Inclusive digital online environments as a device for pedagogic differentiation: a taxonomy proposal
Open accessAbstract
The use of technology and specifically digital environments in training and education in both formal and non-formal contexts is becoming increasingly more common. These types of technical-pedagogical solutions, however, may not always provide a sense of belonging to trainees, which may eventually lead to non-participation or even dropping out. Although some studies have identified possible reasons for this type of lack of association and abandonment, there are still areas that require further research, such as the configuration of these digital environments as pedagogical-differentiation devices (Cortesão & Stoers, 1999) or assessments of their social-inclusion potential. This paper proposes a classification of the social-inclusion potential of digital environments, which was the validated result of data gathered from a query submitted to 20 e-learning experts and a literature review. Qualitative analysis of the data (Bowen, 2009) led to the identification of four potential levels of inclusion, from “exclusive digital learning environment” to “inclusive digital learning environment”, and determination of their separate pedagogical-didactical and technological characteristics. The importance of this paper lies in the possibility of using this taxonomy to analyse how digital environments are being conceived and used today.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Digital learning environments can contribute to social inclusion, depending on technical conditions of access, pedagogical conditions for using and participating, learners' characteristics, and levels of interaction, action, and reflection.
“Digital learning environments can contribute to social inclusion, depending on the technical conditions of access, the pedagogical conditions for using and participating considering the learners' characteristics and the levels of interaction, action, and reflection that guide the learning process (Monteiro & Leite, 2016).”
From Learning with digital technologies in prison: a scoping review (2023) · cites this paper as Monteiro & Leite, 2016
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Learning with digital technologies in prison: a scoping review
Barros, R., Monteiro, A., & Leite, C. (2023) · Digital Education Review · doi:10.1344/der.2023.43.1-17 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Monteiro, A., & Leite, C.
- Affiliations
- Universidade do Porto (PT)
- Venue
- Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society
- Publisher
- Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society
- Published
- 2016-09-27
- OpenAlex
- W2529231727
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 0.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doaj.org
- Licence
- cc-by-sa
- Locations
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Società Italiana di e-Learning
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology in Learning
- Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology and E-Learning
- Keywords
- social inclusion, online learning, learner dropout, non-formal education, technology-enhanced learning
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review