the efficacy of high-tech usage as well (Kearney et al., 2022; Mateu et al., 2018).

Policy and macro-level management implications of this field of research are considered essential. Researchers recommend that national education and technology policy have a clear vision and purpose (Johnston and McGarr, 2022; Mateu et al., 2018). Policies of current practice typically address ideal citizenship of future societies but struggle to strike a balance between curriculum content and governance transformations, resulting in a constant pendulum movement between central, state-led, or new monopolized technology governance and infrastructures, and partly through decentralized forms of governance (Rahm, 2021; Rensfeldt and Player-Koro, 2020). The availability of data also gives way to “computational rationality” on the level of education policy-making, by utilising machine learning to provide faster, ‘real-time’ ways of analysing and identifying patterns in educational performance and administrative data (Gulson and Webb, 2017).

Digitalisation is most often depicted as necessary, inevitable, and good. Educational policies have been observed to portray the digital future of the school as rather utopian, digitalisation being a solution for complex societal issues while depicting the present as inefficient, passive, and teacher-centred, using the narrative as a tool to urge change and innovation in the field (Saari and Säntti, 2018). Furthermore, in academics, digitalisation tends to be shown in a positive light too. As an example, Rahm (2021) paraphrased Jasanoff’s definition of imaginaries of education as ‘[…] collectively held, institutionally stabilized, and publicly performed visions of desirable futures, animated by shared understandings of forms of social life and social order attainable through, and supportive of, advances in education about science and technology’ (Rahm, 2021 as in Jasanoff, 2015: 19).

However, authors Høydal and Haldar (2022) critique previous sociotechnical imaginaries in the Nordic model, claiming that the goal of providing digitally competent future citizen-workers neglects humanism and solidarity, mirroring neoliberal economic thinking even in traditional welfare states, furthermore, they handle the governance of the education system and the economic competitiveness of the nation as an axiomatic causal relationship (Saari and Säntti, 2018). Internationally, the educational sector shows a strong belief in digitalisation as a democratic project promoting equity (Nilsberth et al., 2021). The experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic, however, show that a high level of digitalisation in the learning processes can lead to growing effects of social and economic inequalities, for example through differences in parents’ familiarity with ICT, or overcrowded housing (Dimopoulos et al., 2021). This supports the previous critique, and hence, the role of the school as a social space should be heavily emphasized when thinking about digitalisation (Frohn, 2021).

Moving on to the micro level, research shows that digitalisation affects all aspects of organizational leadership and management. On an organizational level, technology leaders' thinking can be characterized by an instrumental view of technology, technological optimism, and technological determinism, which typically leads to two main outcomes in decision-making, such as (1) educational goals and curriculum should drive technology, or (2) the school(s) should keep up with technology, with the latter being more prevalent (Webster, 2016, 2017). The question of financing and funding options has also been shown to have a significant impact on managerial strategy and decision-making in the field, affecting classroom practice, teaching and learning programs, and professional staff learning (Keane and Keane, 2020).

Public education is undergoing an extensive process of marketization, privatization, and commercialization, through venture funding, collaborations, and entrepreneurship strategies that originate in Silicon Valley (Williamson, 2017). Many aspects of private sector involvement in public education infrastructures were accelerated by the pandemic, but this emergency inclusion of diverse actors raises complex and long-term questions about legalization, commercialization, and responsibilization (Cone et al., 2022).

The Hungarian context of educational digitalisation

Hungary can be viewed as a highly centralized, conservative education system with relatively low local autonomy of schools (Radó, 2022). The public school system is maintained by the 60 school districts supported by a central organization, the Klebelsberg Centre (KC) and by the Educational Authority, responsible for professional assistance and governance.

We can look at digital competence from a student, teacher, organizational or system perspective. For student skills, the previous 2012 version of the Hungarian national core curriculum (see the list of applied governmental decrees in Appendix 2) lists digital competence as one of the nine core competencies which means the ‘[…] confident, critical and ethical use of information and communication technologies (ICT)[…]’ that also gets specified in the document. The new 2020 version of the national curriculum doesn’t define digital competence, but instead of the Informatics subject, it introduces the Digital culture subject signalling a change in the approach to digital skills. The Digital culture subject aims to ‘provide and develop up-to-date knowledge and skills that will help learners to become successful and useful members of the information society’ (p: 428).

What we can observe is a slow movement from specified digital skills to the general principles of adaptability and learning skills to continuous change in technology and society in a wider sense, introducing a practice-based and uncertainty-accepting approach to digital skill building, however, also a step back from promoting digital competence as a key element in education.

On the teachers’ level, there is a framework in place for assessing teachers’ skills in the frame of their evaluation process, however, it does not contain detailed expectations towards digital skills. The first 2013 version of the framework did, however, these were erased in the second version and have not been included again since.

Schools are prescribed to use certain online systems and software operated by the Education Authority or the KC, however, even currently applicable 2021 ministry regulations for a minimal level of infrastructure and school equipment (Ministry of Human Resources, 2021) mirror the early millennium compared to entry-level suggestions of the European Commission’s highly equipped classroom model from 2019 (European Commission, 2019).

The first Digital Education Strategy of Hungary 2016–2020 (Magyarország Digitális Oktatási Stratégiája, 2016) was created ‘to build adaptability by promoting the acquisition of lifelong learning skills to prepare future citizens for, among other things, the changes brought about by the continuous technological development and the proliferation of information and communication technologies in the 21st century’, and its main goals define both pedagogical and organizational needs. The strategy was never publicly evaluated and has no legitim continuation, only a proposal document, DigiNOIR, (Halász, 2019), that suggests digital advancement losing priority in educational strategizing.

We can see some governmental ICT projects in the lifespan of the strategy. The development of digital textbooks and learning tools has been supported by a project between 2016 and 2022, establishing the National Public Education Portal (nkp.hu). A large number of teachers got laptops for professional use, accompanied by training, in the frame of the EU-funded project EFOP-3.2.4-16-2016-00001, and the installation of faster internet within schools was also a focal project (see further infrastructural investments in EFOP-3.2.3 and EFOP-7.3.3.). There are digital education management systems in place, such as the eChalk (eKRÉTA) system since the 2018/2019 school year, the Public Education Information System (KIR) and the Secondary School Enrolment Information System (KIFIR) as well as the University Enrolment System (Felvi.hu), that provide public education with the necessary administrative and workflow management support. The Digital Profile System (Digitális Névjegy Rendszer) (DPMK, 2020), a new organizational digital competence self-evaluation tool, was designed based on international best practices, but the pilot sample was small and the initiative died off after the pilot phase. Major investments stopped after 2020.

Research methodology

The results presented in this paper are outcomes of wider a doctoral research project that investigates what digital competence means to school communities, and how this concept has been affecting organizational learning, just in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. By answering the research question, what are the dreams and fears of school leaders and employees regarding digitalisation in public schools, the author aims to provide a deeper understanding of the attitudes influencing organizational digital competence building.

The choice of the qualitative approach was made due to its capacity “to make sense of or interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them” (Denzin and Lincoln, 2011: 3). The research explores meaning-making through the cases of five schools as a part of the learning organization research and development project (2015, 2020) of KÖVI (Hungarian-Netherlands School of Educational Management) in the South Great Plain region of Hungary. The schools were selected intensity-based with stratified purposeful sampling (Huberman and Miles, 1994). The intensity criteria demanded schools be able to show some examples of involvement in organizational digitalisation initiatives in the past 2 years. For the stratifying criteria, the varying attribute of the school owner was chosen. As a result, state schools providing general and vocational education, as well as church-owned schools are also part of the sample, as domestic debate suggests that these schools have different opportunities regarding funding and autonomy (Jordán, 2019; Péteri and Szilágyi, 2022). Solely private schools were excluded from the sample. The participation was invitation-based. As the project demanded serious engagement from the schools, the most significant criterion for selection and invitation was their readiness to cooperate in the different stages of the research project. In the first round 5 schools got invited; as all of them agreed to participate, no second round of invitations was issued. A summary of the main characteristics of the schools can be found in Table 1.

Table 1.

Summary of the participating schools.

Name	S1	S2	S3	S4	S5
Owner	Ministry of human resources	Ministry of human resources	Ministry of human resources	Organization of a Christian church	Ministry of innovation and technology
Level^a	Primary and lower secondary	Primary and lower secondary	Primary and lower secondary	(Early childhood), primary, lower, and upper secondary	Upper secondary, (adult)
Type	General	General	General	General	Vocational
No. of students^b	643	271	402	852	n.d. ∼1200–1300^c
Location	County capital	Small town in the agglomeration of a county capital	Midsize town	County capital	County capital

Source: Own editing.

^aEducational levels in brackets were not involved in the research.

^bstudent number includes only the educational levels that were involved in the research based on 2022 data from https://dari.oktatas.hu/kirpub/index.

^cEstimate based on 2019 data from https://dari.oktatas.hu/kirpub/index.

The data collection was carried out in individual and focus group interviews extended with on-site observation. The sampling of interview participants happened purposively, inviting three different groups: school leaders, administrative staff members, and teachers. Individual interviews in the research served the understanding of school management perspectives; these involved school principals and vice-principals extended by administrative staff representatives. Teachers participated in the focus group interviews to provide space for discussion and debate. Teachers were selected by school principals along the following pre-determined attributes: (1) diverse levels of digital competence, different (2) hierarchic positions, (3) age, (4) duration of school affiliation, and (5) subject backgrounds to avoid biased or wishful images about the organizations. The prepared field notes include a description of the setting, participants, interviews, class and meeting observations, and critical reflection; these are used as supporting research material but are not part of the data analysis itself.

The main interview topics were (1) the characteristics of the school’s organizational learning, (2) technology usage, and (3) experiences and learnings of the distance education period of the pandemic. Altogether 24 interviews were carried out between 11th June and 31st August 2021, 14 individual, two in-pair, and eight focus group interviews. In-pair interviews were designed as individual, but in two cases school leaders insisted on taking the interview together for efficiency purposes. The longest interview took 2 h and 5 min, and the shortest was 46 min. Twenty-three interviews have been recorded, transcribed, and coded in the NVivo software. One group interview, where the participants rejected the recording, was taken notes of and then similarly transcribed and coded in NVivo. In the text the interview codes can be understood as detailed in Appendix 1: The first part of the code refers to the school (S1, S2,…), the second part to the interview subject (L = leadership, T = teacher group, A = administrative staff), and the third part provides further specifications (A = administrative staff, P = principal, VP = vice principal, GNo = number of the group within the school).

The first round of coding was theory-driven and applied the codes Utopia and Dystopia. Items coded under the two main codes were either (1) answers to the interview question ‘How do you think the role of the school, in general, will change because of digital advancements and the distance education period caused by the pandemic?’ or (2) statements that attached value or feeling (reflection) to a current digitalisation related practice or state at the school, thus projecting some future expectations. After a sample coding of all interviews of one research case, the theory-driven codes were accepted. Sub-codes were assigned using the pattern coding method (Saldaña, 2013). Sub-codes emerged from the texts and were allocated to the main codes. These codes will be discussed in detail in the next section. All data collection and analysis tasks were completed by the author of the paper.

Validity of the research was provided by seeking out multiple viewpoints (leadership, teachers, administrative staff), the involvement of multiple cases (five in total) and the application of different methodologies (individual and group interviews, observation), furthermore, peer-cross-validation was applied. Reliability is supported by the detailed explanation of the methodology and the research project’s documentation. Due to the nature of qualitative research, generalizability and universality cannot be fully and objectively enforced, as it is not the aim of the methodological tradition (Gaudet and Robert, 2018). Ethical questions were taken into consideration in line with the principles of organizational research. The anonymity of the school organizations and the participants was ensured by allocating codes to them. Before the interview, respondents provided informed consent after being informed of the purpose of the study and the frames of data collection and analysis (Kvale, 2007). The research project followed the British Educational Research Association [BERA] Ethical Guidelines (2018) and was approved by the doctoral school of the author.

Results

This section introduces the main anticipations about a digital school future within the framework of digital utopianism based on the codes emerging from interviews with the five participating schools (Table 2). Sub-codes of Utopia and Dystopia can be understood as the main themes of these imaginaries, mirroring the hopes and fears of the research participants.

Table 2.

Main codes and sub-codes of the research.

Anticipations about school digitalisation
Dystopia	Utopia
Erosion of pedagogical value	Digitally competent school community
Erosion of social connections	Infrastructure provided
Exploitation of teachers’ resources	Effective communication and collaboration
Digital divide	Professional development
Cheating	Pedagogical enhancer
Mixing private and working life	Regulation and etiquette
Technological chaos	Time and support
Overdocumentation	Closer student-teacher relationship
Exploitation of families’ resources	Space for real community
Health damage	Flexible time management
Misuse, power, and control	Professional learning networks (PLN)
Technology replacing teachers	Online communities
Erosion of autonomy	Teachers’ status
	Data safety
	Efficient processes
	Sustainability
	Evidence-based pedagogy and management

Source: Own editing.

The two imaginaries, the utopia and dystopia of the digitalised school, are not homogeneous visions; the various themes come from all interview participants and are not proportionate to all cases. My goal in summarizing the hopes and fears of participants is to provide an overview of the anticipations that colour school staff’ and school leaders’ attitudes towards digitalisation. Sub-codes in Table 2. Appear, however, in the order of frequency of mentions. This order suggests the intensity of the themes in the life of the interviewees, however, as the determination of the order of relevance was not a goal of the research, it was not validated retrospectively by the interview participants.

Utopian imaginaries

In a utopian view of digitalised education, all school citizens have the necessary basic digital competence. The school management has a general knowledge of digital technologies and is engaged in fostering digitalisation in the organization. Teachers handle different digital devices and tools confidently and know how to apply them for their pedagogical purposes. All teachers are supporting students’ digital competence building in some way and are familiar with netiquette. Parents have the necessary competence to cooperate in their children’s education and are capable of teaching basic digital skills at home too. Students learn to learn and cooperate digitally, know their way around different tools, and navigate their digital presence. They acquire knowledge of coding and robotics beyond basic ICT knowledge. School administrative staff also receive the necessary training to increase their work efficiency and minimize unnecessary workload.

In an ideal future, all the infrastructure is provided. New, operational, and fast devices for teachers and students are available individually, classrooms are equipped with all the needed technology, and the Wi-Fi is steady and available to everyone in the school. Educational technology and connected educational materials are available, fitting different pedagogical methodologies. Maintenance budget and technology personnel are at hand, device compatibility is flawless. The school space is digitally enhanced, online workspace is provided as well. Office and supporting technologies are equally developed.

Digitalisation is seen as an enabler for effective communication and collaboration (see example in Table 3). It supports community building, and the inclusion of teachers and students when they are away from school. It makes meetings and information sharing instant and efficient, and collaboration easy.

Table 3.

Exemplary quotes for ‘Utopia’ subcodes.

Codes	Exemplary quotes
Effective communication and collaboration	‘T1: It is very good that we have introduced it [online meeting platform]. [laughter, collective approval]
	T2: It brought us closer…
	T3: Even though we're far apart […].’It’s much more practical in terms of time management, which everybody struggles with, not just us but everybody else in this world, time, time, time, time. Lack of time.’ (S1-T-G)
Pedagogical enhancer	‘Motivating, innovative, and creative. Because I've always liked the part of digital technologies where the child can create, so we're not just using something. I also like the part where I can create content for the children and engage the children in activities where they can create using the tools.’ (S3-L-VP1)
Space for real community	‘Obviously, it also has the effect of making people realise that it's better to do it [education] this way, so the human side, the human relationships, the presence, the personal, immediate answers, immediate questions, and the physical proximity with living people, gained emphasis.’ (S4-A)
Space for real community	‘VP: We won't allow them to be on the phone during the break, but they try their best. We want them to talk, we want them to be together, and we won't want them to be on their phones, they can do that at home. […] It was a huge lesson for me that at some point I just let the kids go without talking to them much about anything else [but the lesson], but it's good to have a couple of words. Let's say in that 10-minute break I stop them [in the school]. I think that kind of personal connection is going to be much more needed.’ (S4-L-P&VP)

Source: Own editing.

Professional development with the development of technology, digital and online advancements spur continuous innovation within the school and provides a motivating professional challenge. Conquering these challenges reinforces teachers’ self-confidence.

Digitalisation will enhance pedagogy by supporting autonomous learning, learning to learn, and autonomous creating (see example in Table 3). It makes differentiation and personalisation of learning paths possible and offers diverse methodological learning and joyful ways of acquiring knowledge. The available methodologies and tools will also help to provide equity in education and foster collaboration and teamwork skills.

Regulations and etiquette of digital educational tools and spaces will be discussed and clear to everyone. Schools will use school-wide learning and collaboration platforms, there will be school-level smartphone and school device usage policies that are determined based on student maturity. Formal and informal usage will be handled separately, and work-life balance will be considered when organizing teachers’ or students’ work. There will be guides available for students, parents, and teachers, students’ digital onboarding will be a general part of kids getting ready for their school life. Proper online communication and netiquette will be an inherent part of educating students. Schools will have a digital competence education policy in place to consciously develop student skills.

Extra time and support will be generally provided for teachers. System administrators and educational technologists or digital pedagogical mentors will be there to help and advise teachers and coordinate project application writing for participating in digitalisation projects. The management and administration will organize school life so that there will be time for teacher professional development (TPD), training, and digital material development.

Digitalisation also brings student-teacher relationships closer, where students are participating in suggesting and choosing digital technologies and tools that schools use, and where they support and teach their teachers to apply these too. Communication will be easier, quicker, and personally closer too, thanks to online ways of getting in contact.

The school lockdowns and the digital education period of the COVID-19 pandemic revealed the community-building role of the school. School life will focus more on creating a space for community, supplementing digital education. Schools will prioritize value-added interaction on-site and in class (see examples in Table 3).

School citizens also learned to appreciate the flexible time management that the digitalisation of work and learning provides. More distance work and flexible working time will be allowed for teachers and administrative staff, but also individual needs of students and parents can be built into learning and operational processes as well. The form of meeting, online or offline, will be considered more, contributing to more reasonable time management too.

Actively participating in online Professional Learning Networks (PLNs) will ensure access to high-quality knowledge and resources not just through Facebook groups, but also on different webinars or training, available on platforms, subjects, and other different topics for free. However, online encounters will not only provide space for informal learning but for building online communities too. On these online platforms, colleagues can connect even if they are not working directly together at school or if they come from completely different schools or backgrounds. They can emotionally support and motivate each other, share successes, have fun, and exercise their creativity too.

With technology growing more complex, the status of teachers, who can keep up with new trends, will grow, and their personal and pedagogical added value to plain education will be much more appreciated.

Data safety will be highly prioritised. Educational platform choice will be based on this need, personal data access will be well-regulated within the school as well. The personal spaces of students and teachers will be also respected even in cases of remote work and online distance education. Administrative data storage will be solved via digitizing documents and appropriate backup mechanisms.

Processes will be more efficient thanks to educational and operational administration platforms, software and cloud solutions, automated processes, and digital authentication. The used systems will be intercompatible, allowing seamless cooperation among public administration stakeholders. With digital solutions, everyday life in the education sector will be more sustainable, as more professional events can be organized online, travelling won’t be necessary as frequently as before, and less paper will be used for administrative purposes as well.

With the evolution of data collection methods and analysis pedagogy and management can be more evidence-based, and pedagogical or HR strategies can build on data collected within the school.

Dystopian imaginaries

The dystopian visions predict the erosion of pedagogical value as a result of over-digitalisation. New tools and methodologies, and online communication hinder metacommunication and prevent teachers from reacting appropriately to their students. Teachers' unique personal added value, the conveying of social norms and values, the school image and its pedagogical values will get lost (see example in Table 4). Social soft skills and the focus on personal development will fade. The digital evaluation of students’ learning results will be false, and teachers will struggle to provide sufficient pedagogical support online, as many won’t be able or motivated to keep up with the needed skills in this field. Altogether, digital tools are distractions for both students and teachers from focused work and their personal connections.

Table 4.

Exemplary Quotes for ‘Dystopia’ Subcodes.

Code	Exemplary quotes
Erosion of pedagogical value	‘The pedagogical thread is being peeled away from education, the methodological thread. There will be knowledge transfer, and information transfer, for which appropriate technologies will be developed. Which is not the right direction, I think.’ (S4-T-G)
Erosion of social connections	‘Knowledge is important too, but what kind of example I, as an individual, as a human being, will set for him, will not be there. And he/she won't have any at home either, because his/her mother and father are not at home, as they are at work. So, I won't know what kind of role models they're going to pick up. Well, machines, fictional ones, from games...’ (S4-T-G)
Erosion of social connections	‘We are happy about digitalisation, but it takes away the personal touch at work, with parents, with students, among students.’ (S3-T-G1)
Misuse, power, and control	‘In 20 years, if things won't work out the way we want them to if we're not the ones teaching, for example, but there's a maths teacher up in Budapest, and if you need to brainwash, they can do that. I have this idea that in 20 years... [Someone: in 10 years...] [...] So we won't need a hundred thousand people [teachers] here... Now they [government] realise that they can use this to their advantage and then teachers will say what the current government wants. And then there is no thinking, there is nothing. And then it will be machine voices.’ (S5-T-G1)
Misuse, power, and control	‘Who knows how they listen in [laughs].’ (S3-T-G2)

Source: Own editing.

Social contacts will suffer digitalisation too. Students will miss forming true friendships, school communities, or connections with their teachers. Family connections in general will also empty, as family members will merely exist alongside each other, lost in their own digital spaces (see examples in Table 4). Teachers will also lose the opportunity to work and live in a school community, be part of teams, or truly network with colleagues. The loss of these personal connections also cuts the ties to informal learning opportunities among colleagues.

With the improvement of technology but without proper infrastructural and operational (e.g. HR, education organization) development in education, teachers’ personal resources will be continuously exploited, including time, money and space. They will be expected to buy, maintain and resupply working devices, or even software and app licenses, for everyday use and experimentation. Without service phones or subscriptions, they are expected to pay phone bills directly connected to their work. Without the separation of personal and work accounts and devices, their data storage capacities, and an appropriate internet package, paid by them, will also serve the school they are working at. Without the proper equipment at school, teachers are forced to move their working space to their homes, taking up personal and physical space there, but also taking up their non-work time. Partly this is true for families’ resources as well: to enable an appropriate education for their kids, they have to invest a lot in technological devices as well as include these and other digital spaces in their personal living spaces, which many families won’t be able to afford.

Online distance education proved to teachers, that at a high level of digitalisation, a digital divide is unavoidable. Students’ progress will depend on the number of devices and the quality of internet access at home, as well as the number of people in one household, or where that household is. If the student is young, has some special needs, or doesn’t have a high level of learning skills or inner motivation, a digitalised way of education can hinder him/her even more. The parents’ digital competence level will also influence the learning opportunities of the students. Students studying professions that need manual mastery and special tools or spaces to practice will suffer a more serious disadvantage compared to students in general education, creating an even bigger societal fraction.

Teachers are anxious about the effect of digitalisation on cheating. In the case of online education and with the development of different online tools students will fake the results of their individual work and examinations, as well as their general participation in learning processes. However, teachers will also choose the easier way sometimes, in their learning processes in TPD training, and even in their teaching efforts. These will be harder to detect too.

Private and professional life will be mixed and confused, making maintaining of work-life balance hard due to constant availability and connectedness to the internet. Work-related tasks and programs will be accepted to be pushed into people’s free time and personal spaces, and the border between informal and formal communication and relationships will be blurred.

Technological complexity will only make learning processes more chaotic, taking away time, confusing students and parents, and requiring extra financial resources. There will be too many different technologies, software, and apps, and the compatibility issues will be hard to handle, creating further barriers.

The growing opportunity to gather data will also cause overdocumentation; everything will be put in data and have to be administered. Teachers and administrative staff will be overwhelmed by double documentation (paper and digital) and the uncountable platforms that are to be used for these tasks, as they are not intercompatible or automated.

Our health will be damaged physically and mentally too. The immense screen time and sitting work will ruin our eyesight and our general level of fitness and posture. The lack of socialization and genuine, physical, personal connections will also disturb our general mental health and the way we connect with other people.

Technology is just another and better way to exercise and even misuse power. In public education, the government will exercise irrational control over the procurement and maintenance of different technological devices and use this control for surveillance too. The government will spread its propaganda and use education for political purposes through central digital materials and central distance education measures (see examples in Table 4), as it will be possible to replace teachers with technology. Autonomy will be sacrificed in the name of efficiency, and available technological and digital tools will be restricted governmentally, but sometimes locally too.

Discussion

Looking at the results analysing the benefits of the theoretical framework, we could make it visible, how hopes and fears, thus utopian and dystopian visions, are present at the same time in the observed school communities (Dai and Hao, 2018), mixed even on single cases level. The characteristic mental associations, such as democratization, decentralization, and emancipation for example in education system structures and processes, and student-teacher relationships (Schrape, 2019) just as the romanticisation of the past or politicization of the new pedagogical methodologies (Dai and Hao, 2018; Morozov, 2013) could be also better understood embedded in educational examples.

However, we can also observe that the described images of the digital school are not radically different from the current school image; the interviewees expressed rather careful and reserved expectations towards digital development and change. Many mentioned solutions and practices are already in use in leading educational systems, while certain emerging topics like AI, robotic process automation in administration, or online bullying are not on the radar for most participating schools. This can be partly attributed to the temporal dimension of utopian errors (Dickel and Schrape, 2017), where participants base their expectations on past experiences and existing technological developments. Given the prevailing “follower” approach among school leaders and teachers (Webster, 2017), this limited experience and knowledge contribute to a short-sighted vision, negatively impacting local-level dialogue and strategizing, while only a few organizational members and change agents deviate from this pattern.

The conceptualization of utopian and dystopian visions and the dialogue about them allows for a more accurate problem definition for policy and management, highlighting themes and depicting opposing outcomes of the same developments (e.g., enhancement or loss of personal relationships in the same setting), hence, supports a more conscious and autonomous relationship towards digitalisation on all levels education. The predominant emerging themes of the two imaginaries are funding and infrastructure, equity, misuse, and social and pedagogical relations in future digitalised education, which we will address in this section.

The theme of funding and infrastructure emphasizes the role of policy and strategy building (Johnston and McGarr, 2022) as a possible macro-level tool for visioning innovation and fostering local digital leadership and implementation. Even though European-level directions are available, the lack of national-level strategy and budgeting influences local vision building in the centralized public education domain very severely. Emphasizing Keane and Keans’s suggestion, that funding is very influential on managerial decision-making (2020), infrastructural funding opportunities seem to be the absolute basis for building future visions in the Hungarian context. These infrastructural opportunities are one of the most focal attributes of the painted images within this research, and the physical equipment available in the school shows to be still the main manifestation and meaning made of digitalisation in this sector in the given national context, thus needs to be central to policy and strategy building.

Policy and management actions however first need to bridge the learned scepticism of the local pedagogical communities about macro-level development goals, in the Hungarian context. Some participants believe that despite recognizing the need for change as educational professionals, the combination of high expectations for schools and teachers with a lack of necessary resources (e.g., tools, time, human resources, subject matter knowledge) makes it impossible to attain a utopian vision. This narrative is significant in discussing research results because it diverges from both utopian and dystopian scenarios by raising doubts about any forms of change. This attitude, born from frustration, although valid, is especially harmful, as it impedes dialogue, purposeful strategizing and action on all levels.

In equity, local knowledge is invaluable in building good policy. In contrast to the policy-level insensibility about equity and sustainability (Høydal and Haldar, 2022), discussions about these issues at the local level are taking place. Although these discussions are still in their early stages, primarily focus on defining the problems. Based on the research results, concerns encompass information poverty based on socio-economic background, structural inequalities in the education system (e.g., general vs vocational education), or mass educational practices gaining ground at the expense of individual differentiation and even special need and vulnerable groups, while digitalisation was also seen to provide an effective countermeasure against the same issues. The collection and dissemination of good practices and even failed actions in this field is an essential field of future empirical research.

The theme of misuse in digitalisation signalled an emerging conflict between central authority and local autonomy, as well as the issue of individual and organizational data access and protection. Phenomena, such as the anticipated governmental misuse of power, surveillance, and oppression through technology, are examples that underscore the importance of further research grounded in critical theories.

Changing social and pedagogical relationships was also a main theme in the two narratives. The potential enrichment or erosion of relationships within the wider school community changes the adequate competence mix of teachers as well as urges more diverse professional expertise (e.g. professionals for mental health, community, soft social skill development, supporting roles) within the school, and the effects of these changes on the school’s role, such as education, upbringing, socializing, etc., and teachers’ role should be primary scenes of psychological, sociological and also managerial, HR-related empirical research.

Research results suggest that hopes and fears of school organizations are highly context-dependent (e.g., financial, regulatory, social-economic, and leadership-related factors), as certain topics could be observed to be more significant in different school cases. Although the purpose of this analysis was not to compare the dominance of utopian or dystopian expectations based on organizational characteristics, future research should investigate causal relationships between contextual factors and the nature of organizational-level attitudes toward digitalisation, as this can guide school leaders in creating an accepting environment for beneficial digital developments.

One of the research's limitations is the generalizability of the findings, as the sampling of school institutions is quite focused and could be further diversified (e.g., along further different maintainers like foundations (private) or universities, regions, types of settlement, school profile/specialization, etc.). An analysis of imaginaries coming from students, parents, and other public or private sector actors is also highly advisable to understand the complete context of educational digitalisation, which was not possible within the scope of this research. This way research results represent the school staff’s perspective only. In terms of data collection methodology, we discovered that, due to the reservedness of school communities' vision expression, visual qualitative research methods could be even more productive and provide rich and valuable data.

Conclusions

This article aimed to fill a research gap in our knowledge about the hopes and fears of school communities towards school digitalisation in the context of a Central and Eastern European country. The study summarized and introduced two future visions, a digital utopia and dystopia for schools, and discussed results in light of current academic literature. Results suggested further research on financial, policy, managerial, equity and social aspects of educational digitalisation, as well as the application of critical theory in research, and image-based methodological approaches. The present research contributes to the general educational digitalisation literature and can serve as input for an evidence-based macro-level policy and strategy-building practice, as well as for local-level level development and change-management programs.

Discussion about digital visions and future perspectives in educational institutions is still an emerging topic of both practice- and theory-oriented education research, especially considering organizational aspects, as these are typically outweighed by pedagogical approaches. Furthermore, primary, and secondary educational institutions are under-researched in this field compared to higher education. Negative anticipations and critical voices should be put forward as well so that strategic remediating measures can be taken.

Based on the findings, the author of this paper believes that by utilizing the tools provided by digitalisation in an evidence-based, critical, and ethical manner, an optimistic future is just around the corner; and supporting that is the mission of academia.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Digital utopia and dystopia of schools after the COVID-19 pandemic

Supplemental Material for Digital utopia and dystopia of schools after the COVID-19 pandemic by Fazekas Nóra in Research in Education.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Fazekas Nóra

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

British Educational Research Association [BERA] (2018) Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research. 4th edition. London: British Educational Research Association [BERA].

European Commission (n.d.) DESI - Compare countries progress. Available at: https://digital-decade-desi.digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/datasets/desi-2022/charts/desi-compare-countries-progress?indicator=desi_total&breakdown=desi_total&unit=pc_desi&country=FI,BG,HU.

Cone

Brøgger

Berghmans

, et al. (2022) Pandemic acceleration: COVID-19 and the emergency digitalization of European education. European Educational Research Journal 21(5): 845–868. DOI: 10.1177/14749041211041793.

Dai

Hao

(2018) Transcending the opposition between techno-utopianism and techno-dystopianism. Technology in Society 53: 9–13. DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2017.11.001.

Denzin

Lincoln

(2011) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dickel

Schrape

(2017) The logic of digital utopianism. NanoEthics 11(1): 47–58. DOI: 10.1007/s11569-017-0285-6.

Dimopoulos

Koutsampelas

Tsatsaroni

(2021) Home schooling through online teaching in the era of COVID-19: exploring the role of home-related factors that deepen educational inequalities across European societies. European Educational Research Journal 20(4): 479–497. DOI: 10.1177/14749041211023331.

DPMK (2020) A Digitális Iskola Kézikönyve. Budapest: Digitális Pedgagógiai Módszertani Közpönt. https://digitalisnevjegyrendszer.hu/static/manual/dnr_kezikonyv.pdf.

European Commission (2019) Executive Summary of 2nd Survey of Schools: ICT in Education. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. DOI: 10.2759/225159.

10.

Facer

Keri

(2011) Learning Futures: Education, Technology and Social Change. Routledge.

11.

Frohn

(2021) Troubled schools in troubled times: how COVID-19 affects educational inequalities and what measures can be taken. European Educational Research Journal 20(5): 667–683. DOI: 10.1177/14749041211020974.

12.

Gaudet

Robert

(2018) A Journey through Qualitative Research: From Design to Reporting. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd. DOI: 10.4135/9781529716733.

13.

Gruszczynska

Merchant

Pountney

(2013) “Digital futures in teacher education”: exploring open approaches towards digital literacy | electronic journal of e-learning. Electronic Journal of e-Learning 11(3): 193–206. https://academic-publishing.org/index.php/ejel/article/view/1669.

14.

Gulson

Webb

(2017) Mapping an emergent field of “computational education policy”: policy rationalities, prediction and data in the age of Artificial Intelligence. Research in Education 98(1): 14–26. DOI: 10.1177/0034523717723385.

15.

Halász

(2019) DigiNOIR. Available at: http://halaszg.elte.hu/download/ADigfNOIR_stratégia_(2019.07.30).pdf.

16.

Hammond

(2014) Introducing ICT in schools in england: rationale and consequences. British Journal of Educational Technology 45(2): 191–201. DOI: 10.1111/bjet.12033.

17.

Hedley

Ellsworth

(1992) What‘s new in software? computers and educational futures. Reading & Writing Quarterly 8(2): 243–250. DOI: 10.1080/0748763920080207.

18.

Høydal

ØS

Haldar

(2022) A tale of the digital future: analyzing the digitalization of the Norwegian education system. Critical Policy Studies 16(4): 460–477. DOI: 10.1080/19460171.2021.1982397.

19.

Huberman

Miles

(1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications Inc.

20.

Jasanoff

(2015) Future imperfect: science, technology, and the imaginations of modernity. In: Jasanoff

Kim

S-H

(eds) Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 1–33.

21.

Johnston

McGarr

(2022) Digital education futures in Irish educational policy: tempering commercial influence through an exploration of emerging ethical, environmental and educational realities. Irish Educational Studies 41(1): 135–149. DOI: 10.1080/03323315.2021.2022516.

22.

Jordán

(2019) Az állami és egyházi fenntartású finanszírozásáról. Új Köznevelés 75(9–10): 14–17.

23.

Keane

(2020) A vision of the digital future - government funding as a catalyst for 1 to 1 computing in schools. Education and Information Technologies 25(2): 845–861. DOI: 10.1007/s10639-019-09988-y.

24.

Kearney

Schuck

Burden

(2022) Digital pedagogies for future school education: promoting inclusion. Irish Educational Studies 41(1): 117–133. DOI: 10.1080/03323315.2021.2024446.

25.

Kvale

(2007) Doing Interviews. London: Sage Publications, Ltd. DOI: 10.4135/9781849208963.

26.

Livingstone

(2012) Critical reflections on the benefits of ICT in education. Oxford Review of Education 38(1): 9–24. DOI: 10.1080/03054985.2011.577938.

27.

Magyarország Digitális Oktatási Stratégiája (2016) https://digitalisjoletprogram.hu/files/55/8c/558c2bb47626ccb966050debb69f600e.pdf.

28.

Mateu

Cobo

Moravec

(2018) Plan Ceibal 2020: future scenarios for technology and education—the case of the Uruguayan public education system. European Journal of Forest Research 6(6): 6–12. DOI: 10.1186/s40309-018-0134-z.

29.

McGarr

Engen

(2021) By-passing teachers in the marketing of digital technologies: the synergy of educational technology discourse and new public management practices. Learning, Media and Technology 47(4): 440–455. DOI: 10.1080/17439884.2021.2010092.

30.

Ministry of Human Resources (2021) Jegyzék a nevelési - oktatási intézmények kötelező (minimális) felszereléseiről. https://www.oktatas.hu/pub_bin/dload/kozoktatas/Tanevkezdes2020/VIII_2997_2_2021__2.sz.melleklet.pdf.

31.

Morozov

(2013) Teo Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism. New York, NY: PublicAffairs.

32.

Nilsberth

Liljekvist

Olin-Scheller

, et al. (2021) Digital teaching as the new normal? Swedish upper secondary teachers’ experiences of emergency remote teaching during the COVID-19 crisis. European Educational Research Journal 20(4): 442–462. DOI: 10.1177/14749041211022480.

33.

Ossewaarde

Gülenç

(2020) National Varieties of Artificial. Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society, pp. 53–61.

34.

Péteri

Szilágyi

(2022) Egyházak a köznevelési költségvetésben. Education 31(3): 461–478. DOI: 10.1556/2063.31.2022.3.8.

35.

Pettersson

(2018) On the issues of digital competence in educational contexts – a review of literature. Education and Information Technologies 23(3): 1005–1021. DOI: 10.1007/s10639-017-9649-3.

36.

Pettersson

(2021) Understanding digitalization and educational change in school by means of activity theory and the levels of learning concept. Education and Information Technologies 26(1): 187–204.

37.

Picon

(2003) Utopian socialism and social science. In: Porter

Ross

(eds) Cambridge History of Science. Suite N Hauppauge, NY: The Modern Social Sciences, vol. 7, pp. 71–82.

38.

Radó

(2022) Közoktatás És Politika. Magyarország 2010-2022. Budapest, Hungary: Noran Libro.

39.

Rahm

(2021) Education, automation and AI: a genealogy of alternative futures. In: Learning, Media and Technology. Oxfordshire: Routledge. DOI: 10.1080/17439884.2021.1977948.

40.

Rasa

Laherto

(2022) Young people’s technological images of the future: implications for science and technology education. European Journal of Forest Research 10(4): 4–15. DOI: 10.1186/s40309-022-00190-x.

41.

Rensfeldt

Player-Koro

(2020) “Back to the future”: socio-technical imaginaries in 50 years of school digitalization curriculum reforms. Seminar.net 16(2): 20. DOI: 10.7577/seminar.4048.

42.

Saari

Säntti

(2018) The rhetoric of the “digital leap” in Finnish educational policy documents. European Educational Research Journal 17(3): 442–457. DOI: 10.1177/1474904117721373.

43.

Saldaña

(2013) The coding manual for qualitative researchers. In: Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal. 2nd edition. London: Sage Publications Ltd. DOI: 10.1108/qrom-08-2016-1408.

44.

Schrape

(2019) The promise of technological decentralization. A brief reconstruction. Society 56(1): 31–37. DOI: 10.1007/s12115-018-00321-w.

45.

Schuck

Aubusson

(2010) Educational scenarios for digital futures. Learning, Media and Technology 35(3): 293–305. DOI: 10.1080/17439884.2010.509351.

46.

Sullivan

(1983) Computers, culture, and educational futures: a critical appraisal. Interchange 14(3): 17–26. DOI: 10.1007/BF01810467.

47.

Textor

(1985) Anticipatory anthropology and the telemicroelectronic revolution: a preliminary report from silicon valley. Anthropology and Education Quarterly 16(1): 3–30.

48.

Webster

(2016) Examining philosophy of technology using grounded theory methods. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung 17(2): 1–21.

49.

Webster

(2017) Philosophy of technology assumptions in educational technology leadership. Educational Technology & Society 20(1): 25–36.

50.

Williamson

(2016a) Digital education governance : an introduction. European Educational Research Journal 15(1): 3–13. DOI: 10.1177/1474904115616630.

51.

Williamson

(2016b) Digital education governance : data visualization , predictive analytics , and “real-time” policy instruments. Journal of Education Policy 31(2): 123–141. DOI: 10.1080/02680939.2015.1035758.

52.

Williamson

(2017) Learning in the “platform society”: disassembling an educational data assemblage. Research in Education 98(1): 59–82. DOI: 10.1177/0034523717723389.

53.

Williamson

(2018) Silicon startup schools: technocracy, algorithmic imaginaries and venture philanthropy in corporate education reform. Critical Studies in Education 59(2): 218–236. DOI: 10.1080/17508487.2016.1186710.

54.

Zufiaurre

(1999) Comprehensive polyvalent schooling: options for technological future. Pedagogy, Culture & Society 7(1): 153–164. DOI: 10.1080/14681369900200046.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.11 MB