Innovación Tecno-Educativa “Google”. Plataformas Digitales, Datos y Formación Docente

  1. Geo Saura 1
  2. Enrique-Javier Díez-Gutiérrez 2
  3. Pablo Rivera-Vargas 3
  1. 1 Universidad de Granada
    info

    Universidad de Granada

    Granada, España

    ROR https://ror.org/04njjy449

  2. 2 Universidad de León
    info

    Universidad de León

    León, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02tzt0b78

  3. 3 Universitat de Barcelona
    info

    Universitat de Barcelona

    Barcelona, España

    ROR https://ror.org/021018s57

Show affiliations +
Journal:
REICE: Revista Iberoamericana sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio en Educación

ISSN: 1696-4713

Year of publication: 2021

Volume: 19

Issue: 4

Pages: 111-124

Type: Article

DOI: 10.15366/REICE2021.19.4.007 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: REICE: Revista Iberoamericana sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio en Educación

Abstract

Digital platforms are generating the most significant advances in global educational innovation. The global pandemic of Covid-19 is accelerating the expansion of digital platforms in education. Google is the technology corporation that, through Google for Education, is leading educational innovation through its digital platforms. In this context, the objective of this article is to analyze innovation in educational practices and teacher training through Google's digital platforms. From a qualitative approach based on the implementation of a digital ethnography and a technography, eight Google websites related to teacher training and data have been analyzed in depth. The results of the study show that, through the Classroom API (1) new techno-educational control processes are being generated, (2) new extractive dynamics of data and (3) new relationships are forming with the technology industry. Alongside this, it is observed that teacher training for techno-educational innovation in Google is based on pyramidal professional development, through teaching certifications, and on “Google educational communities” that are self-formed and expand the tools and market logics of this technology corporation.

Bibliographic References

  • Birch, K. (2019). Technoscience rent: Toward a theory of tentiership for technoscientific capitalism. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 45(1), 3-33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243919829567
  • Birch, K., Chiappetta, M. y Artyushina, A. (2020). The problem of innovation in technoscientific capitalism: Data rentiership and the policy implications of turning personal digital data into a private asset. Policy Studies, 41(5), 468-487. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2020.1748264
  • Bucher T. (2016). Neither black nor box: Ways of knowing algorithms. En S. Kubitschko y A. Kaun (Eds.), Innovative methods in media and communication research (pp. 81-89). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40700-5_5
  • Bucher, T. (2018). If...then: Algorithmic power and politics. Oxford University Press.
  • Couldry, N. y Mejias, U. A. (2019). Data colonialism: Rethinking big data’s relation to the contemporary subject. Television & New Media, 20(4), 336-349. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476418796632
  • Decuypere, M., Grimaldi, E. y Landri, P. (2021). Introduction: Critical studies of digital education platforms. Critical Studies in Education, 62(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2020.1866050
  • Google. (2021a). Google classroom. https://edu.google.com/intl/en-eu/products/classroom/
  • Google. (2021b). API-classroom-authorizing requests. https://developers.google.com/classroom/guides/auth
  • Google. (2021c). API-classroom-manage. https://developers.google.com/classroom/guides/manage-guardians
  • Google. (2021d). Apps that work#withClassroom. https://edu.google.com/intl/en-eu/products/classroom/apps/
  • Google. (2021e). Google for education. https://edu.google.com
  • Google. (2021f). Teacher center. https://edu.google.com/intl/en-eu/teacher-center/?modal_active=none
  • Google. (2021g). Google for education-partnes. https://edu.google.com/partners/
  • Google. (2021h). Google for education-communities. https://edu.google.com/latest-news/communities/
  • Groß, C. y Vriens, D. (2019). The role of the distributor network in the persistence of legal and ethical problems of multi-level marketing companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 156(2), 333-355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3556-9
  • HolonIQ. (2021). Global EdTech unicorns. https://www.holoniq.com/edtech-unicorns/
  • Ideland, M. (2021). Google and the end of the teacher? How a figuration of the teacher is produced through an ed-tech discourse. Learning, Media and Technology, 46(1), 33-46. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1809452
  • Jansen, K. y Vellema, S. (2011). What is technography? Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 57(3-4), 169-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2010.11.003
  • Jasanoff, S. y Kim, S.-H. (2009). Containing the atom: Sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea. Minerva, 47(2), 119-146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-009-9124-4
  • Komljenovic, J. (2021). The rise of education rentiers: Digital platforms, digital data and rents. Learning, Media and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2021.1891422
  • Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press.
  • Lindh, M. y Nolin, J. (2016). Information we collect: Surveillance and privacy in the implementation of google apps for education. European Educational Research Journal, 15(6), 644-663. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904116654917
  • Means, A. J. (2018). Platform learning and on-demand labor: Sociotechnical projections on the future of education and work. Learning, Media and Technology, 43(3), 326-338. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2018.1504792
  • Moore, A. y Clarke, M. (2016). Cruel optimism: Teacher attachment to professionalism in an era of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 31(5), 666-677. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2016.1160293
  • Morozov, E. (2015). To save everything, click here: The folly of technological solutionism. PublicAffairs.
  • Perrotta, C., Gulson, K. N., Williamson, B. y Witzenberger, K. (2021). Automation, APIs and the distributed labour of platform pedagogies in Google Classroom. Critical Studies in Education, 62(1), 97-113. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2020.1855597
  • Pink, S., Horst, H., Postill, J., Hjorth, L., Lewis, T. y Tacchi, J. (2016). Digital ethnography: Principles and practice. Sage.
  • Regan, P. M. y Jesse, J. (2018). Ethical challenges of edtech, big data and personalized learning: Twenty-first century student sorting and tracking. Ethics and Information Technology, 21(3), 167-179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-018-9492-2
  • Sadowski, J. (2019). When data is capital: Datafication, accumulation, and extraction. Big Data & Society, 6(1), 20-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951718820549
  • Snodgrass, E. y Soon, W. (2019). API practices and paradigms: Exploring the protocological parameters of APIs as key facilitators of sociotechnical forms of exchange. First Monday, 24(2), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v24i2.9553
  • Srnicek, N. (2016). Platform capitalism. Cambridge Polity Press.
  • Tooley, J., Rudolph, J., Melnik, S. y Tan, S. (2020). Private schools for the poor as a disruptive educational innovation. An interview with Professor James Tooley. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 3(2), 136-149. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2020.3.2.22
  • Van Dijck, J., Poell, T. y De Waal, M. (2018). The platform society: Public values in a connective world. Oxford University Press.
  • Williamson, B. y Hogan, A. (2020). Commercialisation and privatisation in/of education in the context of Covid-19. Education International press.
  • Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.
Data source: Dialnet