WilliamsonKomljenovicGulson Introduction WorldYearbookEducation2024 Preview

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/374837995
World Yearbook of Education 2024: Digitalisation of Education in the Era of

Algorithms, Automation and Artiﬁcial Intelligence
Book · October 2023

DOI: 10.4324/9781003359722
CITATIONS READS
0 1,020
3 authors, including:
Ben Williamson Janja Komljenovic

The University of Edinburgh Lancaster University
94 PUBLICATIONS 6,273 CITATIONS 38 PUBLICATIONS 689 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Ben Williamson on 26 October 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

World Yearbook of Education 2024
Providing a comprehensive, global overview of the digitalisation of education,

the World Yearbook of Education 2024 examines the ways advanced digital
technologies are transforming educational practices, institutions and policy
processes.
Establishing a critical research agenda for analysing the digitalisation of ed-
ucation, the carefully selected chapters in this collection interrogate the cur-
rent impacts of new digital technologies, emerging controversies over emerging
data practices and future implications of algorithmic systems, automated
decision-making and AI in education. Organised into four sections, the contri-
butions in the collection examine the following:
• The historical, scientific and technical foundations of contemporary digital-

isation in education
• The political and economic dynamics that underpin the education technol-
ogy industry and new platform models of education
• How algorithms, automation and AI support new modes of data-driven
governance and control of education systems
• Controversies over the inequitable effects of digitalisation in education, and
proposals for data justice, ethics and regulation
This resource is ideal reading for researchers, students, educational practition-

ers and policy officials interested in understanding the future of digital tech-
nologies in education.
Ben Williamson is a senior lecturer at the Centre for Research in Digital Ed-
ucation, University of Edinburgh, UK.
Janja Komljenovic is a senior lecturer and the director of the Centre for
Higher Education Research and Evaluation at Lancaster University, UK.
Kalervo N. Gulson is a professor in the Sydney School of Education and

Social Work, University of Sydney, Australia.
World Yearbook of Education Series
Examining a different topical subject each year, these fascinating books put
forward a wide range of perspectives and dialogue from all over the world.
With the best and most pivotal work of leading educational thinkers and writ-
ers from 1965 to the present day, these essential reference titles provide a
complete history of the development of education around the globe. Available
individually or in library-ready sets, this is the indispensable atlas of education,
mapping ever changing aspects of theory, policy, teaching and learning.
Series editors:
Julie Allan, University of Birmingham, UK.
Antoni Verger, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain.
Titles in the series:

Accountability and Datafication in the Governance of Education
Edited by Sotiria Grek, Christian Maroy and Antoni Verger

Education, Schooling and the Global Universalization of Nationalism
Edited By Daniel Tröhler, Nelli Piattoeva and William F. Pinar

Racialization and Educational Inequality in Global Perspective
Edited by Janelle Scott and Monisha Bajaj

Digitalisation of Education in the Era of Algorithms, Automation and Artificial
Intelligence
Edited by Ben Williamson, Janja Komljenovic and Kalervo N. Gulson
For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.com/World-Yearbook-of-

Education/book-series/WYBE
World Yearbook of Education
2024
Digitalisation of Education in the
Era of Algorithms, Automation and
Artificial Intelligence
Edited by Ben Williamson,

Janja Komljenovic and
Kalervo N. Gulson
First published 2024
by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa
business
© 2024 selection and editorial matter, Ben Williamson,
Janja Komljenovic and Kalervo N. Gulson; individual chapters,
the contributors
The right of Ben Williamson, Janja Komljenovic and Kalervo N. Gulson
to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors
for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections
77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or
reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or
other means, now known or hereafter invented, including
photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval
system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and
explanation without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Williamson, Ben (Educator) editor. | Komljenovic, Janja, 1982-
editor. | Gulson, Kalervo N., editor.
Title: World yearbook of education 2024 : digitalisation of education in
the era of algorithms, automation and artificial intelligence / Edited
by Ben Williamson, Janja Komljenovic and Kalervo N. Gulson.
Description: Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2024. | Series:
World yearbook of education | Includes bibliographical references and
index. |
Identifiers: LCCN 2023025810 (print) | LCCN 2023025811 (ebook) | ISBN
9781032417905 (hardback) | ISBN 9781032417912 (paperback) | ISBN
9781003359722 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Educational technology. | Artificial
intelligence--Educational applications. | Education--Effect of
technological innovations on. | Automation. | Education and
globalization.
Classification: LCC LB1028.3 .W68 2024 (print) | LCC LB1028.3 (ebook) |
DDC 371.33--dc23/eng/20230719
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023025810
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023025811
ISBN: 978-1-032-41790-5 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-032-41791-2 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-35972-2 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9781003359722
Typeset in Galliard
by SPi Technologies India Pvt Ltd (Straive)
Contents
List of contributors viii
1 Introduction: digitalisation of education in the era of

algorithms, automation and artificial intelligence 1
BEN WILLIAMSON, JANJA KOMLJENOVIC AND KALERVO N. GULSON
PART I
Sociotechnical foundations 21
2 Theoretical foundations and historical roots of the

‘automated classroom’ 23
BARBARA HOF
3 AI and lifelong learning: a genealogical approach to the

analysis of educational imaginaries and problematisations 39
LINA RAHM
4 Natural language generation and the automation of

pedagogical communication 54
CARLO PERROTTA
5 Educational vanishing points: when interoperable platforms

turn infrastructural and back in higher education 70
LANZE VANERMEN, JORIS VLIEGHE AND MATHIAS DECUYPERE
PART II
Political economy 87
6 How platformisation affects pedagogical autonomy in

primary schools 89
NIELS KERSSENS AND JOSÉ VAN DIJCK
vi Contents
7 The relational powers of platforms and infrastructures played

out in school: differences and implications for teacher work 106
ANNIKA BERGVIKEN RENSFELDT AND THOMAS HILLMAN
8 Assetisation of higher education’s digital disruption 122

JANJA KOMLJENOVIC, SAM SELLAR, KEAN BIRCH AND MORTEN HANSEN
9 AI-shaped hole: anticipation regimes and liminal policy

rationalities 140
HEMY RAMIEL AND GIDEON DISHON
10 A political economy of AI and education in China 155

JEREMY KNOX
PART III
Digital governance 173
11 Platforming PISA: the OECD as a mobile governance actor

in global education 175
STEVEN LEWIS
12 Digital literacies as a ‘soft power’ of educational governance 196

LUCI PANGRAZIO AND JULIAN SEFTON-GREEN
13 After digital literacy: media pedagogies for platform ecologies 212

T. PHILIP NICHOLS, ROBERT JEAN LEBLANC AND ANTERO GARCIA
14 Social media’s education grab: philanthrocapitalism, data

centres and the metaverse vision of education 227
AUSTIN PICKUP AND JESSICA HEYBACH
PART IV
Design and justice 243
15 Algorithmic bias and discrimination through digitalisation

in education: a socio-technical view 245
REBECCA EYNON
16 Digitalisation of education in the era of climate collapse and

planetary breakdown 261
NEIL SELWYN
Contents vii
17 The EdTech Stack: a speculative design thought experiment 276

TERESA SWIST
18 Design justice and educational technology: designing in the

fissures 294
FELICITAS MACGILCHRIST
Index 311
Contributors
Kean Birch is the director of the Institute for Technoscience and Society and
a professor in the Science and Technology Studies Graduate Program at
York University, Canada.
Mathias Decuypere is an associate professor at the Methodology of Educa-
tional Sciences Research Group, KU Leuven, Belgium. His main interests
involve the digitisation, datafication and platformisation of education; and
how these evolutions shape distinct forms of educational spaces and times.
Gideon Dishon is a senior lecturer at the School of Education, Ben-Gurion
University of the Negev. His research interest lies at the intersection of phi-
losophy of education, critical approaches to educational technologies and
the learning sciences.
Rebecca Eynon is a professor at the University of Oxford, where she holds a
joint appointment between the Department of Education and the Oxford
Internet Institute. Her research examines the relationships between social
inequalities, education and technology.
Antero Garcia is an associate professor in the Graduate School of Education
at Stanford University. His research and publications explore the possibili-
ties of speculative imagination and healing in educational research, and the
possibilities of literacies, play and civics in transforming schooling in
America.
Kalervo N. Gulson is a professor of Education at the University of Sydney,
Australia, and the author of Algorithms of Education: How Datafication and
Artificial Intelligence Shape Policy, with Sam Sellar and P. Taylor Webb.
Morten Hansen holds a PhD from the Faculty of Education at the University
of Cambridge. He specialises in the study of education markets.
Jessica Heybach is an associate professor and the program director of Gradu-
ate Studies in Educational Leadership at Florida International University.
She is co-editor of the books Dystopia and Education: Insights into Theory,
Praxis, and Policy and Making Sense of Race in Education: Practices for
Change in Difficult Times.
Contributors ix
Thomas Hillman is a professor at the Department of Applied Information

Technology, University of Gothenburg, and is interested in the relationship
between digitalisation and knowledge. He examines the ways that digital
infrastructures transform how we produce, gain access to and work with
knowledge.
Barbara Hof is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Lausanne, where

she conducts research in the history of physics and nuclear technoscience,
history of computing and educational technologies, and history of digital
humanities and Big Data.
Niels Kerssens is an assistant professor in the Department of Media and Cul-

tural Studies at Utrecht University, the Netherlands. For his research pro-
ject, titled ‘Platformisation of Primary Education: Public Values at Risk’, he
was awarded a Veni grant in 2021 by the Netherlands Research Council.
Jeremy Knox is an associate professor of Digital Education at the University

of Oxford. His research interests include critical posthumanism and new
materialism with a specific focus on the digital.
Janja Komljenovic is a senior lecturer at Lancaster University, UK, and the
director of the Centre for Higher Education Research and Evaluation.
Robert Jean LeBlanc is an associate professor of ELA/Literacy and Board
of Governors Research Chair of Literacy Studies at the University of
Lethbridge, and Coyle Fellow at the University of Notre Dame’s Center for
Literacy Education.
Steven Lewis is a senior research fellow and Australian Research Council
DECRA Fellow at the Research Centre for Digital Data and Assessment in
Education at Australian Catholic University, and author of Assembling
Comparison: Understanding Education Policy through Mobility and Desire,
with Rebecca Spratt.
Felicitas Macgilchrist is a professor of Digital Education and Schooling at the
University of Oldenburg, Germany. Her research explores the cultural pol-
itics of educational technology, with a focus on critical, ethnographic and
speculative approaches.
T. Philip Nichols is an associate professor in the Department of Curriculum
and Instruction at Baylor University. He studies how science and technol-
ogy condition the ways we practise, teach and talk about literacy and the
downstream implications for public education and human flourishing.
Luci Pangrazio is an Australian Research Council DECRA Fellow and a sen-
ior lecturer in language and literacy at Deakin University, Melbourne. Her
research interests include digital and data literacies, young people’s digital
worlds, platform studies and platform-mediated labour, and creative and
critical research methods.
x Contributors
Carlo Perrotta is an associate professor of Digital Education at the Melbourne

Graduate School of Education. His research and teaching focuses on the
relationship between technology, education and society, particularly the im-
pact of platformisation, automation and Artificial Intelligence (AI) on pol-
icy and practice.
Austin Pickup is an associate professor in the Doctor of Education program
at Aurora University. His research interests focus broadly on qualitative in-
quiry and philosophy of education, with publications in Critical Questions
in Education, The Qualitative Report, Educational Studies and Educational
Philosophy & Theory.
Lina Rahm is an assistant professor in the History of Media and Environment
with a specialisation in Artificial Intelligence, at KTH Royal Institute of
Technology, Stockholm. She holds a PhD is in education with a focus
on adult learning. Her current research focuses on AI and educational
governance.
Hemy Ramiel is a researcher at the School of Education, Ben-Gurion Univer-
sity of the Negev. His critical edtech research focuses on aspects of policy-
making, policy discourse and knowledge production.
Annika Bergviken Rensfeldt is a senior lecturer and associate professor at the
Department of Applied Information Technology, University of Gothen-
burg, focuses on critical and sociological approaches to digitalisation in ed-
ucation and the public sector.
Julian Sefton-Green is Professor of new media education at Deakin University,
Melbourne. He is interested in ways that data now intervenes in family life,
and how government and business shape life opportunities for children.
Sam Sellar is a professor of education policy and Dean of Research (Educa-
tion Future) at the University of South Australia. His latest book is Algo-
rithms of Education: How Datafication and Artificial Intelligence Shape
Policy, co-authored with Kalervo N. Gulson and P. Taylor Webb.
Neil Selwyn has been researching and writing about digital education for the
past 25 years. He is currently working at Monash University, Melbourne.
Recent books include Critical Data Literacies (with Luci Pangrazio) and
Should Robots Replace Teachers? AI and the Future of Education.
Teresa Swist is a research associate with the University of Sydney and co-
founder of the Education Futures Studio. Her research explores knowledge
co-production and sociotechnical transitions across a range of learning
contexts.
José van Dijck is a distinguished university professor in media and digital so-
cieties at Utrecht University, the Netherlands. In 2021, she was awarded
the Spinoza Prize, the highest award for lifetime academic achievement, by
the Netherlands Research Council.
Contributors xi
Lanze Vanermen is a doctoral candidate in educational sciences at the Meth-

odology of Educational Sciences Research Group (KU Leuven, Belgium).
He typically investigates how contemporary technologies and organisations
(re)shape open, digital and higher education.
Joris Vlieghe is an associate professor of philosophy of education at the re-
search Centre for Education, Culture and Society (KU Leuven, Belgium).
His research concerns teaching and school practices in the context of per-
vasive digitisation and against the background of ecological challenges.
Ben Williamson is a senior lecturer at the Centre for Research in Digital Ed-
ucation, University of Edinburgh, UK, and an editor of the journal Learn-
ing, Media and Technology.
1 Introduction
Digitalisation of education in the
era of algorithms, automation and
artificial intelligence
Ben Williamson, Janja Komljenovic and

Kalervo N. Gulson
Introduction
Across a vast range of industries, the public sector and everyday activities, a
process of widespread digitalisation has taken place. In Digital Oil: Machiner-
ies of Knowing, Eric Monteiro (2022) examines the effects that digitalisation –
defined as the uptake of digital technologies in social practices – has exerted on
the offshore oil and gas industry. The introduction of digital technologies in
this industrial sector, he argues, has begun to replace the labour of the embod-
ied offshore ‘rigger’ with a vast apparatus of sensors and data systems that drive
remotely operated, unmanned deep-sea facilities. However, this is not a form
of technological determinism. Digitalisation has not straightforwardly trans-
formed oil and gas extraction. Instead, digitalisation has evolved gradually
over decades rather than being the result of any revolutionary point of depar-
ture from the past. It has unfolded incrementally through socially situated
activity and resulted in unintended side effects that are often as significant as
intended outcomes. The emphasis on continuities instead of discontinuity,
gradual rather than radical change, and the contingent and unexpected effects
and outcomes of digitalisation are as germane in sectors like healthcare, justice
and education as they are in the energy extraction industry.
Yet, processes of digitalisation in the first decades of the twenty-first cen-
tury do have particular characteristics that warrant special critical scholarly
attention. Monteiro describes these characteristics as ‘objects of knowing’,
‘modes of knowing’ and ‘machineries of knowing’ (Monteiro, 2022, p. 15).
Digital data have become characteristic objects of knowledge that substitute
for the material objects and social processes they represent. These new digital
objects of knowing are subject to modes of knowing that rely on data-driven
practices mediated by algorithms, and which shape professional interpreta-
tions, evaluations and decision-making. As such, producing knowledge about
digital objects has become a distributed human-machine achievement. And
third, digital objects and modes of knowing are orchestrated by wider ena-
bling circumstances that include historical, political and economic contingen-
cies, institutional and organisational arrangements, and sprawling networked
ecosystems of technical platforms and infrastructures, or complex machineries
of knowing.
DOI: 10.4324/9781003359722-1
2 Ben Williamson et al.
Digitalisation of any industry or sector does not, therefore, represent a de-

cisive epochal break with the past. It has evolved historically into a current
form characterised primarily by new machineries of knowing in which algo-
rithms, automation and artificial intelligence (AI) generate new knowledge
from large quantities of data. The distinctive aspect of contemporary digitali-
sation is ‘datafication’: the transformation of all kinds of objects, practices,
behaviours and actions into digital information through dense digital machin-
eries and data infrastructures of knowledge production (Gray, Gerlitz and
Bounegru, 2018; van Dijck, Poell and de Waal, 2018). Datafication is central
to the rapid expansion of interest and concern about algorithms, automation
and AI and their effects over the past decade, and is linked to wider social,
political and economic dynamics that are involved in powerful transformations
of various industries, sectors, states and societies around the world (Bigo, Isin
and Ruppert, 2019).
Digitalisation, datafication, algorithms, AI and automation

Viewed in terms of a complex historical series rather than an epochal shift, the
infrastructural machineries that constitute digitalisation and datafication are
underpinned by a long lineage of scientific and industrial developments. Tak-
ing a genealogical perspective on digitalisation and datafication, these span
modern statistics, mathematical theory and computer science. More recently,
features of digitalisation and datafication include techniques of data science,
the growing industrial capacity to collect exhaustive quantities of ‘big data’,
the invention of high-powered computational techniques for storing and pro-
cessing those data, such as cloud computing, and the development of machine
learning, language processing and other algorithms for sorting and organising
digital information (Amoore, 2020). Algorithms denote particular formations
of computer code designed to process data, search for patterns and produce
outputs, and their technical forms and functions exert powerful social, politi-
cal, economic and cultural effects (Rieder, 2020). Much contemporary atten-
tion is placed on algorithmic machine learning techniques. Machine learning
algorithms can be designed to learn from data in order to discern patterns,
with varying degrees of human input, rather than being specifically pre-pro-
grammed with defined rules (Mackenzie, 2017).
Various forms of machine learning, and their capacity to make both ‘discov-
eries’ and predictions from data, are central to the twenty-first-century instan-
tiation of AI. AI was named as a domain of research and development in the
1950s, at the intersection of computing, cognitive science and cybernetics.
With the availability of new computational capabilities, and masses of ‘big
data’ available via the internet and worldwide web at the start of the twenty-first
century, it has become a term denoting a highly diverse array of data process-
ing operations enabled by various machine learning algorithms, and which
enables varied forms of automation across industries and sectors (Alpaydin,
2017). The term ‘AI’ may obfuscate the historically situated technical and
Introduction 3
scientific accumulations that underpin many recent developments, as well as

the complex political and economic factors supporting the industrialisation of
AI research and deployment, but has nonetheless captured worldwide atten-
tion as a source of both hyperbole and anxiety (Whittaker, 2021).
The growing societal significance of datafication, algorithms, AI and auto-
mation stems from the expanding economic power and material resources of
the technology industry. Data-driven AI research and development is domi-
nated by a narrow industry of technology corporations with concentrated
technical and financial power, often known as ‘Big Tech’, whose sprawling
operations reach across sectors and industries globally (Kak and Myers West,
2023). Big Tech operators provide their own digital services, like search en-
gines, operating systems, social media services, online shopping portals and so
on, many often described as ‘platforms’ (Plantin et al., 2018). Big Tech corpo-
rations also provide back-end infrastructure facilities and services in the shape
of data centres, cloud computing, and ‘plug-and-play’ analytics and AI opera-
tions, all offered on demand to third-party platform providers (Narayan,
2022). The crucial connecting elements in such sociotechnical arrangements
are application programming interfaces (APIs) enabling the exchange of data
and functionalities between software systems, which set out coded rules gov-
erning how third-party platforms can operate and exchange data, and which
therefore shape processes of datafication (van der Vlist et al., 2022).
Big Tech operators have therefore become critical to other industries and
sectors, providing heavily interlinked, interoperable and integrative infrastruc-
tures that make it possible to run other applications and platforms, and under-
girding the diverse business processes of third parties while facilitating Big
Tech’s own continuous expansion (Rieder, 2022). Moreover, for Big Tech,
digital data are valuable economic assets promising long-term income streams
and enhanced market share, as they can be transformed into derivative prod-
ucts and services from which further value may be generated (Birch and
Bronson, 2022; Sadowski, 2020). Algorithmic mechanism design has turned
into an authoritative economic-engineering discipline used by digital platform
and infrastructure companies to mediate social life (Viljoen et al., 2021). The
technology industry therefore possesses significant techno-economic power
through amassing digital data, as well as exerting social and political power by
providing the digital platforms and infrastructures that underpin and shape
everyday life in profound ways (Srnicek, 2017).
Data-driven technologies, algorithmic processes, automation and AI are
also being introduced into the governance operations of states and economies.
Since the industrial revolution, states have routinely utilised numbers, statistics
and mathematical techniques to know and govern their populations and terri-
tories (Ambrose, 2015). Today, governments additionally mobilise systems
involving the collection and processing of huge quantities of digital data about
their populations and citizens, often for purposes of prediction and automa-
tion of key state operations (Calo and Citron, 2021). To undertake such tasks,
state agencies often have to outsource responsibility to technology companies
that undertake ‘digital statecraft’ on their behalf, and which act as ‘state-like
corporations’ in digitalised public services (Fourcade and Gordon, 2020).
New public–private partnerships between states and companies insert corpo-
rate machineries of knowledge production and action into everyday govern-
ment processes, spanning sectors like justice, security, military, healthcare,
policing, welfare and education, leading to the emergence of new profitable
powers for governing populations, systems and individuals (Johns, 2021).
Digitalisation and datafication can be understood genealogically, then, as an
incremental accumulation of developments in science and technology, politics
and economics. These socially and historically situated techno-scientific and
political-economic developments are resulting in significant shifts in how sec-
tors, systems and states are managed and governed in the 2020s. At the same
time, digitalisation and datafication raise significant new social challenges, such
as algorithmic bias and discrimination, digital inequality, redlining access and
the risks of environmental damage from technological expansion (Eubanks,
2018; Crawford, 2021). Moreover, datafication and digitalisation enable more
sophisticated opportunities for surveillance and control, with concomitant
risks of loss of autonomy, agency, privacy and freedom (Zuboff, 2019). It also
amplifies political turbulence through the viral spread of misinformation and
other inflammatory discourse (McQuillan, 2022).
Controversy has only grown with the widespread release and adoption of
generative AI, such as automated language, image and audio generators, in the
mid-2020s. Generative AI has been positioned as a transformative infrastruc-
ture for everything from searching and accessing information to synthesising
and producing original content, though it risks producing vast quantities of
false and misleading information, reshaping labour practices, further consoli-
dating techno-economic power, and worsening environmental degradation
due to its intensive energy demands (Shah and Bender, 2022). Calls have
grown for greater governance and control over the technology industry and its
algorithmic techniques, such as through ethical codes and regulatory frame-
works, though their appropriateness and effectiveness are often contested and
they remain the site of significant conflict and controversy (Stark, Greene and
Hoffman, 2022). It is in the context of these socially and historically situated
developments and controversies concerning algorithms, automation and AI
that the digitalisation and datafication of education have taken shape.
Machineries of education
This edition of the World Yearbook of Education contends with the digitalisa-
tion and datafication of education associated with the arrival of big data, algo-
rithms, AI and automated digital technologies, and the objects, modes and
machineries of knowing they entail. Digitalisation and datafication do not rep-
resent a decisive historical break from previous practices using data to provide
and manage education (Lawn, 2013). Over several decades and different con-
texts, digital technologies have intensified data practices and penetrated deeply
Introduction 5
into education systems around the world, impacting in a range of intended

and unintended ways on teaching, learning, administration and policy pro-
cesses (Williamson, 2017; Pangrazio and Sefton Green, 2022). Digitalisation
is reported to have many benefits for education, from increasing access and
enhancing inclusivity to improving resource quality and personalising curricu-
lum and pedagogy to address diverse student needs. However, the Covid-19
pandemic and the consequent closure of schools, colleges and universities at
global scale catalysed an acceleration in digital uptake and technology compa-
nies’ incursions into education institutions, and to often exaggerated claims
that outdated systems of education were now on the path to ‘disruption’ and
‘digital transformation’ enabled by datafication (Williamson and Hogan,
2020). A powerful, globally shared vision of the future of education has taken
shape, in which schooling, higher education, and policy and governance are
imagined to be reformed through technological innovations in datafication,
AI, automation and related algorithmic operations (Gulson, Sellar and Webb,
2022; Nemorin et al., 2023; Selwyn et al., 2023).
Despite a weak evidence base to support it, the imaginary of digital trans-
formation of education is promoted and pursued by an array of actors, such as
global technology corporations, education technology companies and start-
ups, financial investors, and experts in the computing, data and learning
sciences, as well as by government departments, international governance or-
ganisations, influential thinks tanks and consultancies, and education institu-
tions themselves. Claims about the improvement capacity of digitalisation and
datafication of education are taking place in a distinctive political and eco-
nomic context characterised by increased global commercialisation, privatisa-
tion and marketisation of education and cross-sector networking between
public and private sectors (Verger, Lubienski and Steiner-Khamsi, 2016), the
expansion of the education data industry supported by international organisa-
tions such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) and World Bank (Gorur, Sellar and Steiner-Khamsi, 2019), a prolif-
eration of education technology (edtech) ‘platform’ services (Decuypere,
Grimaldi and Landri, 2021), and rapidly escalating financial markets in edtech
driven by the belief that new sources of value can be extracted from digitalising
and datafying education (Davies et al., 2022).
While claims of educational disruption may be exaggerated and ahistorical
(Watters, 2021), new machineries of education have taken shape at all levels of
education, from the early years through schooling and higher education to
vocational, professional and non-formal learning contexts, which produce new
datafied objects and modes of knowing and intervening in education (Jarke
and Breiter, 2019; Perrotta, 2021). As a result, new forms of power, govern-
ance and control are emerging, from the reinforcement of existing quantita-
tive modes of performance-based accountability (Grek, Maroy and Verger,
2021) to new forms of data-driven ‘automated governance’ whereby data-
enabled AI and machine learning algorithms might anticipate problems and
inform pre-emptive decision-making (Gulson and Witzenberger, 2022).
These developments have been accompanied by increasing attention to the

forms of injustice that can occur when digital data are treated as objective ways
of knowing and as the basis of intervention in education (Macgilchrist, 2019).
Corresponding calls have been made to find ways to ensure data justice and
more democratic reconfigurations of digitalisation and datafication in educa-
tion, while recognising that digital techniques and data might provide new
ways of interrupting enduring problems and inequalities in education (Swist
and Gulson, 2023).
The digitalisation of contemporary education has emerged from a range of
historical and recent developments in the education and technology fields. We
identify five conditions for the emergence and expansion of the outlined forms
of digitalisation and datafication in education.
Social and technical expectations
The first condition is the construction of social and technical expectations,

which are deterministic visions shaping choices and actions as infrastructures
of imagining and planning futures (Sismondo, 2020). While they are continu-
ously contested and flexible, they may also become collectively held, institution
ally stabilised and publicly performed (Rahm, 2023). Education is embedded in
broader imaginaries of the future, portrayed as inevitably digital, mediated by
algorithms and AI and expressed in imaginaries such as the ‘fourth industrial
revolution’ (Schiølin, 2020) and the ‘smartification’ of places, organisations,
things and services (Sadowski, 2020). Imaginary future expectations and nar-
ratives are performative and represent a site around which actors coordinate
action in the present (Beckert, 2016; Birch, 2022).
As in other sectors, education is imagined as subject to digital transforma-
tion or even disruption, in which technology is constructed as making educa-
tion better (Ramiel, 2020). Teaching and learning are expected to improve via
automation, personalisation and precision education, while education institu-
tions are expected to benefit in efficiency (Bayne, 2015). These imaginaries
and expectations of future digital education position datafication and the con-
sequent objects, modes and machineries of knowing as an objective representa-
tion of social reality. For example, higher education institutions position
technology as apolitical, neutral and inevitable (Matthews, 2021). The ulti-
mate belief in the sophistication, value and algorithmic objectivity of digital
data is shaping education stakeholders’ expectations and actions towards a
particular future despite growing concerns over the impacts of datafication.
New educational data sciences
The second condition for the emergence of digitalisation and datafication in

education is the establishment since the late 1980s of the learning sciences and
their integration with learning analytics, AI and educational data science tech-
niques in the ensuing decades (Doroudi, 2022). The learning science field
Introduction 7
emerged in the 1980s and 1990s, promising what some consider a ‘new sci-
ence of education’ that draws on both the methodologies of the human and
computing sciences (Evans, Packer and Sawyer, 2016). Many major figures in
the new sciences of learning and education were already informed by the nas-
cent field of AI in education (AIED), with its major theoretical and methodo-
logical approaches to the measurement and improvement of learning advanced
through learning analytics after 2010 and taken up in approaches such as
‘learning engineering’ (Williamson, 2021).
The learning and educational data science approach has been advanced
considerably by international organisations like the OECD, edtech companies
and other edu-businesses, research labs, centres and consortia, consultancies,
think tanks and industry bodies, as well as by technology philanthropy and
investment outfits like the Gates Foundation, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative and
Schmidt Futures. It has helped fortify imaginaries of digital transformation
and datafication in education, by developing instruments for the granular
measurement of digital learning traces – recorded as observable behaviours –
and designing applications and interventions to improve or engineer learning
outcomes, which are highly attractive in the policy domain. The educational
data science approach represents a new mode of observing, identifying and
knowing the learning process as a digital object, making it ostensibly legible by
layering algorithmic complexity on otherwise reductionist accounts of learn-
ing, and thereby amenable to engineering-based forms of action and interven-
tion (Perrotta and Selwyn, 2019).
Data-driven policymaking
Thirdly, at the same time as learning analytics and learning sciences have risen
to prominence as data-driven modes of knowing in education, policy agendas
have become increasingly centred on the use of digital data (Piattoeva and
Boden, 2020). While the deployment of statistical data in education has a long
history, digital data have been specifically identified as a distinctive form of
‘governing knowledge’ to be used as a policy source (Fenwick, Mangez and
Ozga, 2014). Since the 1990s, education policy internationally has tended to
be dominated by New Public Management approaches that demand perfor-
mance measurement for purposes of market comparison, accountability and
improvement (Wyatt-Smith, Lingard and Heck, 2021), a context that has
given rise to the construction of vast data infrastructures for gathering, analys-
ing and circulating performance data pertaining to institutions and whole sys-
tems (Anagnostopoulos, Rutledge and Jacobsen, 2013; Gulson and Sellar,
2019).
A ‘global education industry’ has emerged simultaneously, in which pub-
lic and governmental actors integrate with private sector operators to form
cross-sector policy networks and enact new forms of governance (Verger,
Lubienski and Steiner-Khamsi, 2016). The highly networked global educa-
tion industry prioritises both non- and for-profit sectors in the provision of
education goods and services, global-scale operations such as digital educa-

tion services, access to financial capital markets to support operational ex-
pansion and various integrations, mergers and acquisitions between companies
and organisations in the education sector. This global education industry has
been integral to advancing digitalisation and datafication agendas world-
wide, not least by treating the emergency of the Covid-19 pandemic as a
catalytic opportunity for digital transformation of education and increased
deployment of data analytic tools to measure and improve performance
(Williamson and Hogan, 2020). The increasing integration of learning sci-
ence, data science and analytics approaches with the global education indus-
try has therefore consolidated digitalisation and datafication as a dominant
international policy agenda, further fortified by new business models and
value-creating opportunities in education emerging from shifts in the digital
economy.
Digital economy transformations
The fourth condition for digitalisation and datafication in education is the

expansion of the digital economy and structural changes in global economies
driven by financialisation, which is enabling money and finance to cut across
our political, economic and social lives. Since the 1970s and 1980s, a new
pattern of accumulation emerged in which profits accrue primarily through
financial channels rather than through trade and commodity production, and
shareholder value has become a guiding principle of corporate and organisa-
tional behaviour, including in public sector organisations (van Der Zwan,
2014). These changes can also be framed as a shift to a ‘rentier economy’,
namely a move from creating value via production and selling commodities in
the market to extracting value via controlling access to assets (Mazzucato,
2018). In the digital economy, rentiership is exercised by pursuing economic
benefits from owning and controlling access to digital infrastructure and digi-
tal data extracted by digital platforms.
Digital data is indeed seen as the key value source in the digital economy,
though it is not clear how exactly its value is realised and monetised. The belief
in the value of data by policymakers, entrepreneurs and investors has led to
‘data rentiership’ as a new mode of financialisation, which refers to ‘the pursuit
of innovation strategies designed to capture or extract value through owner-
ship and control of data as an asset’ (Birch et al., 2020, 3). Technology com-
panies have increased their valuation and power over the past decades, fuelled
by a belief in the future value of datafication despite persisting disparities be-
tween companies’ valuation and profitability (Birch et al., 2021). This is a
trend that goes beyond Big Tech and is relevant across industries and sectors,
including edtech, as the trend of financialisation, rentiership and digitalisa-
tion have become deeply embedded in the education sector (Williamson and
Komljenovic, 2022).
Introduction 9
Industrial edtech
The final condition concerns the development of an increasingly powerful ed-

tech industry that, owing to the techno-economic opportunities stemming
from assetisation in the digital economy, has advanced to global scale opera-
tions and, in some cases, multibillion dollar company valuations. A crucial di-
mension of the expansion of edtech is that it has benefitted from being tightly
integrated into the infrastructures provided by Big Tech operators. Cloud in-
frastructure proprietors including Amazon Web Services, Google and Micro-
soft provide all the back-end cloud services for edtech applications to be built
upon and operate, therefore making it possible for edtech to run more power-
ful data processing and AI-based services (Williamson et al., 2022). These in-
tegrations and interoperabilities with Big Tech infrastructure have transformed
the edtech industry, enabling it to amass, analyse and assetise huge quantities
of educational data (Komljenovic, 2021). Cloud operators have also inte-
grated into the core digital infrastructure of institutions, introducing new ca-
pacities of data storage and the possibility of deploying new analytics, machine
learning and AI-based services (Fiebig et al., 2021). At the same time, Big
Tech operators like Google have become educational technology providers in
their own right, continuously expanding hardware and platform services into
schools and universities through a business model that requires mass data ex-
traction and appears to evade data protection regulations (Perrotta et al.,
2021).
Indeed, schools and universities are increasingly dependent on the ‘stack’ of
services provided by Big Tech, from platforms and interfaces used directly in
classrooms to the back-end cloud and data infrastructure services that make
those applications operable (Veale, 2022). They also make it possible for ed-
tech platforms to run more extensive data extraction functions, and extend the
use of algorithms, automation and AI-based operations into the education
sector at extensive scale and scope (Nichols and Garcia, 2022). In this sense,
the ongoing digitalisation and datafication of education to a significant degree
increases dependencies on global technology corporations, extending their in-
frastructural control and expansive business interests into the pedagogic and
administrative routines of educational institutions (Williamson, 2023). How
these dynamics play out in situated educational settings are, however, sub-
ject to diverse local contingencies, negotiations and even forms of resistance
(Pangrazio and Sefton Green, 2022). These five conditions for the emergence
of the digitalisation of education underpin the analyses presented in the fol-
lowing chapters.
Outline of the collection

The chapters in this World Yearbook of Education approach digitalisation of
education as the effect of myriad relations, intersections and interactions be-
tween technoscientific, social, political and economic developments, which
include: (1) particular sociotechnical foundations, or historically situated accu-

mulations of technologies, scientific theories and associated forms of knowl-
edge and expertise, and (2) political and economic dynamics that support
digitalisation and datafication. These developments exert intended and unin-
tended effects including (3) shaping forms of educational practice and modes
of governance and control of education systems and (4) the reproduction of
inequalities and injustices, which have led to contests over the ethics, regula-
tion and environmental implications of digitalisation and datafication in edu-
cation. The chapters are organised to address these four themes of analysis.
Sociotechnical foundations
Digitalisation and datafication of education are underpinned by technical arte-

facts and material objects as well as by historically situated social practices.
Technically and materially, digital technologies are constituted by computer
code, hardware and software, and their technical form and substance enables
or constrains the purposes and uses to which they can be put (Rieder, 2020).
These technologies in turn are designed, programmed and operationalised by
social actors working in concrete contexts according to organisational objec-
tives, imaginaries of use and business plans, within industrial and disciplinary
constraints (Kitchin and Dodge, 2011). They are also always parts of historical
accumulations of computing techniques, forms of scientific expertise and tech-
no-scientific innovations, and the sedimented ways that algorithmic techniques
like machine learning have developed over many decades (Mackenzie, 2017).
The uptake of digital technologies in educational practices and processes is
then dependent upon complex and historically located sociotechnical founda-
tions that the first part of the book examines.
In the first two chapters, authors excavate the genealogies of AI and auto-
mation in education, paying concerted attention to the forms of technical and
scientific expertise and knowledge that have catalysed their development and
the specific imaginaries of AI and automation that they aim to materialise.
Barbara Hof traces the historical roots of the ‘automated classroom’ through
a set of interconnections between technical and cultural currents in the 1960s.
On the technical side, Hof shows how cybernetics, constructivism and cogni-
tivism together informed ideas about the construction of technical teaching
aids, while the computer was positioned as an instrument of control, com-
mand and communication in the intellectual culture of the time. These shifts,
in turn, were framed by optimistic ideals and technocratic imaginaries of the
potential of technology-enhanced learning programmes during the Cold War.
Lina Rahm also adopts a genealogical perspective to investigate current policy
aspirations to employ AI in lifelong learning. AI has been simultaneously
framed as an object of hope and as a problem for resolution in education, at
different times and in different contexts. The focus is on a contemporary AI
application used in the Swedish schooling sector to indicate how it has been
constituted from a series of longer-term intersections between political and
Introduction 11
technical interests and imaginaries in education. Efforts to make everyone

‘AI-ready’ through lifelong learning, Rahm argues, are the result of historically
specific imaginaries in which visions of technological and social change are
entangled with calls for enhancing education with AI itself.
Imaginaries of how AI will disrupt and transform education in the present
context of the mid-2020s are exemplified by enthusiasm for generative AI
applications, particularly the large language models (LLMs) underpinning a
range of ‘chatbots’, search engines, and other natural language generators that
gained mainstream attention throughout 2023. As with all applications char-
acterised as artificial intelligence, generative AI has a longer history in com-
puter science and machine learning. Carlo Perrotta approaches the issue of
natural language generation (NLG) and the automation of pedagogical com-
munication, arguing that this particular form of AI appears as a kind of soci-
otechnical foundation that is anticipated to underpin myriad future educational
practices. The consequences of layering teaching upon the sociotechnical
foundation of AI, Perrotta argues, are considerable, as the trajectory of NLG
in education is indicative of a reconstitution of educational labour in plat-
formed contexts. Educational practice is being steered away from professional
expertise and towards forms of ‘relationship labour’ meant to enable a smooth
articulation with sociotechnical systems. Lanze Vanermen, Joris Vleighe and
Mathias Decuypere contend with platform interoperability as a key sociotech-
nical foundation for the current digitalisation and datafication of education.
Their ethnographic analysis challenges the imaginary of seamlessly interoper-
ating platforms to reveal the multiple, messy, value-laden operations that
occur when platforms are connected, and the sociotechnical and political
consequences that such attempts at interoperability entail. Through these
interoperations, education institutions, educators and administrative staff are
becoming gradually more dependent on an interconnected infrastructure
of platforms for data-driven decision-making, management and pedagogic
practice.
Political economy
Besides their sociotechnical foundations, digitalisation and datafication of ed-

ucation are shaped and constituted by particular political-economic dynamics
and relations that include the emergence of Big Tech, the expanding edtech
industry and new financial techniques of value creation in the digital economy
(Komljenovic, 2021). In the first two chapters of this section on the political
economy of digitalisation and datafication, the authors highlight the dynamics
of platformisation and infrastructuring of education, the role of big edtech
global corporations and their impact on local education, and the interplay
between national and global levels of technological integration and conse-
quent struggles in everyday education practices.
Niels Kerssens and José van Dijck analyse a specific digital learning envi-
ronment from the Netherlands. As nationally supported local edtech products
integrate into and interoperate with global cloud infrastructure, they bring
cloud-based educational applications into everyday use in classroom prac-
tices. This way, digital learning environments facilitate the integration of
national online education into global corporate cloud infrastructure and act
as intermediaries between national edtech markets and global Big Tech.
Kerssens and van Dijck point to the impact on institutional autonomy at the
level of schools and teachers’ pedagogical autonomy in the classroom.
Social-technical and political-economic levels are intertwined and relational.
Annika Bergviken Rensfeldt and Thomas Hillman address the relational
dynamic between Big Tech platforms and school digital infrastructure, ar-
guing platforms and infrastructure mutually shape each other in that plat-
form services adopt characteristics of infrastructure while existing
infrastructures get reorganised based on platform logic. They study public
and private schools in Sweden to examine platform infrastructural powers in
school practices, particularly focused on how differences are produced
across the type and context of schools based on infrastructuring. While local
platforms are dominant in schools, they depend on interoperability with
global Big Tech platforms.
In the third chapter, Janja Komljenovic, Sam Sellar, Kean Birch and Morten
Hansen focus specifically on how value is produced in digital education
through the lens of ‘assetisation’. They address the imaginary of digital disrup-
tion and identify three ways value is generated in this imaginary. Public univer-
sities and private companies work together to make various resources valuable,
including personal data, platforms and infrastructure, university brands and
academic content. Digital disruption does not happen as a break from the past,
but digitalisation can be meaningful and valuable only as a continuation of a
contingent sectorial dynamic, and only in partnership and cooperation be-
tween universities and tech and edtech companies.
The next two chapters focus on the political economy of AI. Hemy
Ramiel and Gideon Dishon examine policy responses to AI in education in
Israel. While recognising technological hype always energises actors to-
wards particular imaginaries that never materialise as imagined, they take
current AI hype as different to the past. Framing AI as inevitable, as disrup-
tive and as shaping educational aims is an outcome of power relations be-
tween high-tech industry and markets on the one hand and the state and
the education sector on the other. Finally, Jeremy Knox examines national
policy aimed at promoting and incentivising AI in China and the role of
private companies in implementing this policy. The chapter shows how AI
for education in China expanded via market-oriented practices of the pri-
vate after-school tuition sector. However, the state simultaneously exercises
considerable influence by providing incentives for innovation and imposing
strict regulation. Knox’s contribution points to a different market-state in-
terplay than in Western countries and draws attention to the need for ex-
panding the geopolitical scope of analysis into digitalisation and datafication
of education.
Introduction 13
Digital governance
Digitalisation and datafication have become central to the way in which edu-
cation is governed, shaping forms of educational practice and changing modes
of control of education systems (Williamson, 2023). As machines are embed-
ded in educational governance sites, it has become more crucial to undertake
investigations into the ways new human and non-human actors, such as edtech
products and algorithms, have become central to governing (Gulson, Sellar
and Webb, 2022). The intensification of digitalisation and datafication in gov-
ernance practices highlights that much of what is being introduced is enabled
through already-existing formations of power and influence in education.
Steven Lewis examines the expansion of the OECD’s Programme for In-
ternational Student Assessment (PISA)-related products, from fee-paying
testing products for schools to freely available training for teachers. PISA
products are creating new opportunities for platform governance for the
OECD while advancing its role in developing policy networks that transverse
nation states. Parallel to how platform companies have enrolled users through
free products, the OECD may benefit through the same type of digitally en-
abled financial structure and network effects, underpinned by new power re-
lations and the logics of platform capitalism. Luci Pangrazio and Julian Sefton
Green also examine the links between digitalisation, datafication and power
relations, utilising the state-based notion of soft power – understood as power
legitimated through the creation of value – and extending it through a focus
on digital literacies and the edtech product ‘Study Screen’. Digital literacies
have become embedded as part of platforms, creating new subjectivities, and
made ubiquitous through the difficulty of opting out for teachers and stu-
dents. What is made clear is that digital literacies themselves are co-opted by
technology companies as the basis for introducing new governing relations in
schooling.
Phil Nichols, Robert Jean LeBlanc and Antero Garcia also interrogate the
links between digital literacies and new governing practices. While the use of
platforms in education should be understood as having social, technical and
political-economic dimensions, existing digital literacy approaches are unable
to capture all of these dimensions and their interrelations. Rather than focus-
ing on power and digital literacies, there should be a reconceptualisation that
connects platforms to pedagogy in what the authors term an ‘ecological me-
dia pedagogy’ that can deal with the complexity of platforms in education. In
the final chapter in this section, Austin Pickup and Jessica Heybach focus on
how power relations and practices in education are being shaped by the phys-
ical location of large technology companies, such as Meta. Enabled through
the replacement of public funding with philanthrocapitalist investments,
technology companies are able to use education funding as a way to garner
community support for both the establishment of physical infrastructure,
such as data centres, and the products to be provided by this infrastructure.
Through the example of Meta, Pickup and Heybach highlight that new forms
of educational governance are not just about what happens in schools, but
the way that digital formations both encompass and exceed established social
and political relations.
Design and justice
As in other fields such as policing and health, new digital technologies in edu-
cation carry the risks of amplifying existing inequalities and eroding rights in
education, as well as producing new forms of harm (Hakimi, Eynon and
Murphy, 2021; Day et al., 2022). The chapters in this section speak to these
concerns, and possible responses, around ethics, regulation, and environmen-
tal impacts of digitalisation and datafication in education.
Rebecca Eynon outlines how technologies such as AI and machine learning
can bake in bias and reinforce existing educational inequities. Eynon shows
how bias is part of the overall machine learning pipeline from data collection
to the application of data-driven decisions in real world settings. There is a
limitation to the technical fixes for these problems of bias and fairness. An al-
ternative is to consider what form of governance is needed to shape the use of
AI in education, but also to consider reconceptualising justice in education
and whether AI has a role in not only its perpetuation but also its mitigation.
For Neil Selwyn, the concerns about inequalities are not just in how emerging
technologies like edtech and AI are applied, or even in the machine learning
pipeline. These concerns start much earlier in the life cycle of products and
techniques and in the natural resource extraction they entail. This means the
focus needs to be not on ameliorating the direct and indirect harms of edtech
but in asking whether edtech use should be limited due to its implication in
climate breakdown and other environmental effects. While ‘climate friendly’
technological approaches may be emerging, the key issue is radically reconsid-
ering the digitalisation of education outside of an economic frame.
The last two chapters in the collection make attempts to intervene in these
issues, proposing what might be seen as radically incremental interventions
into the future. Teresa Swist argues that large-scale digitalisation of education
has escalated not only globally distributed edtech products, services and auto-
mated decision-making systems – what she terms the ‘EdTech Stack’ – but
also uncertainty about how to address accompanying societal, environmental,
and technological controversies. Offering up a model of ‘planetary edtech
extrastatecraft’ as a conceptual and methodological innovation, Swist argues
for a democratisation of expertise across multiple geographic scales, so as to
reconfigure digital education governance in more just, sustainable and equi-
table ways. Finally, Felicitas Macgilchrist takes the approach that what is re-
quired to intervene in the digitalisation and datafication of education is radical
design linked to issues of justice and democracy. The struggles of justice do
not lie outside of technologies, but rather Macgilchrist argues that justice can
be coded into these technologies, making small but significant fissures in the
edtech landscape. Design approaches also call for wider participation in exam-
ining and defining how digitalisation of education will play out in coming
Introduction 15
years, including the participation of excluded and marginalised communities,

and informed by critical research from a wider range of contexts extending
beyond Europe, Australia and North America.
Conclusion
This World Yearbook of Education reveals the complex ways that digitalisation
of education is unfolding in the context of a proliferation of developments and
claims about the transformative impact of algorithms, automation and artificial
intelligence. While acknowledging the potential of various forms of digitalisa-
tion and datafication to impact positively on education, the authors approach
recent developments as requiring urgent critical interrogation rather than the
forms of speculation that often surround digital technologies in education.
Collectively, the chapters set out a research agenda detailing four analytical
approaches to the emerging machineries of education, although they are by no
means self-contained or exclusive from each other. By focusing on sociotech-
nical foundations, research can interrogate the specific social, scientific and
historical factors involved in the development and deployment of new technol-
ogies, such as AI and interoperable platforms and infrastructures, and their
productive effects. Research on the political economy of digitalisation should
foreground the complex relations between locally enacted edtech and global
economic trends in the technology industry. These sociotechnical foundations
and political-economic dynamics underpin the ways contemporary education
systems can be monitored, controlled and governed, such as through digital
surveillance techniques and automated data-driven decision-making. In turn,
researchers should investigate the consequences of such developments in
terms of bias and discrimination, inequality and environmental impact, and
explore the potential for alternative models like technical democracy and de-
sign justice approaches.
References
Alpaydin, E. (2017). Machine Learning: The New AI. London: MIT Press.
Ambrose, M. (2015). Lessons from the avalanche of numbers: Big data in historical
perspective. I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, 11(2):
201–277.
Amoore, L. (2020). Cloud Ethics: Algorithms and the Attributes of Ourselves and Oth-
ers. London: Duke University Press.
Anagnostopoulos, D., Rutledge, S. A. and Jacobsen, R. (eds). (2013). The Infrastruc-
ture of Accountability: Data Use and the Transformation of American Education.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Bayne, S. (2015). Teacherbot: Interventions in automated teaching. Teaching in
Higher Education, 20(4), 455–467.
Beckert, J. (2016). Imagined Futures: Fictional Expectations and Capitalist Dynamics.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bigo, D., Isin, E. and Ruppert, E. (eds). (2019). Data Politics: Worlds, Subjects, Rights.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Birch, K. (2022). Reflexive expectations in innovation financing: An analysis of venture

capital as a mode of valuation. Social Studies of Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/
03063127221118372
Birch, K. and Bronson, K. (2022). Big Tech, Science as Culture, 31(1), 1–14.
Birch, K., Chiappetta, M. and 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01442872.2020.1748264
Birch, K., Cochrane, D. and Ward, C. (2021). Data as asset? The measurement, gov-
ernance, and valuation of digital personal data by Big Tech. Big Data & Society.
https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211017308
Calo, R. and Citron, D. K. (2021). The automated administrative state: A crisis of le-
gitimacy. Emory Law Journal, 70(4), 797–845.
Crawford, K. (2021). Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial
Intelligence. London: Yale University Press.
Davies, H., Eynon, R., Komljenovic, J. and Williamson, B. (2022). Investigating the
Financial Power Brokers behind EdTech. In Livingstone, S. and Pothong, K. (eds).
Education Data Futures: Critical, Regulatory and Practical Reflections. London:
5Rights Foundation.
Day, E., Pothong, K., Atabey, A. and Livingstone, S. (2022). Who controls children’s
education data? A socio-legal analysis of the UK governance regimes for schools and
EdTech. Learning, Media and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.
2022.2152838
Decuypere, M., Grimaldi, E. and Landri, P. (2021). Introduction: Critical studies of
digital education platforms. Critical Studies in Education, 62(1), 1–16.
Doroudi, S. (2022). The intertwined histories of artificial intelligence and education.
International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s40593-022-00313-2
Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and
Punish the Poor. New York: Picador.
Evans, M. A., Packer, M. P. and Sawyer, R. K. (eds). (2016). Reflections on the Learn-
ing Sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fenwick, T. Mangez, E. and Ozga, J. (eds). (2014). Governing Knowledge: Compari-
son, Knowledge-Based Technologies and Expertise in the Regulation of Education.
London: Routledge.
Fiebig, T., Gürses, S., Gañán, C. H., Kotkamp, E., Kuipers, F., Lindorfer, M., Prisse,
M. and Sari, T. (2021). Heads in the Clouds: Measuring the Implications of Univer-
sities Migrating to Public Clouds. arXiv preprint: arXiv:2104.09462.
Fourcade, M. and Gordon, J. (2020). Learning like a state: Statecraft in the digital age.
Journal of Law and Political Economy, 1(1), 78–108.
Gorur, R., Sellar, S. and Steiner-Khamsi, G. (eds). (2019). World Yearbook of Educa-
tion 2019: Comparative Methodology in the Era of Big Data and Global Networks.
Gray, J., Gerlitz, C. and Bounegru, L. (2018). Data infrastructure literacy. Big Data &
Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951718786316
Grek, S., Maroy, C. and Verger, A. (eds). (2021). World Yearbook of Education
2021: Accountability and Datafication in the Governance of Education. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Introduction 17
Gulson, K. N. and Sellar, S. (2019). Emerging data infrastructures and the new topol-
ogies of education policy. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 37(2),
350–366.
Gulson, K. N., Sellar, S. and Webb, P. T. (2022). Algorithms of Education: How Data-
fication and Artificial Intelligence Shapes Policy. Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota Press.
Gulson, K. N. and Witzenberger, K. (2022). Repackaging authority: Artificial intelli-
gence, automated governance and education trade shows. Journal of Education Pol-
icy, 37(1), 145–160.
Hakimi, L., Eynon, R. and Murphy, V. A. (2021). The ethics of using digital trace data
in education: A thematic review of the research landscape. Review of Educational
Research. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211020116
Jarke, J. and Breiter, A. (2019). Editorial: The datafication of education. Learning,
Media and Technology, 44(1), 1–6.
Johns, F. (2021). Governance by data. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 17,
4.1–4.19.
Kak, A. and Myers West, S. (2023). AI Now 2023 Landscape: Confronting Tech Power.
New York: AI Now Institute. https://ainowinstitute.org/2023-landscape
Kitchin, R. and Dodge, M. (2011). Code/Space: Software and Everyday Life. London:
MIT Press.
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
Lawn, M. (2013). The Rise of Data in Education. In Lawn, M. (ed.). The Rise of Data
in Education Systems: Collection, Visualization and Use, 7–25. Oxford: Symposium.
Macgilchrist, F. (2019). Cruel optimism in edtech: When the digital data practices of
educational technology providers inadvertently hinder educational equity. Learning,
Mackenzie, A. (2017). Machine Learners: Archaeology of a Data Practice. London:
MIT Press.
Matthews, A. (2021). Sociotechnical imaginaries in the present and future university:
A corpus-assisted discourse analysis of UK higher education texts. Learning, Media
and Technology, 46(2), 204–217.
Mazzucato, M. (2018). The Value of Everything: Making and Taking in the Global
Economy. London: Allen Lane.
McQuillan, D. (2022). Resisting AI: An Anti-facist Approach to Artificial Intelligence.
Bristol: Bristol University Press.
Monteiro, E. 2022. Digital Oil: Machineries of Knowing. London: MIT Press.
Narayan, D. (2022). Platform capitalism and cloud infrastructure: Theorizing a hyper-
scalable computing regime. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space,
54(5), 911–929.
Nemorin, S., Vlachidis, A., Ayerakwa, H. M. and Andriotis, P. (2023). AI hyped? A
horizon scan of discourse on artificial intelligence in education (AIED) and develop-
ment. Learning, Media and Technology, 48(1), 38–51.
Nichols, T. P. and Garcia, A. (2022). Platform studies in education. Harvard Educa-
tional Review, 92(2), 209–230.
Pangrazio, L. and Sefton Green, J. (eds.) (2022). Learning to Live with Datafication:
Educational Case Studies and Initiatives from across the World. Abingdon: Routledge.
Perrotta, C. (2021). Programming the platform university: Learning analytics and pre-
dictive infrastructures in higher education. Research in Education, 109(1), 53–71.
Perrotta, C., Gulson, K. N., Williamson, B. and Witzenberger, K. (2021). Automation,
APIs and the distributed labour of platform pedagogies in Google Classroom. Crit-
ical Studies in Education, 62(1), 97–113.
Perrotta, C. and Selwyn, N. (2019). Deep learning goes to school: Toward a relational
understanding of AI in education. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(3), 251–269.
Piattoeva, N. and Boden, R. (2020). Escaping numbers? The ambiguities of the gov-
ernance of education through data. International Studies in Sociology of Education,
29(1–2), 1–18.
Plantin, J.-C., Lagoze, C., Edwards, P. N. and Sandvig, C. (2018). Infrastructure stud-
ies meet platform studies in the age of Google and Facebook. New Media & Society,
20(1), 293–310.
Rahm, L. (2023). Education, automation and AI: A genealogy of alternative futures.
Learning, Media and Technology, 48(1), 6–24.
Ramiel, H. (2020). Edtech disruption logic and policy work: The case of an Israeli
edtech unit. Learning, Media and Technology, 46(1), 20–32.
Rieder, B. (2020). Engines of Order: A Mechanology of Algorithmic Techniques. Amster-
dam: University of Amsterdam Press.
Rieder, B. 2022. Towards a political economy of technical systems: The case of Google.
Big Data and Society, 9(2), https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517221135162
Sadowski, J. (2020). Too Smart: How Digital Capitalism Is Extracting Data, Con-
trolling Our Lives, and Taking Over the World. London: MIT Press.
Schiølin, K. (2020). Revolutionary dreams: Future essentialism and the sociotechnical
imaginary of the fourth industrial revolution in Denmark. Social Studies of Science,
50(4), 542–566.
Selwyn, N., Hillman, T., Bergviken-Rensfeldt, A. and Perrotta, C. (2023). Making
sense of the digital automation of education. Postdigital Science and Education, 5,
1–14.
Shah, S. and Bender, E. (2022). Situating Search. CHIIR ‘22: ACM SIGIR Conference
on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval, March, 221–232. https://doi.
org/10.1145/3498366.3505816
Sismondo, S. (2020). Sociotechnical imaginaries: An accidental themed issue. Social
Studies of Science, 50(4), 505–507.
Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity.
Stark, L., Greene, D. and Hoffman, A. L. (2022). Critical Perspectives on Governance
Mechanisms for AI/ML Systems. In Roberge, J. and Castelle, M. (eds). The Cul-
tural Life of Machine Learning, 257–280. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Swist, T. and Gulson, K. N. (2023). Instituting socio-technical education futures: En-
counters with/through technical democracy, data justice, and imaginaries. Learning,
Media and Technology, 48(2), 181–186
van der Vlist, F. N., Helmond, A., Burkhardt, M. and Seitz, T. (2022). API govern-
ance: The case of Facebook’s evolution. Social Media + Society, 8(2). https://doi.
org/10.1177/20563051221086228
van Der Zwan, N. (2014). Making sense of financialization. Socio-Economic Review,
12, 99–129.
van Dijck, J., Poell, T. and de Waal, M. (2018). The Platform Society: Public Values in a
Connective World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Introduction 19
Veale, M. (2022). Schools Must Resist EdTech, But It Won’t Be Easy. In Livingstone,
S. and Pothong, K. (eds). Education Data Futures: Critical, Regulatory and Practi-
cal Reflections. London: 5Rights Foundation.
Verger, A., Lubienski, C. and Steiner-Khamsi, G. (Eds.). (2016). World Yearbook of
Education 2016: The Global Education Industry. London: Routledge.
Viljoen, S., Goldenfein, J. and McGuigan, L. (2021). Design choices: Mechanism de-
sign and platform capitalism. Big Data & Society, 8(2), 20539517211034310.
Watters, A. (2021). Teaching Machines: The History of Personalized Learning. London:
MIT Press.
Whittaker, M. (2021). The steep costs of capture. Interactions, 28(6), 50–55.
Williamson, B. (2017) Big Data in Education: The Digital Future of Learning, Policy
and Practice. London: Sage.
Williamson, B. (2021). Automated Knowledge Discovery: Tracing the Frontiers, Infra-
structures, and Practices of Education and Data Science. In Wyatt-Smith, C., Lingard,
B. and Heck, E. (eds). Digital Disruption in Teaching and Testing: Assessments, Big
Data, and the Transformation of Schooling, 45–59. Abingdon: Routledge.
Williamson, B. 2023. Governing through Infrastructural Control: Artificial Intelli-
gence and Cloud Computing in the Data-Intensive State. In Housley, W., Edwards,
A., Beneito-Montagut, R. and Fitzgerald, R. (eds). The Sage Handbook of Digital
Society. London: Sage.
Williamson, B., Gulson, G., Perrotta, C. and Witzenberger, K. (2022). Amazon and
the new global connective architectures of educational governance. Harvard Educa-
tional Review, 92(2), 231–256.
Williamson, B. and Hogan, A. (2020). Commercialisation and Privatisation in/of Ed-
ucation in the Context of Covid-19. Brussels: Education International.
Williamson, B. and Komljenovic, J. (2022). Investing in imagined digital futures: The
techno-financial ‘futuring’ of edtech investors in higher education. Critical Studies
in Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2022.2081587
Wyatt-Smith, C., Lingard, B. and Heck, E. (eds). (2021). Digital Disruption in Teach-
ing and Testing: Assessments, Big Data, and the Transformation of Schooling. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future
at the New Frontier of Power. London: Profile Books.
Introduction
Alpaydin, E. (2017). Machine Learning: The New AI. London: MIT Press.
Ambrose, M. (2015). Lessons from the avalanche of numbers: Big data in historical perspective.
I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, 11(2): 201–277.
Amoore, L. (2020). Cloud Ethics: Algorithms and the Attributes of Ourselves and Others.
London: Duke University Press.
Anagnostopoulos, D. , Rutledge, S. A. and Jacobsen, R. (eds). (2013). The Infrastructure of
Accountability: Data Use and the Transformation of American Education. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Education Press.
Bayne, S. (2015). Teacherbot: Interventions in automated teaching. Teaching in Higher
Education, 20(4), 455–467.
Beckert, J. (2016). Imagined Futures: Fictional Expectations and Capitalist Dynamics.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bigo, D. , Isin, E. and Ruppert, E. (eds). (2019). Data Politics: Worlds, Subjects, Rights.
Birch, K. (2022). Reflexive expectations in innovation financing: An analysis of venture capital
as a mode of valuation. Social Studies of Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127221118372
Birch, K. and Bronson, K. (2022). Big Tech, Science as Culture, 31(1), 1–14.
Birch, K. , Chiappetta, M. and 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2020.1748264
Birch, K. , Cochrane, D. and Ward, C. (2021). Data as asset? The measurement, governance,
and valuation of digital personal data by Big Tech. Big Data & Society.
https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211017308
Calo, R. and Citron, D. K. (2021). The automated administrative state: A crisis of legitimacy.
Emory Law Journal, 70(4), 797–845.
Intelligence. London: Yale University Press.
Davies, H. , Eynon, R. , Komljenovic, J. and Williamson, B. (2022). Investigating the Financial
Power Brokers behind EdTech. In Livingstone, S. and Pothong, K. (eds). Education Data
Futures: Critical, Regulatory and Practical Reflections. London: 5Rights Foundation.
Day, E. , Pothong, K. , Atabey, A. and Livingstone, S. (2022). Who controls children’s education
data? A socio-legal analysis of the UK governance regimes for schools and EdTech. Learning,
Media and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2022.2152838
Decuypere, M. , Grimaldi, E. and Landri, P. (2021). Introduction: Critical studies of digital
education platforms. Critical Studies in Education, 62(1), 1–16.
Doroudi, S. (2022). The intertwined histories of artificial intelligence and education. International
Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-022-00313-2
Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish
the Poor. New York: Picador.
Evans, M. A. , Packer, M. P. and Sawyer, R. K. (eds). (2016). Reflections on the Learning
Sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fenwick, T. Mangez, E. and Ozga, J. (eds). (2014). Governing Knowledge: Comparison,
Knowledge-Based Technologies and Expertise in the Regulation of Education. London:
Routledge.
Fiebig, T. , Gürses, S. , Gañán, C. H. , Kotkamp, E. , Kuipers, F. , Lindorfer, M. , Prisse, M. and
Sari, T. (2021). Heads in the Clouds: Measuring the Implications of Universities Migrating to
Public Clouds. arXiv preprint: arXiv:2104.09462.
Fourcade, M. and Gordon, J. (2020). Learning like a state: Statecraft in the digital age. Journal
of Law and Political Economy, 1(1), 78–108.
Gorur, R. , Sellar, S. and Steiner-Khamsi, G. (eds). (2019). World Yearbook of Education 2019:
Comparative Methodology in the Era of Big Data and Global Networks. Abingdon: Routledge.
Gray, J. , Gerlitz, C. and Bounegru, L. (2018). Data infrastructure literacy. Big Data & Society.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951718786316
Grek, S. , Maroy, C. and Verger, A. (eds). (2021). World Yearbook of Education 2021:
Accountability and Datafication in the Governance of Education. Abingdon: Routledge.
Gulson, K. N. and Sellar, S. (2019). Emerging data infrastructures and the new topologies of
education policy. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 37(2), 350–366.
Gulson, K. N. , Sellar, S. and Webb, P. T. (2022). Algorithms of Education: How Datafication
and Artificial Intelligence Shapes Policy. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Gulson, K. N. and Witzenberger, K. (2022). Repackaging authority: Artificial intelligence,
automated governance and education trade shows. Journal of Education Policy, 37(1),
145–160.
Hakimi, L. , Eynon, R. and Murphy, V. A. (2021). The ethics of using digital trace data in
education: A thematic review of the research landscape. Review of Educational Research.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211020116
Jarke, J. and Breiter, A. (2019). Editorial: The datafication of education. Learning, Media and
Technology, 44(1), 1–6.
Johns, F. (2021). Governance by data. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 17, 4.1–4.19.
Kak, A. and Myers West, S. (2023). AI Now 2023 Landscape: Confronting Tech Power. New
York: AI Now Institute. https://ainowinstitute.org/2023-landscape
Kitchin, R. and Dodge, M. (2011). Code/Space: Software and Everyday Life. London: MIT
Press.
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
Lawn, M. (2013). The Rise of Data in Education. In Lawn, M. (ed.). The Rise of Data in
Education Systems: Collection, Visualization and Use, 7–25. Oxford: Symposium.
Macgilchrist, F. (2019). Cruel optimism in edtech: When the digital data practices of educational
technology providers inadvertently hinder educational equity. Learning, Media and Technology,
44(1), 77–86.
Mackenzie, A. (2017). Machine Learners: Archaeology of a Data Practice. London: MIT Press.
Matthews, A. (2021). Sociotechnical imaginaries in the present and future university: A corpus-
assisted discourse analysis of UK higher education texts. Learning, Media and Technology,
46(2), 204–217.
Mazzucato, M. (2018). The Value of Everything: Making and Taking in the Global Economy.
London: Allen Lane.
McQuillan, D. (2022). Resisting AI: An Anti-facist Approach to Artificial Intelligence. Bristol:
Bristol University Press.
Monteiro, E. 2022. Digital Oil: Machineries of Knowing. London: MIT Press.
Narayan, D. (2022). Platform capitalism and cloud infrastructure: Theorizing a hyper-scalable
computing regime. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 54(5), 911–929.
Nemorin, S. , Vlachidis, A. , Ayerakwa, H. M. and Andriotis, P. (2023). AI hyped? A horizon
scan of discourse on artificial intelligence in education (AIED) and development. Learning,
Nichols, T. P. and Garcia, A. (2022). Platform studies in education. Harvard Educational
Review, 92(2), 209–230.
Pangrazio, L. and Sefton Green, J. (eds.) (2022). Learning to Live with Datafication: Educational
Case Studies and Initiatives from across the World. Abingdon: Routledge.
Perrotta, C. (2021). Programming the platform university: Learning analytics and predictive
infrastructures in higher education. Research in Education, 109(1), 53–71.
Perrotta, C. , Gulson, K. N. , Williamson, B. and Witzenberger, K. (2021). Automation, APIs and
the distributed labour of platform pedagogies in Google Classroom. Critical Studies in
Education, 62(1), 97–113.
Perrotta, C. and Selwyn, N. (2019). Deep learning goes to school: Toward a relational
Piattoeva, N. and Boden, R. (2020). Escaping numbers? The ambiguities of the governance of
education through data. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 29(1–2), 1–18.
Plantin, J.-C. , Lagoze, C. , Edwards, P. N. and Sandvig, C. (2018). Infrastructure studies meet
platform studies in the age of Google and Facebook. New Media & Society, 20(1), 293–310.
Rahm, L. (2023). Education, automation and AI: A genealogy of alternative futures. Learning,
Ramiel, H. (2020). Edtech disruption logic and policy work: The case of an Israeli edtech unit.
Rieder, B. (2020). Engines of Order: A Mechanology of Algorithmic Techniques. Amsterdam:
University of Amsterdam Press.
Rieder, B. 2022. Towards a political economy of technical systems: The case of Google. Big
Data and Society, 9(2), https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517221135162
Sadowski, J. (2020). Too Smart: How Digital Capitalism Is Extracting Data, Controlling Our
Lives, and Taking Over the World. London: MIT Press.
Schiølin, K. (2020). Revolutionary dreams: Future essentialism and the sociotechnical
imaginary of the fourth industrial revolution in Denmark. Social Studies of Science, 50(4),
542–566.
Selwyn, N. , Hillman, T. , Bergviken-Rensfeldt, A. and Perrotta, C. (2023). Making sense of the
digital automation of education. Postdigital Science and Education, 5, 1–14.
Shah, S. and Bender, E. (2022). Situating Search. CHIIR ‘22: ACM SIGIR Conference on
Human Information Interaction and Retrieval, March, 221–232.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3498366.3505816
Sismondo, S. (2020). Sociotechnical imaginaries: An accidental themed issue. Social Studies of
Science, 50(4), 505–507.
Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity.
Stark, L. , Greene, D. and Hoffman, A. L. (2022). Critical Perspectives on Governance
Mechanisms for AI/ML Systems. In Roberge, J. and Castelle, M. (eds). The Cultural Life of
Machine Learning, 257–280. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Swist, T. and Gulson, K. N. (2023). Instituting socio-technical education futures: Encounters
with/through technical democracy, data justice, and imaginaries. Learning, Media and
Technology, 48(2), 181–186
van der Vlist, F. N. , Helmond, A. , Burkhardt, M. and Seitz, T. (2022). API governance: The
case of Facebook’s evolution. Social Media + Society, 8(2).
https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051221086228
van Der Zwan, N. (2014). Making sense of financialization. Socio-Economic Review, 12,
99–129.
van Dijck, J. , Poell, T. and de Waal, M. (2018). The Platform Society: Public Values in a
Connective World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Veale, M. (2022). Schools Must Resist EdTech, But It Won’t Be Easy. In Livingstone, S. and
Pothong, K. (eds). Education Data Futures: Critical, Regulatory and Practical Reflections.
London: 5Rights Foundation.
Verger, A. , Lubienski, C. and Steiner-Khamsi, G. (Eds.). (2016). World Yearbook of Education
2016: The Global Education Industry. London: Routledge.
Viljoen, S. , Goldenfein, J. and McGuigan, L. (2021). Design choices: Mechanism design and
platform capitalism. Big Data & Society, 8(2), 20539517211034310.
Watters, A. (2021). Teaching Machines: The History of Personalized Learning. London: MIT
Press.
Whittaker, M. (2021). The steep costs of capture. Interactions, 28(6), 50–55.
Williamson, B. (2017) Big Data in Education: The Digital Future of Learning, Policy and
Practice. London: Sage.
Williamson, B. (2021). Automated Knowledge Discovery: Tracing the Frontiers, Infrastructures,
and Practices of Education and Data Science. In Wyatt-Smith, C. , Lingard, B. and Heck, E.
(eds). Digital Disruption in Teaching and Testing: Assessments, Big Data, and the
Transformation of Schooling, 45–59. Abingdon: Routledge.
Williamson, B. 2023. Governing through Infrastructural Control: Artificial Intelligence and Cloud
Computing in the Data-Intensive State. In Housley, W. , Edwards, A. , Beneito-Montagut, R. and
Fitzgerald, R. (eds). The Sage Handbook of Digital Society. London: Sage.
Williamson, B. , Gulson, G. , Perrotta, C. and Witzenberger, K. (2022). Amazon and the new
global connective architectures of educational governance. Harvard Educational Review, 92(2),
231–256.
Williamson, B. and Hogan, A. (2020). Commercialisation and Privatisation in/of Education in the
Context of Covid-19. Brussels: Education International.
Williamson, B. and Komljenovic, J. (2022). Investing in imagined digital futures: The techno-
financial ‘futuring’ of edtech investors in higher education. Critical Studies in Education.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2022.2081587
Wyatt-Smith, C. , Lingard, B. and Heck, E. (eds). (2021). Digital Disruption in Teaching and
Testing: Assessments, Big Data, and the Transformation of Schooling. Abingdon: Routledge.
Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New
Frontier of Power. London: Profile Books.
Theoretical foundations and historical roots of the ‘automated

classroom’
Ames, M. (2019). The Charisma Machine. The Life, Death, and Legacy of One Laptop per
Child. MIT Press.
Bainbridge, S. , & Wark, N. (2023). The Encyclopedia of Female Pioneers in Online Learning.
Routledge.
Baum, C. (2016). Stabilizing Cognition: An STS Approach to the Sloan Foundation Report.
Theory & Psychology, 26(6), 773–787.
Berkeley, E. C. (1971). Learner-Controlled Computer-Assisted Instruction. Computers and
Automation, 20(8), 6.
Boretska, V. (2019). Johnny and Ivan Learning in a Programmed Way: The Reinvention of one
American Technology. IJHE Bildungsgeschichte, 9(1), 29–46.
Bourdon, J. (2018). Is the End of the Television Coming to an End? Journal of European
Television History & Culture, 7(13), 1–15.
Bruner, J. (2004). A Short History of Psychological Theories of Learning. Dædalus, 133, 13–20.
Cain, V. (2021). Schools and Screens. A Watchful History. MIT Press.
Carbonell, J. R. (1970). AI in CAI: An Artificial-Intelligence Approach to Computer-Assisted
Instruction. IEEE Transactions on Man-Machine Systems, 11(4), 190–202.
Case, R. , & Bereiter, C. (1984). From Behaviourism to Cognitive Behaviourism to Cognitive
Development: Steps in the Evolution of Instructional Design. Instructional Science, 13(2),
141–158.
Clarke, A. , & Leigh Star, S. (2008). The Social Worlds Framework: A Theory/Methods
Package. The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 3, 113–137.
Cohen-Cole, J. (2005). The Reflexivity of Cognitive Science: The Scientist as Model of Human
Nature. History of the Human Sciences, 18(4), 107–139.
Cohen-Cole, J. (2014). The Open Mind: Cold War Politics and the Sciences of Human Nature.
University of Chicago Press.
Cope, B. , & Kalantzis, M. (2023). A Little History of e-Learning: Finding New Ways to Learn in
the PLATO Computer Education System, 1959–1976. History of Education, 1–32.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0046760X.2022.2141353
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and Underused. Computers in the Classroom. Harvard University
Press.
Day, R. K. (2016). B.F. Skinner, PH.D and Susan M. Markle, PH.D: The Beginnings.
Performance Improvement, 55, 34–47.
Dear, B. (2017). The Friendly Orange Glow. The Untold Story of the PLATO System and the
Dawn of Cyberculture. Pantheon Books.
Decuypere, M. , & Williamson, B. (2021, June 2). Breaking Open the Black Box of Edtech
Brokers. Code Acts in Education. https://codeactsineducation.wordpress.com/2021/06/02/black-
box-of-edtech-brokers/
DiBlasio, M. K. (1983). If and Where to Plug in the Computer: A Conceptual Framework for
Computer Assisted Art Instruction. Studies in Art Education, 25(1), 39–47.
Doroudi, S. (2023). The Forgotten Black Innovators of Educational Technology: Stories at the
Intersection of Education, Technology, and Civil Rights. Learning, Media and Technology.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2023.2237892
Erickson, P. , Klein, J. L. , Daston, L. , Lemov, R. , Sturm, T. , & Gordin, M. D. (2013). How
Reason Almost Lost its Mind. The Strange Career of Cold War Rationality. The University of
Chicago Press.
Fischer, K. , & Kling, U. (1974). Schulbezogene Forschungs- und Entwicklungsaspekte des
CUU in Amerika. In H. Freibichler (Ed.), Computerunterstützter Unterricht (pp. 74–103).
Schroedel.
Fletcher, C. (2017). The School of Tomorrow: Promoting Electronic Multimedia Education in the
1960s. History and Technology, 33(4), 428–440.
Gardner, H. (1985). The Mind’s New Science: A History of the Cognitive Revolution. Basic
Books.
Geoghegan, B. D. (2022). Code: From Information Theory to French Theory. Duke University
Press.
Goldberg, A. (1973). Computer-Assisted Instruction: The Application of Theorem-Proving to
Adaptive Response Analysis [Ph.D. in Information Sciences]. Chicago.
Good, K. D. (2016). Making Do with Media: Teachers, Technology, and Tactics of Media Use in
American Classrooms, 1919–1946. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 13(1), 75–92.
Good, K. D. (2020). Bring the World to the Child: Technologies of Global Citizenship in
American Education. MIT Press.
Good, K. D. (2021). Multimedia: How Educators Made Sense of New Media Multiplicity. In G.
Balbi , N. Ribeiro , V. Schafer , & C. Schwarzenegger (Eds.), Digital Roots: Historicizing Media
and Communication Concepts of the Digital Age (pp. 59–76). De Gruyter Oldenbourg.
Good, K. D. , & Hof, B. (2023). Towards Global and Local Histories of Educational
Technologies: Introduction. Learning, Media and Technology.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2023.2250983
Hof, B. (2018a). Der Bildungstechnologe. In S. Schenk & M. Karcher (Eds.),
Überschreitungslogiken und die Grenzen des Humanen: (Neuro-)
Enhancement—Kybernetik—Transhumanismus (pp. 27–51). epub.
Hof, B. (2018b). From Harvard via Moscow to West Berlin: Educational Technology,
Programmed Instruction and the Commercialisation of Learning after 1957. History of
Education, 47(4), 445–465.
Hof, B. (2021). The Turtle and the Mouse. How Constructivist Learning Theory Shaped Artificial
Intelligence and Educational Technology in the 1960s. History of Education, 50(1), 93–111.
Hof, B. (2023). Defuturization Machines. The OECD’s Early Efforts to Plan the Computerized
Future of Education. In C. Flury & M. Geiss (Eds.), How Computers Entered the Classroom,
1960–2000: Historical Perspectives (pp. 217–238). De Gruyter Oldenbourg.
Hof, B. , & Bürgi, R. (2021). The OECD as an Arena for Debate on the Future Uses of
Computers in Schools. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 19(2), 154–166.
Hof, B. , & Müggenburg, J. (2021). Human – Learning – Machines. Introduction to a Special
Section on How Cybernetics and Constructivism Inspired New Forms of Learning. History of
Education, 50(1), 89–92.
Horlacher, R. (2022). Bringing Pedagogy in Line. Globalizing Nationally Programmed
Instruction, New Math, Film, and Media Education. In D. Tröhler , N. Piattoeva , & W. F. Pinar
(Eds.), World Yearbook of Education 2022. Education, Schooling and the Global
Universalization of Nationalism (pp. 87–102). Routledge.
Hostettler, A. (2022). Progressive Education and Early Uses of Film in Swiss Schools. In N.
Teughels & K. Wils (Eds.), Learning with Light and Shadows: Educational Lantern and Film
Projection, 1860–1990 (pp. 123–142). Brepolis.
Illich, I. (1971a). School the Sacred Cow. In I. Illich (Ed.), Celebration of Awarness (pp.
103–114). Penguin.
Illich, I. (1971b). Education Without School: How It Can Be Done. The New York Review.
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1971/01/07/a-special-supplement-education-without-school-
how/
Inhelder, B. , & Piaget, J. (1958). The Growth of Logical Thinking from Childhood to
Adolescence (Original: De la Logique de l’Enfant À la Logique de l’Adolescent, published in
1955). Basic Books.
Johnson, J. E. , & Hooper, F. H. (1982). Piagetian Structuralism and Learning. Reflections on
Two Decades of Educational Application. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 7, 217–237.
Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus Constructivism: Do We Need a New Philosophical
Paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5–14.
Kay, A. C. (1972). A Personal Computer for Children of all Ages. National Conference
Proceedings of the Association of Computing Machines, Boston, MA.
Kim, W. (2023). Dualized Modernization: USAID and Educational Television in South Korea.
Learning, Media and Technology. 1–13. DOI 10.1080/17439884.2023.2207025
Kirsch, C. J. (2020). A Three-Person Teaching Machine Designed for Crisis: The Geromat III in
Berlin and Ulm. IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, October–December, 39–52.
Kolodner, J. L. (2004). The Learning Sciences: Past, Present, Future. Educational Technology,
44(3), 34–55.
Lewis, B. N. , & Pask, G. (1965). The Theory and Practice of Adaptive Teaching Systems. In R.
Glaser (Ed.), Teaching Machines and Programmed Learning, II. Data and Directions (pp.
213–266). Department of Audiovisual Instruction.
McClelland, D. (1969). The Role of Educational Technology in Developing Achievement
Motivation. Educational Technology, 9, 7–16.
McLuhan, M. , & Leonard, G. B. (1967). The Future of Education: The Class of 1989. Look,
31(4), 23–25.
Morgan, R. M. (1969). A Review of Educational Applications of the Computer, Including those in
Instruction, Administration and Guidance. Stanford University: ERIC Clearinghouse on Media
and Technology 1–12.
Müggenburg, J. (2021). From Learning Machines to Learning Humans: How Cybernetic
Machine Models Inspired Experimental Pedagogies. History of Education, 50(11), 112–133.
Oettinger, A. (1969). Run, Computer, Run: The Mythology of Educational Innovation: An Essay
(With the Collaboration of Sema Marks). Harvard University Press.
Oettinger, A. , & Marks, S. (1968). Educational Technology: New Myths and Old Realities.
Harvard Educational Review, 38(4), 697–717.
Oumarou, G. (2023). Reforming Education via Radio Lessons for Teachers? The Promise and
Problems of Distance Learning in Cameroon, 1960-1995. Learning, Media and Technology.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2023.2244426
Papert, S. (1971). Teaching Children Thinking. MIT: Artificial Intelligence Lab, Memo No. 247.
Pask, G. (1975). Cybernetic Theory of Cognition and Learning. Journal of Cybernetics, 5(1),
1–90.
Perkins, D. N. (1991). Technology Meets Constructivism: Do They Make a Marriage?
Educational Technology, 31(5), 18–23.
Petrina, S. (2002). Getting a Purchase on ‘The School of Tomorrow’ and Its Constituent
Commodities: Histories and Historiography of Technologies. History of Education Quarterly,
42(1), 75–111.
Piaget, J. (1971). The Child’s Conception of the World (Original Publication in 1929). Routledge
& Kegan Paul Ltd.
Priem, K. (2023). Entangled Media Ecologies: The Nexus of Education and Mass
Communication from the Perspective of UNESCO (1945–1989). In C. Flury & M. Geiss (Eds.),
How Computers Entered the Classroom, 1960–2000: Historical Perspectives (pp. 173–190). De
Gruyter Oldenbourg.
Rankin, J. L. (2018). A Peoplès History of Computing in the United States. Harvard University
Press.
Rath, G. J. , Anderson, N. S. , & Brainerd, R. C. (1959). The IBM Research Center Teaching
Machine Project. In E. Galanter (Ed.), Automatic Teaching. The State of the Art. John Wiley &
Sons.
Rutherford, A. (2003). B.F. Skinner’s Technology of Behavior in American Life: From Consumer
Culture to Counterculture. Journal of the History of the Behavioural Sciences, 39(1), 1–23.
Seidel, R. J. (1969). Computers in Education: The Copernican Revolution in Education
Systems. Computers and Automation, 18, 25–29.
Selwyn, N. (2022). Education and Technology. Key Issues and Debates (Third Edition).
Bloomsbury.
Sims, C. (2017). Disruptive Fixation. School Reform and the Pitfalls of Techno-Idealism.
Princeton University Press.
Sims, C. (2022). Learning, Technology, and the Instrumentalisation of Critique. In The Palgrave
Handbook of the Anthropology of Technology (pp. 415–432). Palgrave Macmillan.
Solomon, C. , Harvey, B. , Hahn, K. , Lieberman, H. , Miller, M. L. , Minsky, M. , Papert, A. , &
Silverman, B. (2020). History of LOGO. Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages,
4, 1–66. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3386329
Stolurow, L. M. , & Davis, D. (1965). Teaching Machines and Computer-Based Systems. In R.
Glaser (Ed.), Teaching Machines and Programmed Learning, II. Data and Directions (pp.
162–212). Department of Audiovisual Instruction.
Suppes, P. (1969). Computer Technology and the Future of Education (Reprint from 1968). In
R. Atkinson & H. A. Wilson (Eds.), Computer-Assisted Instruction: A Book of Readings (pp.
41–47). Academic Press.
Thomas, P. V. (1993). Solidac: An Early Minicomputer for Teaching Purposes. IEEE Annals of
the History of Computing, 15(4), 79–83.
Tröhler, D. (2013). The Technocratic Momentum after 1945, the Development of Teaching
Machines, and Sobering Results. Journal of Educational Media, Memory, and Society, 5(2),
1–19.
Turner, F. (2006). From Counterculture to Cyberculture. Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth
Network, and the Rise of Digital Utopianism. University of Chicago Press.
van Lente, H. , Spitters, C. , & Peine, A. (2013). Comparing Technological Hype Cycles:
Towards a Theory. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(8), 1615–1628.
Winn, W. D. (1991). The Assumptions of Constructivism and Instructional Design. Educational
Zinn, K. L. , & McClintock, S. (1970). A Guide to the Literature on Interactive Use of Computers
for Instruction. Stanford University: ERIC Clearinghouse on Media and Technology, 1–31.
AI and lifelong learning

Babbage, C. (1971[1835]). On the economy of machinery and manufactures. (Repr.) New York:
Kelley.
Bacchi, C. (2009). Analysing policy: what’s the problem represented to be? Frenchs Forest,
NSW: Pearson.
Barad, K. M. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: quantum physics and the entanglement of
matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Berg, A. , & Edquist, S. (2017). The capitalist state and the construction of civil society public
funding and the regulation of popular education in Sweden, 1870–1991. Cham: Springer
International Publishing.
Birhane, A. , Kalluri, P. , Card, D. , Agnew, W. , Dotan, R. , & Bao, M. (2022). The Values
Encoded in Machine Learning Research. In 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability,
and Transparency (pp. 173–184). ACM: New York. https://doi.org/10.1145/3531146.3533083
Bowker, G. C. , & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: classification and its consequences.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Braverman, H. (1974). Labor and monopoly capital: the degradation of work in the twentieth
century (2. pr.) New York: Monthly Review Press.
Cave, S. , Dihal, K. , & Dillon, S. (Eds.) (2020). AI narratives: a history of imaginative thinking
about intelligent machines. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Centeno, V. (2011). Lifelong learning: a policy concept with a long past but a short history.
International journal of lifelong education, 30(2), 133–150.
Crowther, J. (2013). Reflections on popular education in the UK and Sweden. In Ann-Marie
Laginder , Henrik Nordvall , & Jim Crowther (Eds.) Popular education, power and democracy:
Swedish experiences and contributions (pp. 261–262). Leicester: Niace.
Decuypere, M. , & Lewis, S. (2021). Topological genealogy: a methodology to research
transnational digital governance in/through/as change. Journal of Education Policy, 38(1),
23–45.
Edquist, S. (2015). Demarcating popular education with government subsidies: Sweden
1911–1991. Nordic Journal of Educational History, 2(1), 73–96.
Ehn, P. , Erlander, B. , & Karlsson, R. (1978). Vi vägrar låta detaljstyra oss!: rapport från
samarbetet mellan Statsanställdas förbund, Avdelning 1050, och Demos-projektet. Stockholm:
Arbetslivscentrum.
Elfert, M. (2017). UNESCO’s utopia of lifelong learning: an intellectual history. New York:
Routledge.
European Commission . (2010). A digital agenda for Europe. Retrieved from: https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0245:FIN:EN:PDF
Field, J. (2006). Lifelong learning and the new educational order (2 rev. ed.) Stoke-on-Trent:
Trentham.
Foucault, M. (Ed.) (1977). Language, counter-memory, practice: selected essays and
interviews. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Foucault, M. (1984). Nietzsche, genealogy, history. In P. Rabinow (Ed.) The Foucault reader
(pp. 76–100). New York: Pantheon.
Hafez, F. (2019). Muslim civil society under attack: the European foundation for democracy’s
role in defaming and delegitimising Muslim civil society. In J. Esposito & D. Iner (Eds.)
Islamophobia and Radicalisation (pp. 117–137). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hiltz, S. R. , & Turoff, M. (1993). The network nation: human communication via computer.
Jasanoff, S. , & Kim, S. (red.) (2015). Dreamscapes of modernity: sociotechnical imaginaries
and the fabrication of power. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Kiesler, S. , Siegel, J. , & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-
mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39(10), 1123.
Kluitenberg, E. (2011). On the archaeology of imaginary media. In E. Huhtamo & J. Parikka
(Eds.) Media archaeology: approaches, applications, and implications (pp. 48–69). Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Littler, C. R. , & Salaman, G. (1982) Bravermania and beyond: recent theories of the labour
process. Sociology 16(2), 251–269.
Luckin, Rose , Holmes, Wayne , Griffiths, Mark , & Forcier, Laurie B. (2016). Intelligence
unleashed: an argument for AI in education. London: Pearson Education.
Marcuse, Herbert (1966) One dimensional man: studies in the ideology of advanced industrial
society. Boston, MA: Bostonb Beacon Press.
Marx, Karl (1867). Capital. Volume 1. London: Penguin.
Nuissl, E. , & Przybylska, E. (2016). Lifelong learning: history and the present state of the
politically-educational concept. Studia Paedagogica Ignatiana, 19(4), 33–48.
OECD . (1973). Recurrent education: a strategy for lifelong learning. Paris: OECD.
Ozga, J. (2016). Trust in numbers? Digital education governance and the inspection process.
European Educational Research Journal, 15(1), 69–81.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904115616629
Pagano, U. (1985). Work and welfare in economic theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
Parikka, J. (2012). What is media archaeology? Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.
Ranstorp, M. , & Hyllengren Carlbom, A. (2022). Skattepengar läcker som ett såll till
studieförbund, Expressen, November 27.
Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: homesteading on the electronic frontier. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Robertson, S. L. (red.) (2012). Public private partnerships in education: new actors and modes
of governance in a globalizing world. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Robertson, S. L. (2022). Guardians of the future: international Organisations, Anticipatory
Governance and Education. Global Society, 36(2), 188–205.
SAP & LO [Swedish Social Democratic Party & Swedish Trade Union Confederation] . (1956).
Tekniken och morgondagens samhälle. Stockholm: Tiden.
Selwyn, N. (2021). Embracing a culture of lifelong learning: (re) imagining the futures of lifelong
learning: some sociotechnical tensions. Paris: UNESCO.
Short, J. , Williams, E. , & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications.
London: John Wiley & Sons.
Swade, D. (2022). The history of computing: a very short introduction. (1st edition). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Swedish National Audit Office [Riksrevisionen] . (2022). Statsbidraget till studieförbunden:
kontroll och uppföljning. Stockholm: Riksrevisionen.
Turner Jr, F. C. (2002). From counterculture to cyberculture: how Stewart Brand and the ‘Whole
Earth Catalog’ brought us ‘Wired’ magazine. San Diego, CA: University of California.
UNESCO . (2022). The contribution of higher education institutions to lifelong learning: global
survey report presented to the UNESCO World Higher Education Conference. Retrieved from:
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381925
Ure, A. (1845). Recent improvements in arts, manufactures, and mines [Elektronisk resurs]
being a supplement to his dictionary. New York: D. Appleton & Co.
Virilio, P. (2007). The original accident. Cambridge: Polity.
Vismann, C. (2006). Out of file, out of mind. In Chun, W. H. K. & Keenan, T. (Eds.) New media,
old media: a history and theory reader (pp. 97–104). New York: Routledge.
Winner, L. (1977). Autonomous technology: technics-out-of-control as a theme in political
thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Natural language generation and the automation of pedagogical

communication
Alsop, S. , & Nesi, H. (2009). Issues in the development of the British Academic Written English
(BAWE) corpus. Corpora, 4(1), 71–83.
Arnold, K. E. , & Pistilli, M. D. (2012, April). Course signals at Purdue: Using learning analytics
to increase student success. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning
Analytics and Knowledge, ACM (pp. 267–270).
Barikeri, S. , Lauscher, A. , Vulić, I. , & Glavaš, G. (2021). RedditBias: A real-world resource for
bias evaluation and debiasing of conversational language models. arXiv preprint
arXiv:2106.03521.
Barocas, S. , Crawford, K. , Shapiro, A. , & Wallach, H. (2017). The problem with bias:
Allocative versus representational harms in machine learning. 9th Annual Conference of the
Special Interest Group for Computing, Information and Society.
Bender, E. M. , Gebru, T. , McMillan-Major, A. , & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of
stochastic parrots: can language models be too big. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on
Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, Association for Computing Machinery, New York,
Virtual Event - Canada.
Birch, K. , Chiappetta, M. , & 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.
Blodgett, S. L. , Barocas, S. , Daumé III, H. , & Wallach, H. (2020). Language (technology) is
power: A critical survey of “bias” in NLP. 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for
Computational Linguistics, Online.
Bowker, G. C. , Baker, K. , Millerand, F. , & Ribes, D. (2010). Toward information infrastructure
studies: Ways of knowing in a networked environment. In Hunsinger, J. , Klastrup, L. , & Allen,
M. (Eds.), International Handbook of Internet Research (pp. 97–117). Springer Science &
Business Media.
Bratton, B. H. (2015). The Stack: On Software and Sovereignty. MIT Press.
Broussard, M. (2018). Artificial Unintelligence: How Computers Misunderstand the World. MIT
Press.
Chen, A. (2019). Inmates in Finland are training AI as part of prison labor. The Verge, 28.
Available online: https://bit.ly/3mbcj03
Coté, M. , & Pybus, J. (2007). Learning to immaterial labour 2.0: MySpace and social networks.
ephemera, 7(1), 88–106.
Intelligence. Yale University Press.
Danaher, J. , Hogan, M. J. , Noone, C. , Kennedy, R. , Behan, A. , De Paor, A. , Felzmann, H. ,
Haklay, M. , Khoo, S. M. , Morison, J. , Murphy, M. H. , O'Brolchain, N. , Schafer, B. , &
Shankar, K. (2017). Algorithmic governance: Developing a research agenda through the power
of collective intelligence [Article]. Big Data and Society, 4(2).
https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717726554
Decuypere, M. (2019). Researching educational apps: Ecologies, technologies, subjectivities
and learning regimes. Learning, Media and Technology, 44(4), 414–429.
Decuypere, M. , & Hartong, S. (2023). Edunudge. Learning, Media and Technology, 48(1),
138–152.
Foltz, P. W. , Laham, D. , & Landauer, T. K. (1999). The intelligent essay assessor: Applications
to educational technology. Interactive Multimedia Electronic Journal of Computer-Enhanced
Learning, 1(2), 939–944.
Foltz, P. W. , Streeter, L. A. , & Lochbaum, K. E. (2013). Implementation and applications of the
intelligent essay assessor. In M. D. Shremis & J. Burstein (Eds.) Handbook of Automated Essay
Evaluation (pp. 90–110). Routledge.
Gigerenzer, G. , & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of
Psychology, 62, 451–482.
Goldstein, J. A. , Sastry, G. , Musser, M. , DiResta, R. , Gentzel, M. , & Sedova, K. (2023).
Generative Language Models and Automated Influence Operations: Emerging Threats and
Potential Mitigations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.04246.
Gray, M. L. , & Suri, S. (2019). Ghost Work: How to Stop Silicon Valley from Building a New
Global Underclass. Eamon Dolan/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Gulson, K. N. , & Sellar, S. (2019). Emerging data infrastructures and the new topologies of
education policy [Article]. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 37(2), 350–366.
Hardt, M. , & Negri, T. (2018). The powers of the exploited and the social ontology of praxis.
tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable
Information Society, 16(2), 415–423.
Heckler, N. C. , Rice, M. , & Hobson Bryan, C. (2013). Turnitin systems. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 45(3), 229–248.
Ito, M. , Baumer, S. , Bittanti, M. , Boyd, D. , Cody, R. , Herr-Stephenson, B. , Horst, H. A. ,
Lange, P. G. , Mahendran, D. , & Martínez, K. Z. (2010). Hanging Out, Messing Around, and
Geeking Out. MIT Press Cambridge, MA.
Jackson, S. J. (2014). 11 rethinking repair. In Media Technologies: Essays on Communication,
Materiality, and Society (pp. 221–239). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jarke, J. , & Breiter, A. (2019). Editorial: The datafication of education. Learning, Media and
Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the
21st Century. The MIT Press.
Jones, R. H. (2021). The text is reading you: Teaching language in the age of the algorithm.
Linguistics and Education, Linguistics and Education, 62, 100750. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2019.100750
Ke, Z. , & Ng, V. (2019). Automated Essay Scoring: A Survey of the State of the Art.
Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
Survey track. Pages 6300–6308. https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2019/879
Kitchin, R. (2014). Big Data, new epistemologies and paradigm shifts [Article]. Big Data and
Society, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951714528481
Klein, S. (1979). Automatic novel writing: A status report. Text processing, 338–411.
Knight, S. , Shibani, A. , Abel, S. , Gibson, A. , & Ryan, P. (2020). AcaWriter: A learning
analytics tool for formative feedback on academic writing. Journal of Writing Research, 12(1),
141–186. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2020.12.01.06
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2021.1891422
Kristeva, J. (1986). The Kristeva Reader. Basil Blackwell.
Lave, J. , & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
Cambridge University Press.
Leander, K. M. , & Burriss, S. K. (2020). Critical literacy for a posthuman world: When people
read, and become, with machines. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(4),
1262–1276.
Lewis, S. , & Holloway, J. (2019). Datafying the teaching ‘profession’: Remaking the
professional teacher in the image of data. Cambridge Journal of Education, 49(1), 35–51.
Livingstone, S. (2013). Interactivity and participation on the Internet young people’s response to
the civic sphere. In Young Citizens and New Media: Learning for Democratic Participation (pp.
103–124).
Luckin, R. , & Cukurova, M. (2019). Designing educational technologies in the age of AI: A
learning sciences-driven approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(6),
2824–2838.
Mackenzie, A. (2015). The production of prediction: What does machine learning want?
European Journal of Cultural Studies, 18(4–5), 429–445.
Natale, S. (2021). Deceitful Media: Artificial Intelligence and Social Life after the Turing Test.
Oxford University Press.
Ndukwe, I. G. , Amadi, C. E. , Nkomo, L. M. , & Daniel, B. K. (2020). Automatic grading system
using sentence-BERT network. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education.
Nichols, T. P. , & Garcia, A. (2022). Platform studies in education. Harvard Educational Review,
92(2), 209–230.
Nieborg, D. B. , & Poell, T. (2018). The platformization of cultural production: Theorizing the
contingent cultural commodity. New Media & Society, 20(11), 4275–4292.
Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. nyu
Press.
O'Grady, N. (2021). Automating security infrastructures: Practices, imaginaries, politics. Security
Dialogue, 52(3), 231–248.
OpenAI . (2019). Better Language Models and Their Implications.
https://openai.com/blog/better-language-models/
Ouyang, L. , Wu, J. , Jiang, X. , Almeida, D. , Wainwright, C. L. , Mishkin, P. , Zhang, C. ,
Agarwal, S. , Slama, K. , & Ray, A. (2022). Training language models to follow instructions with
human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.02155 .
Page, E. B. (1968). The use of the computer in analyzing student essays. International Review
of Education, 210–225.
Pangrazio, L. , Selwyn, N. , & Cumbo, B. (2023). A patchwork of platforms: Mapping data
infrastructures in schools. Learning, Media and Technology, 48(1), 65–80.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2022.2035395
Pardos, Z. A. , & Bhandari, S. (2023). Learning gain differences between ChatGPT and human
tutor generated algebra hints. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.06871 .
Perrotta, C. , Gulson, K. N. , Williamson, B. , & Witzenberger, K. (2020). Automation, APIs and
Education, 62(1), 97–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2020.1855597
Perrotta, C. , & Selwyn, N. (2020). Deep learning goes to school: Toward a relational
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1686017
Perrotta, C. , Selwyn, N. , & Ewin, C. (2022). Artificial intelligence and the affective labour of
understanding: The intimate moderation of a language model. New Media & Society,
14614448221075296.
Plantin, J.-C. , Lagoze, C. , Edwards, P. N. , & Sandvig, C. (2016). Infrastructure studies meet
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816661553
Reiter, E. , & Dale, R. (1997). Building applied natural language generation systems. Natural
Language Engineering, 3(1), 57–87.
Rosé, C. P. , & Ferschke, O. (2016). Technology support for discussion based learning: From
computer supported collaborative learning to the future of massive open online courses.
International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(2), 660–678.
Rosé, C. P. , Goldman, P. , Zoltners Sherer, J. , & Resnick, L. (2015). Supportive technologies
for group discussion in MOOCs. Current Issues in Emerging eLearning, 2(1), 5.
Sadowski, J. (2020). The internet of landlords: Digital platforms and new mechanisms of rentier
capitalism. Antipode, 52(2), 562–580. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12595
Selwyn, N. (2021). Less work for teacher? The ironies of automated decision-making in schools.
In S. Pink , Berg, M. , Lupton, D. , & Ruckenstein, M. (Eds.) Everyday Automation: Experiencing
and Anticipating Emerging Technologies. Taylor and Francis
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003170884
Shestakofsky, B. , & Kelkar, S. (2020). Making platforms work: Relationship labor and the
management of publics. Theory and Society, 49(5), 863–896.
Siemens, G. , & Long, P. (2011). Penetrating the fog: Analytics in learning and education.
EDUCAUSE Review, 46(5), 30.
Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform Capitalism. Pollity.
Swiecki, Z. , Khosravi, H. , Chen, G. , Martinez-Maldonado, R. , Lodge, J. M. , Milligan, S. ,
Selwyn, N. , & Gašević, D. (2022). Assessment in the age of artificial intelligence. Computers
and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100075.
Terranova, T. (2000). Free labor: Producing culture for the digital economy. Social text, 18(2),
33–58.
Thomson, S. , & Hillman, K. (2019). The teaching and learning international survey 2018.
Australian Report Volume 1: Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners.
Tubaro, P. , Casilli, A. A. , & Coville, M. (2020). The trainer, the verifier, the imitator: Three ways
in which human platform workers support artificial intelligence. Big Data & Society, 7(1),
2053951720919776. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951720919776
van der Graaf, J. , Molenaar, I. , Lim, K. P. , Fan, Y. , Engelmann, K. , Gasevic, D. , & Bannert,
M. (2020). Facilitating self-regulated learning with personalized scaffolds on student’s own
regulation activities. 10th International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge (LAK20).
van Dijck, J. (2014). Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big data between scientific
paradigm and ideology. Surveillance and Society, 12(2), 197–208.
https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-
84901007475&partnerID=40&md5=a7dd5c9a69d0edac7883f9e57e928338
Van Dijck, J. , Poell, T. , & De Waal, M. (2018). The Platform Society: Public Values in a
Connective World. Oxford University Press.
Wiggins, B. E. (2019). The Discursive Power of Memes in Digital Culture: Ideology, Semiotics,
and Intertextuality. Routledge.
Wiliam, D. (2010). An integrative summary of the research literature and implications for a new
theory of formative assessment. In Andrade, H. , & Cizek, G. J. (Eds.) Handbook of Formative
Assessment (pp. 18–40). Routledge.
Williamson, B. (2015). Governing methods: Policy innovation labs, design and data science in
the digital governance of education. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 47(3),
251–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2015.1038693
Williamson, B. (2016). Digital education governance: An introduction. European Educational
Research Journal, 15(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904115616630
Williamson, B. (2017). Decoding ClassDojo: Psycho-policy, social-emotional learning and
persuasive educational technologies. Learning, Media and Technology, 42(4), 440–453.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2017.1278020
Williamson, B. , Gulson, K. N. , Perrotta, C. , & Witzenberger, K. (2022). Amazon and the new
global connective architectures of education governance. Harvard Educational Review, 92(2),
231–256.
Yannakoudakis, H. , Briscoe, T. , & Medlock, B. (2011). A new dataset and method for
automatically grading ESOL texts. Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association
for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. https://aclanthology.org/P11-
1000.pdf
Zhai, K. , & Williams, J. D. (2014). Discovering latent structure in task-oriented dialogues.
Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics
(Volume 1: Long Papers).
Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New
Frontier of Power. Profile Books.
Educational vanishing points

Alirezabeigi, S. , Masschelein, J. , & Decuypere, M. (2020). Investigating digital doings through
breakdowns: A sociomaterial ethnography of a bring your own device school. Learning, Media
and Technology, 45(2), 193–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1727501
Bakhouyi, A. , Dehbi, R. , Lti, M. T. , & Hajoui, O. (2017). Evolution of standardization and
interoperability on E-learning systems: An overview. In 2017 16th International Conference on
Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training, ITHET 2017.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ITHET.2017.8067789
Bowker, G. C. , & Star, S. L. (2000). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences.
MIT Press.
Chirumamilla, A. , & Sindre, G. (2021). E-exams in Norwegian higher education: Vendors and
managers views on requirements in a digital ecosystem perspective. Computers & Education,
172, 104263. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPEDU.2021.104263
Constantinides, P. , Henfridsson, O. , & Parker, G. G. (2018). Introduction: Platforms and
infrastructures in the digital age. Information Systems Research, 29(2), 381–400.
https://doi.org/10.1287/ISRE.2018.0794
Decuypere, M. (2019). Open education platforms: Theoretical ideas, digital operations and the
figure of the open learner. European Educational Research Journal, 18(4), 439–460.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904118814141
Decuypere, M. , Grimaldi, E. , & Landri, P. (2021). Introduction: Critical studies of digital
https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2020.1866050
Easterling, K. (2014). Extrastatecraft: The power of infrastructure space. Verso.
Edwards, R. (2015). Knowledge infrastructures and the inscrutability of openness in education.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2015.1006131
Edwards, R. , & Fenwick, T. (2017). Knowledge infrastructures, digital higher education and the
hidden curriculum. In B. Leibowitz , V. Bozalek , & P. Kahn (Eds.), Theorising learning to teach
in higher education (pp. 81–96). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315559605-13
Hartong, S. (2020). The power of relation-making: Insights into the production and operation of
digital school performance platforms in the US. Critical Studies in Education, 62(1), 34–49.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2020.1749861
Hartong, S. , Förschler, A. , & Dabisch, V. (2021). Data infrastructures and the (ambivalent)
effects of rising data interoperability: Insights from Germany. In C. Wyatt-Smith , B. Lingard , &
E. Heck (Eds.), Digital disruption in teaching and testing (pp. 136–151). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003045793-8
Hodapp, D. , & Hanelt, A. (2022). Interoperability in the era of digital innovation: An information
systems research agenda. Journal of Information Technology, 37(4), 1–21.
https://doi.org/10.1177/02683962211064304
Jakimoski, K. (2016). Challenges of interoperability and integration in education information
systems. International Journal of Database and Theory and Application, 9(2), 33–46.
https://doi.org/10.14257/ijdta.2016.9.2.05
Kerssens, N. , & van Dijck, J. (2021). The platformization of primary education in The
Netherlands. Learning, Media and Technology, 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2021.1876725
Knox, H. (2017). An infrastructural approach to digital ethnography: Lessons from the
Manchester infrastructures of social change project. In L. Hjorth , H. Horst , A. Galloway , & G.
Bell (Eds.), The Routledge companion to digital ethnography (pp. 354–361). Routledge.
Knox, H. (2022). Technology, environment, and the ends of knowledge. In The Palgrave
handbook of the anthropology of Technology (pp. 237–251). Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-7084-8_12
LeCompte, M. D. , & Schensul, J. J. (2013). Analysis and interpretation of ethnographic data: A
mixed methods approach. Rowman Altamira.
Moore, R. L. , & Fodrey, B. P. (2018). Distance education and technology infrastructure:
Strategies and opportunities. In A. A. Piña , V. L. Lowell , & B. R. Harris (Eds.), Leading and
managing e-learning (pp. 87–100). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61780-
0_7
Naim, A. , & Alahmari, F. (2020). Reference model of e-learning and quality to establish
interoperability in higher education systems. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in
Learning (IJET), 15(2), 15–28.
Pangrazio, L. , Selwyn, N. , & Cumbo, B. (2022). A patchwork of platforms: Mapping data
infrastructures in schools. Learning, Media and Technology, 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2022.2035395
Perrotta, C. (2021). Programming the platform university: Learning analytics and predictive
https://doi.org/10.1177/0034523720965623
Piattoeva, N. , & Saari, A. (2022). Rubbing against data infrastructure(s): Methodological
explorations on working with(in) the impossibility of exteriority. Journal of Education Policy,
37(2), 165–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2020.1753814
Pink, S. , Horst, H. , Postill, J. , Hjorth, L. , Lewis, T. , & Tacchi, J. (2016). Digital ethnography:
Principles and practice. SAGE Publications.
Piromalli, L. (2022). Governing through interconnections: Interoperability and standardisation in
higher education. Technoscienza, 13(1), 71–95.
http://www.tecnoscienza.net/index.php/tsj/article/view/495/304
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816661553
Ratner, H. , & Gad, C. (2019). Data warehousing organization: Infrastructural experimentation
with educational governance. Organization, 26(4), 537–552.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508418808233
Sefton-Green, J. , & Pangrazio, L. (2021). Platform pedagogies: Towards a research agenda. In
M. Ito , R. Cross , K. Dinakar , & C. Odgers (Eds.), Algorithmic rights and protections for
children (pp. 1–9). Works in Progress. https://doi.org/10.1162/ba67f642.646d0673
Sellar, S. (2015). Data infrastructure: A review of expanding accountability systems and large-
scale assessments in education. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 36(5),
765–777. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2014.931117
Slota, C. S. , & Bowker, G. C. (2017). How infrastructures matter. In U. Felt , R. Fouché , C. A.
Miller , & L. Smith-Doerr (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies, 4th ed. (pp.
529–554). The MIT Press.
Sutor, S. R. (2011). Software standards, openness, and interoperability. In L. DeNardis (Ed.),
Opening standards: The global politics of interoperability (pp. 209–217). The MIT Press.
van de Oudeweetering, K. , & Decuypere, M. (2021). In between hyperboles: Forms and
formations in open education. Learning, Media and Technology, 46(1), 60–77.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1809451
van Dijck, J. (2013). The culture of connectivity: A critical history of social media. Oxford
University Press.
Williamson, B. (2018). The hidden architecture of higher education: Building a big data
infrastructure for the ‘smarter university.’ International Journal of Educational Technology in
Higher Education, 15(12), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0094-1
How platformisation affects pedagogical autonomy in primary schools

*
Ball, S. J. (2008). Education plc: Understanding private sector participation in public sector
education. London: Routledge.
Bartlett, J. , & Tkacz, N. (2017). Governance by dashboard: A policy paper. London: Demos.
Bechmann, A. (2013). “Internet profiling: The economy of data intraoperability on Facebook and
Google.” MedieKultur: Journal of Media and Communication Research, 29(55), 72–91.
Bouma, K. , & van der Klift, L. (2019, November 1). Google wordt steeds grotere speler op
scholen, tot zorg van privacyorganisaties. De Volkskrant. Retrieved from
https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/google-wordt-steeds-grotere-speler-op-scholen-
tot-zorg-van-privacyorganisaties~bae18dcd/
Bulger, M. (2016). Personalized learning: The conversations we’re not having. Data & Society
Research Institute. Retrieved from https://datasociety.net/output/personalized-learning-the-
conversations-were-not-having/
Cloudwise . (2021a). Resultaten marktonderzoek ICT-dienstverleners in onderwijs. Retrieved
from https://cloudwise.nl/resultaten-marktonderzoek/
Cloudwise . (2021b). Your digital classroom wherever you are. Retrieved from
https://www.cloudwise.cool/
education platforms. Critical Studies in Education, 62(1), 1–16. doi:
10.1080/17508487.2020.1866050
Dishon, G. (2017). New data, old tensions: Big data, personalized learning, and the challenges
of progressive education. Theory and Research in Education, 15(3), 272–289. doi:
10.1177/1477878517735233
Franzke, A. S. , Muis, I. , & Schäfer, M. T. (2021). Data ethics decision aid (DEDA): A dialogical
framework for ethical inquiry of AI and data projects in the Netherlands. Ethics and Information
Technology, 23(10), 1–17. doi: 10.1007/s10676-020-09577-5
Friesen, N. (2018). Personalized learning technology and the new behaviorism: Beyond
freedom and dignity. Retrieved from
https://www.academia.edu/36111979/Personal_learning_new_behaviorism2.docx
Garcia, A. , & Nichols, T. P. (2021). Digital platforms aren’t mere tools—They’re complex
environments. Phi Delta Kappan, 102(6), 14–19. doi: 10.1177/0031721721998148
Kennisnet . (2019, June 5). Sturing geven aan digitalisering met ethiek. Retrieved from
https://www.kennisnet.nl/artikel/6568/sturing-geven-aan-digitalisering-met-ethiek/
Kerssens, N. (2022). Schooled by dashboards? Learning platforms’ performance-centered
pedagogy and its impact on teaching. In K. van Es & N. Verhoeff (Eds.), Situating data: Inquiries
into algorithmic culture. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Kerssens, N. , & van Dijck, J. (2021). The platformization of primary education in the
Netherlands. Learning, Media and Technology, 46(3), 250–263. doi:
10.1080/17439884.2021.1876725
Kerssens, N. , & van Dijck, J. (2022). Governed by edtech? Valuing pedagogical autonomy in a
platform society. Harvard Educational Review, 92, 284–303.
Kitchin, R. , Lauriault, T. P. , & McArdle, G. (2015). Knowing and governing cities through urban
indicators, city benchmarking and real-time dashboards. Regional Studies, Regional Science,
2(1), 6–28. doi: 10.1080/21681376.2014.983149
Knoop-van Campen, C. , & Molenaar, I. (2020). How teachers integrate dashboards into their
feedback practices. Frontline Learning Research, 8(4), 37–51. doi: 10.14786/flr.v8i4.641
Knox, J. , Williamson, B. , & Bayne, S. (2020). Machine behaviourism: Future visions of
“learnification” and “datafication” across humans and digital technologies. Learning, Media and
Technology, 45(1), 31–45. doi: 10.1080/17439884.2019.1623251
Krutka, D. G. , Smits, R. M. , & Wilhelm, T. A. (2021). Don’t be evil: Should we use Google in
schools? TechTrends, 65, 421–431. doi: 10.1007/s11528-021-00599-4
Kumar, P. C. , Vitak, J. , Chetty, M. , & Clegg, T. L. (2019). The platformization of the
classroom: Teachers as surveillant consumers. Surveillance & Society, 17(1/2), 145–152. doi:
10.24908/ss.v17i1/2.12926
Liber . (2022). Joint statement: The digital services act – education and science require better
policy making procedures. https://libereurope.eu/article/statement-the-digital-services-act-
education-and-science-requires-better-policy-making-procedures/
Lindh, M. , & 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. doi: 10.1177/1474904116654917
Mattern, S. (2015). Mission control: A history of the urban dashboard. Places Journal. Retrieved
from https://placesjournal.org/article/mission-control-a-history-of-the-urban-dashboard]/?cn-
reloaded=1
Molenaar, I. (2021). Personalisation of learning: Towards hybrid human-AI learning
technologies. In OECD digital education outlook 2021: Pushing the frontiers with AI, blockchain
and robots (pp. 57–77). Paris: OECD publishing. doi: 10.1787/589b283f-en
Molenaar, I. , & Knoop-van Campen, C. K.-V. (2016). Learning analytics in practice: The effects
of adaptive educational technology Snappet on students’ arithmetic skills. Paper presented at
the Sixth International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, Edinburgh, UK.
Nas, S. , & Terra, F. (2021). DPIA on the use of Google G Suite (Enterprise) for Education: For
the University of Groningen and the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences. Privacy
Company.
Outsell . (2017). GAFAM in education: How Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft
are shaping education markets. Retrieved from https://docplayer.net/63023528-Gafam-in-
education-how-google-apple-facebook-amazon-and-microsoft-are-shaping-education-
markets.html
Perrotta, C. , Gulson, K. N. , Williamson, B. , & Witzenberger, K. 2020. Automation, APIs and
Education, 62(1), 97–113. doi: 10.1080/17508487.2020.1855597
Plantin, J.-C. , Lagoze, C. , & Edwards, P. N. (2018). Infrastructure studies meet platform
studies in the age of Google and Facebook. New Media & Society, 20(1), 293–310. doi:
10.1177/1461444816661553
Poell, T. , Nieborg, D. , & Van Dijck, J. (2019). Platformisation. Internet Policy Review, 8(4),
1–13. doi: 10.14763/2019.4.1425
Regan, P. M. , & Jesse, J. (2019). Ethical challenges of edtech, big data and personalized
learning: Twenty-first century student sorting and tracking. Ethics and Information Technology,
21(3), 167–179. doi: 10.1007/s10676-018-9492-2
Schwendimann, B. A. , Rodriguez-Triana, M. J. , Vozniuk, A. , Prieto, L. P. , Boroujeni, M. S. ,
Holzer, A. , Gillet, D. , Dillenbourg, P. (2016). Perceiving learning at a glance: A systematic
literature review of learning dashboard research. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies,
10(1), 30–41. doi: 10.1109/TLT.2016.2599522
Sefton-Green, J. (2021). Towards platform pedagogies: Why thinking about digital platforms as
pedagogic devices might be useful. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education
(April), 1–13. doi: 10.1080/01596306.2021.1919999
Sefton-Green, J. , & Pangrazio, L. (2021). Platform pedagogies—Toward a research agenda for
young people and education. Retrieved from https://jods.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/f82tqkvp
Singer, N. (2017, May 13). How Google took over the classroom. The New York Times.
Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/technology/google-education-
chromebooks-schools.html
SIVON . (2020). Onze missie en visie. Retrieved from https://www.sivon.nl/over-ons/onze-
missie-en-visie/
SIVON . (2021). SIVON en SURF spreken Google aan op privacy-risico’s. Retrieved from
https://www.sivon.nl/actueel/sivon-en-surf-spreken-google-aan-op-privacyrisicos/
Teräs, M. , Suoranta, J. , Teräs, H. , & Curcher, M. (2020). Post-Covid-19 education and
education technology ‘solutionism’: A seller’s market. Postdigital Science and Education, 2(3),
863–878. doi: 10.1007/s42438-020-00164-x
Utrecht Data School . (2022a). Data Ethics Decision Aid (DEDA). Retrieved from
https://dataschool.nl/en/deda/
Utrecht Data School . (2022b). Fundamental rights and algorithms impact assessment.
Retrieved from https://dataschool.nl/en/fraia/
van Dijck, J. (2020). Seeing the forest for the trees: Visualizing platformization and its
governance. New Media & Society, 23(9), 2801–2819. doi: 10.1177/1461444820940293
van Dijck, J. , Poell, T. , & de Waal, M. (2018). The platform society: Public values in a
connective world. New York: Oxford University Press.
Watters, A. (2021). Teaching machines: The history of personalized learning. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Williamson, B. , Gulson, K. , Perrotta, C. , & Witzenberger, K. (2022). Amazon and the new
global connective architectures of education governance. Harvard Educational Review, 92,
231–256.
Zeide, E. (2020). Robot teaching, pedagogy, and policy. In M. D. Dubber , F. Pasquale , & S.
Das (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of ethics of AI. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190067397.013.51
The relational powers of platforms and infrastructures played out in

school
Aboul-Ela, A. (2015). Sublist3r. Accessed 2022-10-23 from:
https://github.com/aboul3la/Sublist3r
Bergviken Rensfeldt, A. , Hillman, T. , & Selwyn, N. (2018). Teachers ‘Liking’ Their Work?
Exploring the Realities of Teacher Facebook Groups. British Journal of Education Research,
44(2), 230–250.
Bergviken Rensfeldt, A. , & Rahm, L. (2023). Automating Teacher Work? A History of the
Politics of Automation and Artificial Intelligence in Education. Postdigital Science and Education,
5, 25–43.
Bowker, G. , & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting Things Out: Classifications and Its Consequences.
Collington, R. (2022). Disrupting the Welfare State? Digitalisation and the Retrenchment of
Public Sector Capacity. New Political Economy, 27(2), 312–328.
Crawford, K. (2021). Atlas of AI: Power, Politics and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence.
New Haven: Yale University Press.
Decuypere, M. , Grimaldi, E. , & Landri, P. (2021). Introduction: Critical Studies of Digital
Education Platforms. Critical Studies in Education, 62(1), 1–16.
Geiger, R. S. , & Ribes, D. (2011). Trace Ethnography: Following Coordination through
Documentary Practices. New York: IEEE.
Hillman, T. , Bergviken Rensfeldt, A. , & Ivarsson, J. (2020). Brave New Platforms: A Possible
Platform Future for Highly Decentralised Schooling. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(1),
7–16.
Karasti, H. , & Blomberg, J. (2018). Studying Infrastructuring Ethnographically. Computer
Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 27, 233–265.
Kerssens, N. , & van Dijck, J. (2022). Governed by Edtech? Valuing Pedagogical Autonomy in a
Platform Society. Harvard Education Review, 92(2), 284–303.
Kitchin, R. , & Lauriault, T. P. (2014). Towards Critical Data Studies: Charting and unpacking
Data Assemblages and their Work. The Programmable City Working Paper 2.
Kouzis-Loukas, D. (2016). Learning Scrapy. Learning the Art of Efficient Web Scraping and
Crawling with Python. Birmingham: Packt Publishing.
Mackenzie, A. (2010). Wirelessness: Radical Empiricism in Network Cultures. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Pangrazio, L. , Selwyn, N. , & Cumbo, B. (2022). A Patchwork of Platforms: Mapping Data
Infrastructures in Schools, Learning, Media and Technology, 48(1), 65–80.
Perrotta, C. , Gulson, K. N. , Williamson, B. , & Witzenberger, K. (2021). Automation, APIs and
the Distributed Labour of Platform Pedagogies in Google Classroom. Critical Studies in
Education, 62(1), 97–113.
Plantin, J.-C. , Lagoze, C. , Edwards, P. N. , & Sandvig, C. (2018). Infrastructure Studies meet
Platform Studies in the Age of Google and Facebook. New Media & Society, 20(1), 293–310.
SALAR . (2019). #Skoldigiplan. Nationell handlingsplan för digitalisering av skolväsendet.
[National Action Plan for School Digitalisation]. Sveriges kommuner och landsting.
SALAR . (2021). Uppföljning av Skoldigiplan. [Follow-up of the National Action Plan for School
Digitalisation]. Sveriges kommuner och regioner.
SALAR . (2023). Beställarstöd för inköp av IT i skolan: En handbok för att skapa
ändamålsenliga digitala ekosystem i skolan. [Customer Support for Purchasing IT in Schools: A
Handbook for Creating Effective Digital Ecosystems in Schools]. Sveriges kommuner och
regioner.
SALAR, The Swedish Association for Local Authorities and Regions . (2016). Classification of
Swedish Municipalities. Sveriges kommuner och landsting.
Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform Capitalism. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Star, S. L. (1999). The Ethnography of Infrastructure. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(3),
377–391.
Star, S. L. , & Bowker, G. C. (2002). How to Infrastructure. In L. A. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone
(Eds.). The Handbook of New Media (pp. 230–245). London: Sage.
Star, S. L. , & Ruhleder, K. (1996). Steps toward an Ecology of Infrastructure: Design and
Access for Large Information Spaces. Information Systems Research, 7, 111–134.
Statistics Sweden . (2022). Skolenhetsregistret. [Registry of School Units]. Accessed 2022-10-
23 from: https://www.scb.se/lamna-uppgifter/undersokningar/Skolenhetsregistret/
Swedish Edtech Industry . (2019). Standarder för datadrivna processer i skolan. [Standards for
Data-Driven Processes in Schools]. Swedish Edtech Industry.
Swedish EdTech Industry . (2022). Marknadsöversikt och branschbarometer över svensk
edtech. [Market Overview and Industry Barometer for Swedish Edtech]. Swedish EdTech
Industry.
Swedish Standards Institute . (2020). Swedish Standards 12000:2020—Information
Management—Interface for Information Exchange between School Administration Processes.
Svenska institutet för standarder.
The Swedish Internet Foundation . (2022). Svenskarna och internet. [The Swedes and Internet].
Accessed 2022-10-23 from: https://svenskarnaochinternet.se/rapporter/svenskarna-och-
internet-2022/
Van Dijck, J. , Poell, T. , & De Waal, M. (2018). Platform Society: Public Values in a Connective
World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Van Rossum, G. , & Drake Jr, F. L. (1995). Python Reference Manual. Amsterdam: Centrum
voor Wiskunde en Informatica.
Williamson, B. , Gulson, K. N. , Perotta, C. , & Witzenberger, K. (2022). Amazon and the New
Global Connective Architectures of Education Governance. Harvard Educational Review, 92(2),
231–256.
Assetisation of higher education's digital disruption

Andreotta, A. J. , Kirkham, N. , & Rizzi, M. (2022). AI, big data, and the future of consent. AI &
Society, 37(4), 1715–1728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01262-5
Atack, P. (2019, May 2). Open University & FutureLearn take £50m investment from SEEK.
The Pie News. https://thepienews.com/news/futurelearn-takes-50m-investment-from-seek-
group/
Beckert, J. (2016). Imagined Futures: Fictional Expectations and Capitalist Dynamics. Harvard
University Press.
Birch, K. (2020). Technoscience rent: Toward a Theory of rentiership for technoscientific
capitalism. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 45(1), 3–33.
Birch, K. , Chiappetta, M. , & 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2020.1748264
Birch, K. , Cochrane, D. , & Ward, C. (2021). Data as asset? The measurement, governance,
and valuation of digital personal data by Big Tech. Big Data & Society.
https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211017308
Birch, K. , & Cochrane, D. T. (2022). Big tech: Four emerging forms of digital rentiership.
Science as Culture, 31(1), 44–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2021.1932794
Birch, K. , & Muniesa, F. (Eds.). (2020). Turning Things into Assets. MIT Press.
Birch, K. , & Tyfield, D. (2013). Theorizing the bioeconomy: biovalue, biocapital, bioeconomics
or… what? Science Technology and Human Values, 38(3), 299–327.
Birch, K. , & Ward, C. (2022). Assetization and the ‘new asset geographies’. Dialogues in
Human Geography, 20438206221130810. https://doi.org/10.1177/20438206221130807
Braun, V. (2020). From Commodity to Asset and Back Again: Property in the Capitalism of
Varieties. In K. Birch & F. Muniesa (Eds.), Assetization: Turning Things into Assets in
Technoscientific Capitalism (pp. 203–224). MIT Press.
Brighteye Ventures . (2022). The European Edtech Funding Report 2022.
https://docsend.com/view/jz3gpvpdibmqqqt7
Christophers, B. (2020). Rentier Capitalism: Who Owns the Economy, and Who Pays for It?
Verso. https://cam.ldls.org.uk/vdc_100108495961.0x000001
Coursera Inc . (2021). Coursera Inc. Form S-1 Registration Stetement. United States Securities
and Exchange Commission.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1651562/000119312521071525/d65490ds1.htm
Dahlberg, L. (2017). Cyberlibertarianism. In J. F. Nussbaum (Ed.), Oxford Research
Encyclopedia of Communication. Oxford University Press. Available at:
https://oxfordre.com/communication/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/acrefore-
9780190228613-e-70 [Accessed 9 June 2021 ].
Dealroom, & Brighteye Ventures . (2022). The Evolution of Edtech: Activity in Private and Public
Markets. https://dealroom.co/reports/the-evolution-of-edtech-activity-in-private-and-public-
markets
Deloitte . (2019). IAS 38—Intangible Assets. https://www.iasplus.com/en/standards/ias/ias38
Döbereiner, C. (2022, December 29). Education marketplaces. Dealroom.Co.
https://dealroom.co/blog/education-marketplaces
Facer, K. , & Selwyn, N. (2021). Digital Technology and the futures of Education – Towards
‘Non-Stupid’ Optimism. UNESCO.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000377071.locale=en
GAO . (2022). Education Needs to Strengthen Its Approach to Monitoring Colleges’
Arrangements with Online Program Managers. United States Government Accountability Office.
Geiger, S. (2020). Silicon Valley, disruption, and the end of uncertainty. Journal of Cultural
Economy, 13(2), 169–184.
Gould, C. C. (2019). How democracy can inform consent: Cases of the internet and bioethics.
Journal of Applied Philosophy, 36(2), 173–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12360
Gulson, K. N. , Sellar, S. , & Webb, P. T. (2022). Algorithms of Education How Datafication and
Artificial Intelligence Shape Policy. University of Minnesota Press.
Hall, R. (2015). For a political economy of massive open online courses. Learning, Media and
Technology, 40(3), 265–286.
Hansen, M. , & Komljenovic, J. (2023). Automating Learning Situations in EdTech: Techno-
commercial logic of assetisation. Postdigital Science and Education, 5(1), 100–116.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-022-00359-4
Ideland, M. , & Serder, M. (2022). Edu-business within the Triple Helix. Value production
through assetization of educational research. Education Inquiry, 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2021.2019375
Ivancheva, M. P. , Swartz, R. , Morris, N. P. , Walji, S. , Swinnerton, B. J. , Coop, T. , &
Czerniewicz, L. (2020). Conflicting logics of online higher education. British Journal of Sociology
of Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2020.1784707
Koller, D. (2013). The online revolution: Learning without limits. Proceedings of the 20th
International Conference for Online Learning.
https://sloanc2013.wordpress.com/2013/11/21/moocs-the-blue-ocean-strategy/
Komljenovic, J. (2020). The future of value in digitalised higher education: Why data privacy
should not be our biggest concern. Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-
00639-7
Learning, Media and Technology, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2021.1891422
Kornberger, M. , Justesen, L. , Koed Madsen, A. , & Mouritsen, J. (2015). Introduction. In M.
Kornberger , L. Justesen , A. Koed Madsen , & J. Mouritsen (Eds.), Making Things Valuable.
Oxford Scholarship Online. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198712282.003.0001
Krippner, G. R. (2005). The financialization of the American economy. Socio - Economic
Review, 3, 173–208.
Langley, P. (2007). Uncertain subjects of Anglo-American Financialization. Cultural Critique, 65,
67–91.
Langley, P. , & Leyshon, A. (2017). Platform capitalism: The intermediation and capitalisation of
digital economic circulation. Finance and Society, 3(1), 11–31.
Lederman, D. (2021, November 17). 2U completes purchase of edX. Inside Higher Ed.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/11/17/2u-completes-purchase-edx-creating-free-
degree-platform
Lemley, M. A. (2006). Terms of use. Minnesota Law Review, 91(2), 459–483.
Lepore, J. (2014). The disruption machine. The New Yorker, 23, 30–36.
Lunden, I. (2020, November 3). Udacity raises $75M in debt, says its tech education business is
profitable after enterprise pivot. TechCrunch. https://techcrunch.com/2020/11/03/udacity-raises-
75m-in-debt-says-its-tech-education-business-is-profitable-after-enterprise-pivot/
MacKenzie, D. , Muniesa, F. , & Siu, L. (Eds.). (2007). Do Economists Make Markets? On the
Performativity of Economics. Princeton University Press.
McKenzie, L. (2021, April 9). Coursera IPO ‘seized on the right moment’. Inside Higher Ed.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/04/09/coursera-valuation-exceeds-expectations
Milyaeva, S. , & Neyland, D. (2020). English Higher Education: From a Public Good to a Public
Asset. In K. Birch & F. Muniesa (Eds.), Assetization: Turning Things into Assets in
Technoscientific Capitalism (pp. 261–285). Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Press.
Mirrlees, T. , & Alvi, S. (2019). EdTech Inc: Selling, Automating and Globalizing Higher
Education in the Digital Age. Routledge.
Obar, J. A. , & Oeldorf-Hirsch, A. (2020). The biggest lie on the Internet: Ignoring the privacy
policies and terms of service policies of social networking services. Information Communication
and Society, 23(1), 128–147.
Pappano, L. (2012). The year of the MOOC. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/education/edlife/massive-open-online-courses-are-
multiplying-at-a-rapid-pace.html
Pelletier, S. G. (2018). The evolution of online program management. UNBOUND: Reinventing
Higher Education. https://unbound.upcea.edu/leadership-strategy/continuing-education/the-
evolution-of-online-program-management/
Perrotta, C. (2018). Digital learning in the UK: Sociological reflections on an unequal
marketplace. Social Sciences, 7(10), 1–12.
Pistor, K. (2019). The Code of Capital: How the Law Creates Wealth and Inequality. Princeton
University Press.
Pistor, K. (2020). Rule by data: The end of markets? Law and Contemporary Problems, 83(2),
101–124.
Prainsack, B. (2019). Logged out: Ownership, exclusion and public value in the digital data and
information commons. Big Data & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951719829773
Ralston, S. J. (2021). Higher education’s microcredentialing craze: A postdigital-deweyan
critique. Postdigital Science and Education, 3(1), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-
00121-8
Reich, J. , & Ruipérez-Valiente, J. A. (2019). The MOOC pivot. Science, 363(6423), 130–131.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav7958
Robertson, S. L. , Mundy, K. , Verger, A. , & Menashy, F. (2012). Public Private Partnerships in
Education: New Actors and Modes of Governance in a Globalizing World. Edward Elgar.
Sadowski, J. (2020a). The internet of landlords: Digital platforms and new mechanisms of
rentier capitalism. Antipode, 52(2), 562–580.
Sadowski, J. (2020b). Too Smart: How Digital Capitalism Is Extracting Data, Controlling Our
Lives, and Taking Over the World. The MIT Press.
Savona, M. (2019). The Value of Data: Towards a Framework to Redistribute It.
https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=2019-21-swps-savona.pdf&site=25
Selwyn, N. (2013). Discourses of digital ‘disruption’ in education: A critical analysis. Fifth
International Roundtable on Discourse Analysis, City University, Hong Kong, May 23–25, 2013 .
https://www.academia.edu/4147878/Discourses_of_digital_disruption_in_education_a_critical_a
nalysis
Selwyn, N. , Hillman, T. , Bergviken Rensfeldt, A. , & Perrotta, C. (2023). Digital technologies
and the automation of education—Key questions and concerns. Postdigital Science and
Education, 5(1), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-021-00263-3
Smee, B. (2023, March 6). ‘No actual teaching’: Alarm bells over online courses outsourced by
Australian universities. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-
news/2023/mar/07/no-actual-teaching-alarm-bells-over-online-courses-outsourced-by-
australian-universities
Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform Capitalism. Polity.
Taneja, S. , & Goel, A. (2014). MOOC providers and their strategies. International Journal of
Computer Science and Mobile Computing, 35(5), 222–228.
Udemy . (2021). Instructor Terms. https://www.udemy.com/terms/instructor/
Udemy . (2023). Instructor Revenue Share. https://support.udemy.com/hc/en-
us/articles/229605008-Instructor-Revenue-Share
Veletsianos, G. , & Houlden, S. (2023). On the ‘university of the future’: A critical analysis of
cohort-based course platform Maven. Learning, Media and Technology, 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2023.2164862
Verger, A. , Lubienski, C. , & Steiner-Khamsi, G. (Eds.). (2016). World Yearbook of Education
2016: The Global Education Industry. Routledge.
Viljoen, S. (2020). Democratic data: A relational theory for data governance. Yale Law Journal,
131(2), 573–654.
Viljoen, S. , Goldenfein, J. , & McGuigan, L. (2021). Design choices: Mechanism design and
platform capitalism. Big Data & Society, 8(2), 20539517211034310.
https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211034312
Waldman, A. E. (2021). Industry Unbound. Cambridge University Press.
Watters, A. (2021). Teaching Machines: The History of Personalized Learning. MIT Press.
Williamson, B. (2017). Educating Silicon Valley: Corporate education reform and the
reproduction of the techno-economic revolution. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural
Studies, 39(3), 265–288.
Williamson, B. , & Komljenovic, J. (2022). Investing in imagined digital futures: The techno-
financial ‘futuring’ of edtech investors in higher education. Critical Studies in Education, 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2022.2081587
Williamson, B. , Macgilchrist, F. , & Potter, J. (2023). Re-examining AI, automation and
datafication in education. Learning, Media and Technology, 48(1), 1–5.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2023.2167830
Zgaga, P. (2012). Reconsidering University Autonomy and Governance: From Academic
Freedom to Institutional Autonomy. In H. G. Schuetze , W. Bruneau , & G. Grosjean (Eds.),
University Governance and Reform: Policy, Fads, and Experience in International Perspective
(pp. 11–22). Palgrave Macmillan US. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137040107_2
AI-shaped hole
Adams, V. , Murphy, M. , and Clarke, A. E. 2009. Anticipation: Technoscience, life, affect,
temporality. Subjectivity, 28(1), 246–265.
Ball, S. J. , Junemann, C. , and Santori, D. 2017. Edu.net: Globalisation and education policy
mobility. London: Routledge.
Barak Medina, E. 2021. What would a school with artificial intelligence look like? - Insights and
summary of the laboratory for artificial intelligence in education. R&D Division, Ministry of
Education (LAB Report, Hebrew).
Chan, A. 2019. Venture ed: Recycling hype, fixing futures, and the temporal order of edtech. In
Vertesi, J. et al. (Eds.), DigitalSTS: A field guide for science and technology studies (pp.
161–177), Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Chang, E. 2018. Digital meritocracy: Intermediary organizations and the construction of policy
knowledge. Educational Policy, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904818802116
Christakis, N. A. 2019. How AI will rewire us. The Atlantic.
Cuban, L. 2009. Oversold and underused. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Davies, H. C. , Eynon, R. , and Salveson, C. 2021. The mobilisation of AI in education: A
Bourdieusean field analysis. Sociology, 55(3), 539–560.
Goldfarb, B. , and Kirsch, D. A. 2019. Bubbles and crashes: The boom and bust of technological
innovation. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Goode, L. 2018. Life, but not as we know it: AI and the popular imagination. Culture Unbound,
10(2), 185–207.
Greene, D. 2021. The promise of access: Technology, inequality, and the political economy of
hope. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gulson, K. N. , Sellar, S. , and Webb, P. T. 2022. Algorithms of education: How datafication and
artificial intelligence shape policy. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Gulson, K. N. , and Webb, P. T. 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.
Knox, J. , Williamson, B. , and Bayne, S. 2020. Machine behaviourism: Future visions of
‘learnification’ and ‘datafication’ across humans and digital technologies. Learning, Media and
Technology 45(1): 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2019.162325
Leaton Gray, S. , and Kucirkova, N. 2021. AI and the human in education: Editorial. London
Review of Education, 19(1), 1–4.
Maggor, E. 2021. The politics of innovation policy: Building Israel’s ‘Neo-developmental’ State.
Politics & Society, 49(4), 451–487.
Marcus, G. 2022. Deep learning is hitting a wall. Nautilos. https://nautil.us/deep-learning-is-
hitting-a-wall-14467/?_sp=baa47b0d-796f-4e82-a2ea-a3d30cf85973.1649588017885
Means, A. J. 2021. Hypermodernity, automated uncertainty, and education policy trajectories.
Critical Studies in Education, 62(3), 371–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2019.1632912
Ministry of Education (MoE) . 2022. Artificial intelligence in education. A strategic evaluation
outline. Jerusalem: Technological Education Administration, Ministry of Education (Unit white
paper, Hebrew).
Morgenstern, O. , Pinto, I. , Vegerhof, A. , Hoffman, T. , and Loutaty, S. 2018. Future-oriented
pedagogy 2: Trends, principles, implications and applications. Jerusalem: Ministry of Education.
Nemorin, S. , Vlachidis, A. , Ayerakwa, H. M. , and Andriotis, P. 2022. AI hyped? A horizon scan
of discourse on artificial intelligence in education (AIED) and development. Learning, Media and
Technology, 48, 1–14.
Nissan-Alfi, S. R. , Gabbay-Egozi, L. , and Pagis. M. 2021. ‘Being the light unto the nation in
entrepreneurship’ the ideal of the Zionist high-tech professional in Israeli public Education.
Israeli Sociology, 22(2), 108–127.
OECD . 2021. Digital education outlook 2021: Pushing the frontiers with artificial Intelligence,
blockchain and robots. OECD.
Oomen, J. , Hoffman, J. , and Hajer, M. A. 2022. Techniques of futuring: On how imagined
futures become socially performative. European Journal of Social Theory, 25(2), 252–270.
Perrotta, C. , and Selwyn, N. 2019. Deep learning goes to school: Toward a relational
understanding of AI in education, Learning, Media and Technology.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1686017
Ramiel, H. 2019. User or student: Constructing the subject in Edtech incubator. Discourse:
Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 40(4), 487–499.
Ramiel, H. 2021. Edtech disruption logic and policy work: the case of an Israeli edtech unit.
Ramiel, H. , and Dishon, G. 2023. Future uncertainty and the production of anticipatory policy
knowledge: The case of the Israeli future-oriented pedagogy project. Discourse: Studies in the
Cultural Politics of Education, 44(1), 30–44.
Sahlgren, O. 2023. The politics and reciprocal (re)configuration of accountability and fairness in
data-driven education, Learning, Media and Technology, 48(1), 95–108.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2021.1986065
Schiff, D. 2021. Out of the laboratory and into the classroom: The future of artificial intelligence
in education. AI & Society, 36(1), 331–348.
Selwyn, N. 2013. Discourses of digital ‘disruption’ in education: A critical analysis. In Paper
presented to Fifth International Roundtable on Discourse Analysis, City University, Hong Kong,
May 23–25, 2013 .
Senor, D. , and Singer, S. 2009. Start-up nation: The story of Israel’s economic miracle. New
York: Twelve.
Slakmon, B. 2017. Educational technology policy in Israel. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 25(1),
137–149.
Tamir. E. , and Davidson, R. 2020. The good despot: Technology firms’ interventions in the
public sphere. Public Understanding of Science, 29(1), 21–36.
UNESCO . 2021. Artificial intelligence in education: Challenges and opportunities for
sustainable development. Paris: UNESCO.
Vicsek, L. 2021. Artificial intelligence and the future of work – lessons from the sociology of
expectations. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 41(7/8), 842–861.
Webb, P. T. , Sellar, S. , and Gulson, K. N. 2020. Anticipating education: Governing habits,
memories and policy-futures. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(3), 284–297.
Williamson, B. 2015. Governing methods: Policy innovation labs, design and data science in the
digital governance of education. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 47(3),
251–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2015.1038693
Williamson, B. 2017. Educating silicon valley: Corporate education reform and the reproduction
of the technoeconomic revolution. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 39(3),
265–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714413.2017.1326274
Williamson, B. , and Eynon, R. 2020. Historical threads, missing links, and future directions in AI
in education. Learning, Media and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1798995
A political economy of AI and education in China

Baruzzi, S. (2021). AI innovation zones in China: Opportunities for Foreign Investors. China
Briefing. https://www.china-briefing.com/news/ai-innovation-zones-in-china-opportunities-for-
foreign-
investors/#:~:text=On%20February%2020%2C%202021%2C%20the,Shenzhen%2C%20and%
20Jinan%2DQingdao
Chen, W. (2020). How Zhongguancun became the innovation hub powering China’s tech
aspirations. KrASIA. https://kr-asia.com/how-zhongguancun-became-the-innovation-hub-
powering-chinas-tech-aspirations
Cheng, E. (2021a). Another group of U.S.-listed China stocks plunge as Beijing regulators crack
down. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/23/us-listed-china-education-stocks-plunge-as-
beijing-regulators-crack-down.html
Cheng, Y. (2021b). Yuanfudao launches AI-powered science education product. China Daily.
https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202107/30/WS6103a021a310efa1bd6658d6.html
Deloitte . (2019). Global Artificial Intelligence Industry Whitepaper. Deloitte. 1st June.
https://www2.deloitte.com/cn/en/pages/technology-media-and-
telecommunications/articles/global-ai-development-white-paper.html
Ding, J. (2018). Deciphering China’s AI Dream: The context, components, capabilities, and
consequences of China’s strategy to lead the world in AI. Future of Humanity Institute Report.
https://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/Deciphering_Chinas_AI-Dream.pdf
Du, Z. (2018). Deputy Minister of Education Du Zhanyuan: Artificial intelligence and future
educational reform [in Chinese]. 360doc.
http://www.360doc.com/content/18/0527/10/30898787_757374036.shtml
Economist . (2019, July 13). China’s Silicon Valley is transforming China, but not yet the world.
The Economist. https://www.economist.com/china/2019/07/11/chinas-silicon-valley-is-
transforming-china-but-not-yet-the-world
Gao, X. , Song, W. and Peng, X. (2015). National innovation demonstration zones leading
China’s regional development. Modern Economy, 6, pp. 1056–1063.
https://doi.org/10.4236/me.2015.610102
Ghosh, M. (2020). Yuanfudao becomes world’s biggest Edtech Unicorn with US$2.2B funding.
Jumpstart. 23 October. https://www.jumpstartmag.com/yuanfudao-becomes-worlds-biggest-
edtech-unicorn/
Goel, A. , and Camacho, I. (2020, May 28). Squirrel AI award for artificial intelligence for the
benefit of humanity - An interview with Squirrel AI’s Richard Tong. Interactive AI Magazine.
https://interactiveaimag.org/columns/articles/interview/squirrel-ai-award-for-artificial-intelligence-
to-benefit-humanity/
Hao, K. (2019). China has started a grand experiment in AI education. It could reshape how the
world learns. MIT Technology Review.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/08/02/131198/china-squirrel-has-started-a-grand-
experiment-in-ai-education-it-could-reshape-how-the/
Kleinman, A. , Yan, Y. , Jun, J , Lee, S. , Zhang, E. , Tianshu, P. , Fei, W. , and Jinhua, G.
(2011). Deep China: The moral life of the person. Berkley: The University of California Press.
Knox, J. (2021). How the ‘taming’ of private education in China is impacting AI. On Education,
12. https://www.oneducation.net/no-12_december-2021/how-the-taming-of-private-education-in-
china-is-impacting-ai/
Larsen, B.C. (2019). China’s National AI Team: The role of National AI Open Innovation
Platforms AI Policy and China: Realities of State-Led Development, edited by G. Webster, 21-
25. Stanford-New America Digichina Project Special Report No. 1
https://newamerica.org/documents/4353/DigiChina-AI-report-20191029.pdf
Lee, K.-F. (2018). AI superpowers: China, silicon valley, and the new world order. New York:
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Lin, J. (1999). Social transformation and private education in China. Westport: Praeger
Liu, A. , Liu, N. , and Wang, A. (2022). Why can’t rural schools retain young teachers? An
analysis of the professional development of rural school teachers in China: Taking teachers in
rural western China. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 5(1).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2021.100238
Ma, R. (2021, 26 July). End of an era as China puts an end to for-profit tutoring companies. The
Report. https://www.classcentral.com/report/china-regulates-tutoring-companies/
Meehan v. Vipkid . (2021). CV 20–6370 (JS) (AKT) (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2021).
https://casetext.com/case/meehan-v-vipkid-1
MEPRC [Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China] . (2018a). Education
Informatization 2.0 Action Plan [in Chinese].
http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A16/s3342/201804/t20180425_334188.html
MEPRC [Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China] . (2018b). Action Plan for
Artificial Intelligence Innovation in Colleges and Universities.
http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A16/s7062/201804/t20180410_332722.html
MEPRC [Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China] . (2021). Opinions on Further
Reducing the Burden of Students’ Homework and Off-campus Training in Compulsory
Education. http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_xwfb/gzdt_gzdt/s5987/202107/t20210724_546566.html
Mosco, V. (2009). The Political Economy of Communication. Sage.
Ni, D. (2021, November 1). China’s tutoring ban leaves a trail of debt, anger, and broken
dreams. Sixth Tone. https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1008838
NOETG (New Oriental Education and Technology Group) . (2015). Overview.
http://www.neworiental.org/english/who/201507/8213540.html
Peterson, D. , Goode, K. , and Gehlhaus, D. (2021). AI Education in China and the United
States: A Comparative Assessment. CSET [Center for Security and Emerging Technology]
Issue Brief. September 2021. https://cset.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/CSET-AI-
Education-in-China-and-the-United-States-1.pdf
Roberts, H. , Cowls, J. , Morley, J. , Taddeo, M. , Wang, V. , and Floridi, L. (2021). The Chinese
approach to artificial intelligence: An analysis of policy, ethics, and regulation. AI & Society, 36,
pp. 59–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-00992-2
Squirrel AI . (n.d.). Homepage. http://squirrelai.com/
State Council . (2017) New generation artificial intelligence development plan. State Council.
http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/2017-07/20/content_5211996.htm
TAL [Tomorrow Enhancing Life] . (2017). Educational technology.
https://www.100tal.com/technology/
Thompson, N. (2018). The AI cold war that threatens us all. Wired.
https://www.wired.com/story/ai-cold-war-china-could-doom-us-all/
Tracxn . (2022, March 28). AI in education startups in China. Tracxn.
https://tracxn.com/explore/AI-in-Education-Startups-in-China
Vandenberg, L. (2020, December 1). EdTech in rural China. The Diplomat.
https://thediplomat.com/2020/12/edtech-in-rural-china/
Wang, P. (2001). Private education emerges in modern China: A comparative case study.
NUCB Journal of Language Culture and Communication 3(2), pp. 105–115.
Wang, X. (2019). TAL “using AI language teaching system to innovate language learning of
under-resourced students” programme.
https://aiteacher.100tal.com/file/TAL%20%E2%80%9CUsing%20AI%20Language%20Teaching
%20System%20to%20Innovate%20Language%20Learning%20of%20Under-
Resourced%20Students%E2%80%9D%20Programme%20Progressive%20Evaluation%20Rep
ort%EF%BC%881123%EF%BC%89.pdf
Wu, P. (2021). New oriental is switching from teaching English to selling vegetables. Sixth
Tone. https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1008928
Xu, W. (2018). China’s new oriental unveils AI-related education initiatives. YiCai Global.
https://www.yicaiglobal.com/news/china%E2%80%99s-new-oriental-unveils-ai-related-
education-initiatives
Xue, H. (2021, August 7). Why time’s up for China’s ‘shadow education’ industry. Sixth Tone.
https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1008175
Platforming PISA
Allen, J. (2009). Three spaces of power: Territory, networks, plus a topological twist in the tale
of domination and authority. Journal of Power, 2(2), 197–212.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17540290903064267
Allen, J. (2011). Topological twists: Power’s shifting geographies. Dialogues in Human
Geography, 1(3), 283–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/2043820611421546
Allen, J. (2016). Topologies of power: Beyond territories and networks. Oxon: Routledge.
Amin, A. (2002). Spatialities of globalisation. Environment and Planning A, 34(3), 385–399.
https://doi.org/10.1068/a3439
Andersson Schwarz, J. (2017). Platform logic: An interdisciplinary approach to the platform-
based economy. Policy & Internet, 9(4), 374–394. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.159
Ball, S. (2016). Following policy: Networks, network ethnography and education policy
mobilities. Journal of Education Policy, 31(5), 549–566.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2015.1122232
Ball, S. , & Junemann, C. (2012). Networks, new governance and education. Bristol: Policy
Press.
Candena . (2023). PISA4U: Join the PISA4U network for teachers. Retrieved March 2, 2023
from https://pisa4u.org
Cone, L. (2023). The platform classroom: Troubling student configurations in a Danish primary
school. Learning, Media and Technology, 48(1), 52–64.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2021.2010093
https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2020.1866050
Decuypere, M. , & Lewis, S. (2023). Topological genealogy: A methodology to research
transnational digital governance in/through/as change. Journal of Education Policy, 38(1),
23–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2021.1995629
Dreyer, K. , Cosma, A. , Hlinková, I. , & Henggeormation, J. (2018). Lessons learned from the
PISA4U pilot. OECD Education Working Papers, 171, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1787/5086ce28-
en
Engel, L. C. , & Rutkowski, D. (2020). Pay to play: What does PISA participation cost in the US?
Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 41(3), 484–496.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2018.1503591
Gillespie, T. (2010). The politics of ‘platforms’. New Media & Society, 12(3), 347–364.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809342738
Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, content moderation and the hidden
decisions that shape social media. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Glassman, M. (2019). DeMOOCing society: Convivial tools to systems and back again in the
information age. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 51(14), 1413–1422.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2018.1539827
Gorwa, R. (2019). What is platform governance? Information, Communication & Society, 22(6),
854–871. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2019.1573914
Grimaldi, E , & Ball, S. (2021). Paradoxes of freedom. An archaeological analysis of educational
online platform interfaces. Critical Studies in Education, 62(1), 114–129.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2020.1861043
Gulson, K. , & Sellar, S. (2019). Emerging data infrastructures and the new topologies of
https://doi.org/10.1177/0263775818813144
Gulson, K , Sellar, S. , & Webb, P.T. (2022). Algorithms of education: How datafication and
artificial intelligence shape policy. Minnneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Gulson, K. N. , & Witzenberger, K. (2022). Repackaging authority: Artificial intelligence,
automated governance and education trade shows. Journal of Education Policy, 37(1),
145–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2020.1785552
Hartong, S. , & Piattoeva, N. (2021). Contextualising the datafication of schooling: A
comparative discussion of Germany and Russia. Critical Studies in Education, 62(2), 227–242.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2019.1618887
Harvey, P. (2012). The topological quality of infrastructural relation: An ethnographic approach.
Theory, Culture & Society, 29(4–5), 76–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276412448827
Hogan, A. , & Thompson, G. (Eds.). (2021). Privatisation and commercialisation in public
education: How the public nature of schooling is changing. Oxon: Routledge.
Holloway, J. , & Lewis, S. (2022). Governing teachers through datafication: Physical-virtual
hybridity and language interoperability in teacher accountability. Big Data & Society, 9(July-
December), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517221137553
Janssen, M. , & Estevez, E. (2013). Lean government and platform-based governance: Doing
more with less. Government Information Quarterly, 30, S1–S8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.11.003
Kerssens, N. , & van Dijck, J. (2021). The platformisation of primary education in The
Netherlands. Learning, Media and Technology, 46(3), 250–263.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2021.1876725
Komljenovic, J. (2019). LinkedIn, platforming labour, and the new employability mandate for
universities. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 17(1), 28–43.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2018.1500275
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2021.1891422
Komljenovic, J. , & Robertson, S.L. (2016). The dynamics of ‘market-making’ in higher
education. Journal of Education Policy, 31(5), 622–636.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2016.1157732
Lander, N. , Lewis, S. , Nahavandi, D. , Amsbury, K. , & Barnett, L. M. (2022). Teacher
perspectives of online continuing professional development in physical education. Sport,
Education and Society, 27(4), 434–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2020.1862785
Langley, P. , & Leyshon, A. (2017). Platform capitalism: The intermediation and capitalisation of
digital economic circulation. Finance and Society, 3(1), 11–31.
https://doi.org/10.2218/finsoc.v3i1.1936
Lewis, S. (2020a). PISA, policy and the OECD: Respatialising global educational governance
through PISA for Schools. Cham: Springer Nature.
Lewis, S. (2020b). Providing a platform for ‘what works’: Platform-based governance and the
reshaping of teacher learning through the OECD’s PISA4U. Comparative Education, 56(4),
484–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2020.1769926
Lewis, S. (2022). An Apple for teacher (education)? Reconstituting teacher professional learning
and expertise via the Apple Teacher digital platform. International Journal of Educational
Research, 114, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2022.102034
Lewis, S. , & Hartong, S. (2022). New shadow professionals and infrastructures around the
datafied school: Topological thinking as an analytical device. European Educational Research
Journal, 21(6), 946–960. https://doi.org/10.1177/14749041211007496
Lewis, S. , & Lingard, B. (2023). Platforms, profits and PISA for schools: new actors, by-passes
and topological spaces in global educational governance. Comparative Education, 59(1),
99–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2022.2145006
Lingard, B. , & Rawolle, R. (2011). New scalar politics: Implications for education policy.
Comparative Education, 47(4), 489–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2011.555941
Lingard, B. , Sellar, S. , & Savage, G.C. (2014). Re-articulating social justice as equity in
schooling policy: The effects of testing and data infrastructures. British Journal of Sociology of
OECD . (2018). Join the PISA4U Network! Retrieved December 4, 2018 from
https://www.pisa4u.org
OECD . (2019). PISA4U News: Great materials, great impact! Retrieved August 9, 2019 from
https://app.pisa4u.org/course/news?page=9
OECD . (2020). PISA for Schools: International benchmarking for school improvement: Project
outline (August 2020). Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD . (2023). PISA-based Test for Schools: FAQs. Retrieved March 2, 2023 from
https://www.oecd.org/pisa/aboutpisa/pisa-based-test-for-schools-faq.htm
Perrotta, C. , Gulson, K.N. , Williamson, B. , & Witzenberger, K. (2021). Automation, APIs and
Rhodes, R.A.W. (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity
and accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Robertson, S.L. (2019). Comparing platforms and the new value economy in the academy. In R.
Gorur , S. Sellar , & G. Steiner-Khamsi (Eds.),World yearbook of education 2019: Comparative
methodology in the era of big data and global networks, (pp. 169–186). Oxon: Routledge.
Sellar, S. , & Lingard, B. (2014). The OECD and the expansion of PISA: New global modes of
governance in education. British Educational Research Journal, 40(6), 917–936.
https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3120
Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
van Dijck, J. , de Waal, M. , & Poell, T. (2018). The platform society: Public values in a
connective world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Williamson, B. (2016). Digital education governance: An introduction. European Educational
Williamson, B. (2018). Silicon startup schools: Technocracy, algorithmic imaginaries and
venture philanthropy in corporate education reform. Critical Studies in Education, 59(2),
218–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2016.1186710
Williamson, B. (2019). New power networks in educational technology. Learning, Media and
Technology, 44(4), 395–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2019.1672724
Williamson, B. (2021). Digital policy sociology: Software and science in data-intensive precision
education. Critical Studies in Education, 62(3), 354–370.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2019.1691030
Wyatt-Smith, C. , Lingard, B. , & Heck, E. (Eds.) (2021). Digital disruption in teaching and
testing: Assessments, big data and the transformation of schooling. Oxon: Routledge.
Digital literacies as a ‘soft power’ of educational governance

Avila, J. (2021). Critical Digital Literacies: Boundary Crossing Practices. Boston, MA: Brill
Publishing.
Bartlett, J. , & Tkacz, N. (2017). Governance by dashboard: A policy paper.
https://www.demos.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Demos-Governance-by-Dashboard.pdf
Bawden, D. (2001). Information and digital literacies: A review of concepts. Journal of
Documentation, 57(2), 218–259.
Beer, D. (2018). The Data Gaze: Capitalism, Power and Perception. London: SAGE
Publications.
Castells, M. (2009) Communication Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dennis, K. (2008). Keeping a close watch - the rise of self-surveillance and the threat of digital
exposure. The Sociological Review, 56(3), 347–357.
Dussel, I. , Ferrante, P. , & Sefton-Green, J. (2013). Changing Narratives of Change:
Unintended Consequences of Educational Technology Reform in Argentina. In Selwyn, N. &
Facer, K. (Eds.), The Politics of Education and Technology, London: Palgrave-MacMillan, pp.
127–145.
Frau-Meigs, D. , Kotilainen, S. , Pathak-Shelat, M. , Hoechsmann, M. , & Poyntz, S. R. (2021).
The Handbook of Media Education Research. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Gorur, R. , & Arnold, B. (2021) Governing by Dashboard: Reconfiguring Education Governance
in the Global South. In Wyatt-Smith, C. , Lingard, B. , & Heck, E. (Eds.), Digital Disruption in
Teaching and Testing: Assessments, Big Data and the Transformation of Schooling. New York
and London: Routledge.
Helmond, A. (2015). The platformatization of the web: Making web data platform ready. Social
Media + Society, July-December, 1–11.
Lankshear, C. , & Knobel, M. (2008). Digital Literacies: Concepts, Policies and Practices. New
York: Peter Lang.
Luke, A. (2018). Regrounding critical literacy: Representation, facts and reality. In D. Alvermann
, N. J. Unrau , M. Sailors , & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Literacy
(pp. 349–361). New York: Routledge.
Nemorin, S. (2017). Post-panoptic pedagogies: The changing nature of school surveillance in
the digital age. Surveillance & Society, 15(2), 239–253.
Nye, J. (2004). Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. London: Hachette.
Page, D. (2018). Conspicuous practice: Self-surveillance and commodification in English
education. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 27(4), 375–390.
Pandya, J. Z. , Mora, R. A. , Alford, J. H. , Golden, N. A. , & de Roock, R. S. (2021). The
Handbook of Critical Literacies. New York: Routledge.
Pangrazio, L. (2016). Reconceptualising critical digital literacy. Discourse: Studies in the
Cultural Politics of Education, 37(2), 163–174. doi:10.1080/01596306.2014.942836
Pangrazio, L. (2019). Technologically situated: The tacit rules of platform participation. Journal
of Youth Studies, 1–19. doi:10.1080/13676261.2019.1575345
Pangrazio, L. , Godhe, A.-L. , & Ledesma, A. G. L. (2020). What is digital literacy? A
comparative review of publications across three language contexts. E-Learning and Digital
Media, 17(6), 442–459. doi:10.1177/2042753020946291
Pangrazio, L. , & Sefton-Green, J. (2020). The social utility of ‘data literacy’. Learning, Media
and Technology, 45(2), 208–220. doi:10.1080/17439884.2020.1707223
Pangrazio, L. , Selwyn, N. , & Cumbo, B. (2022). A patchwork of platforms: Mapping the digital
infrastructures of schools. Learning, Media and Technology.
doi:10.1080/17439884.2022.2035395
Pool, C. R. (1997). A new digital literacy. Educational Leadership, 55(3), 6–11.
Pötzsch, H. (2019). Critical digital literacy: Technology in education beyond issues of user
competence and labour-market qualifications. tripleC, 17(2), 221–240.
Rose, N. (1999). Governing the Soul: Shaping of the Private Self. London: Free Association
Books.
Sefton-Green, J. (2021). Towards platform pedagogies: why thinking about digital platforms as
pedagogic devices might be useful. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education,
1–13. doi:10.1080/01596306.2021.1919999
Smoodin, E. (Ed.). (1994). Disney Discourse: Producing the Magic Kingdom (1st ed.). New
York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203873267
Tamez-Robledo, N. (2022). When it comes to edtech, how much influence do teachers have?
EdSurge. Retrieved from https://www.edsurge.com/news/2022-08-31-when-it-comes-to-edtech-
how-much-influence-do-teachers-
have?utm_campaign=EdSurgeSproutSocial&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com
Tkacz, N. (2022). Being with Data: The Dashboarding of Everyday Life. Oxford, UK: Polity.
After digital literacy

Aguilera, E. , & de Roock, R. (2022). Datafication, educational platforms, and proceduralised
ideologies. In L. Pangrazio & J. Sefton-Green (Eds.), Learning to live with datafication:
Educational case studies and initiatives from across the world (pp. 100–118). Routledge.
Alimahomed-Wilson, J. , & Reese, E. (Eds.). (2020). The cost of free shipping: Amazon in the
global economy. Pluto Press.
Àvila, J. , & Pandya, J. Z. (2012). Critical digital literacies as social praxis: Intersections and
challenges. Peter Lang.
Baron, N. S. (2015). Words onscreen: The fate of reading in a digital world. Oxford University
Press.
Bogost, I. , & Montfort, N. (2009). Platform Studies: Frequently Questioned Answers. UC Irvine:
Digital Arts and Culture 2009. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/01r0k9br
Buckingham, D. (1992). Media education: The limits of a discourse. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 24(4), 297–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027920240401
Buckingham, D. (2006). Defining digital literacy: What do young people need to know about
digital media? Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 1, 263–276.
Burgess, J. (2021). Platform studies. In S. Cunningham & D. Craig (Eds.), Creator culture: An
introduction to global social media entertainment (pp. 21–38). NYU Press.
Burnett, C. , & Merchant, G. (2020). Undoing the digital: Sociomaterialism and literacy
education. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Coiro, J. , & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by
sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading
Research Quarterly, 42(2), 214–257. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.42.2.2
Collins, J. , & Blot, R. (2003). Literacy and literacies: Texts, power, and identity. Cambridge
University Press.
Cramer, F. (2015). What is ‘post-digital’? In D. M. Berry & M. Dieter (Eds.), Postdigital
aesthetics: Art, computation, and design (pp. 12–26). Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2020.1866050
Dede, C. (2010). Comparing frameworks for 21st century skills. In J. Bellanca & R. Brandt
(Eds.), 21st century skills (pp. 51–76). Solution Tree Press.
Deye, S. (2017). Promoting digital literacy and citizenship in school. National Conference of
State Legislatures. Retrieved from: https://www.ncsl.org/research/education/promoting-digital-
literacy-and-citizenship-in-school.aspx
Dezuanni, M. (2020). Peer pedagogies on digital platforms: Learning with Minecraft Let’s Play
videos. The MIT Press.
Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2012). Thinking in the digital era: A revised model for digital literacy. Issues in
Informing Science and Information Technology, 9(2), 267–276.
Garcia, A. , Mirra, N. , Morrell, E. , Martinez, A. , & Scorza, D. (2015) The council of youth
research: Critical literacy and civic agency in the digital age. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 31(2),
151–167.
Garcia, A. , & Nichols, T. P. (2021). Digital platforms aren’t mere tools—They’re complex
environments. Phi Delta Kappan, 102(6), 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721721998148
Gillespie, T. (2010). The politics of ‘platforms’. New Media & Society, 12(3), 347–364.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809342738
Gilster, P. (1997). Digital literacy. Wiley & Sons.
Gourlay, L. , Hamilton, M. , & Lea, M. R. (2014). Textual practices in the new media digital
landscape: Messing with digital literacies. Research in Learning Technology, 21.
https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v21.21438
Gourlay, L. , & Oliver, M. (2016). It’s not all about the learner: Reframing students’ digital
literacy as sociomaterial practice. In T. Ryberg , C. Sinclair , S. Bayne , & M. de Laat (Eds.),
Research, Boundaries, and Policy in Networked Learning (pp. 77–92). Springer International
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31130-2_5
Graff, H. (1979). The literacy myth: Social studies in the nineteenth century city. Academic
Press.
Hayles, N. K. (2020). Postprint: Books and becoming computational. Columbia University Press.
Helmond, A. (2015). The platformization of the web: Making web data platform ready. Social
Media + Society, 1(2), 2056305115603080. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305115603080
Hobbs, R. (2017). Create to learn: Introduction to digital literacy. Wiley Blackwell.
Hobbs, R. (2020). Propaganda in an age of algorithmic personalization: Expanding literacy
research and practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(3), 521–533.
https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.301
Hodgin, E. , & Kohne, J. (2018). Misinformation in the information age: What teachers can do to
support students. Social Education, 82(4), 208–211.
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) (n.d.). Digital and media literacy. ISTE.
Retrieved from: https://www.iste.org/explore/category/digital-and-media-literacy
Jandrić, P. , Knox, J. , Besley, T. , Ryberg, T. , Suoranta, J. , & Hayes, S. (2018). Postdigital
science and education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 50(10), 893–899.
Jurgenson, N. (2012). When atoms meet bits: Social media, the mobile web, and augmented
revolution. Future Internet, 4, 83–91.
Kirschenbaum, M. G. (2016). Track changes: A literary history of word processing. The Belknap
Press of Harvard University Press.
Lankshear, C. (1998). Meanings of literacy in contemporary educational reform proposals.
Educational Theory, 48(3), 351–372.
Lankshear, C. , & Knobel, M. (Eds.). (2008). Digital literacies: Concepts, policies, practices.
Peter Lang.
Latour, B. (2006). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford
University Press.
Leander, K. M. , & Burriss, S. K. (2020). Critical literacy for a posthuman world: When people
read, and become, with machines. British Journal of Educational Technology.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12924
Lee, N. M. (2018). Fake news, phishing, and fraud: A call for research on digital media literacy
education beyond the classroom. Communication Education, 67(4), 460–466.
Lizárraga, J. R. , & Cortéz, A. (2019). #gentrification, cultural erasure, and the (im)possibilities
of digital queer gestures. In A. D. Kosnik & K. Feldman (Eds.), #Identity: Hashtagging race,
gender, sexuality, and nation (pp. 152–164). University of Michigan Press.
Luke, A. (2013). Regrounding critical literacy: Representation, facts, and reality. In M. R.
Hawkins (Ed.), Framing languages and literacies: Social situated views and perspectives (pp.
136–148). Routledge.
Lynch, T. L. (2017). Below the screen: Why multiliteracies research needs to embrace software.
English Journal, 106(3), 92–94.
McGurl, M. (2021). Everything and less: The novel in the age of Amazon. Verso.
Mills, K. A. (2010). A review of the ‘digital turn’ in the new literacy studies. Review of
Educational Research, 80(2), 246–271. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310364401
Monea, B. (2020). Looking at screens: Examining human-computer interaction and
communicative breakdown in an educational online writing community. Computers and
Composition, 58, 102605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2020.102605
Morrell, E. (2013). 21st century literacies, critical media pedagogies, and language arts. The
Reading Teacher, 66(4), 300–302.
Myers, M. (1996). Changing our minds: Negotiating English and literacy. National Council of
Teachers of English.
Nichols, T. P. , & Garcia, A. (2022). Platform studies in education. Harvard Educational Review,
62(2), 209–230.
Nichols, T. P. , & LeBlanc, R. J. (2020). Beyond apps: Digital literacies in a platform society.
The Reading Teacher, 74(1), 103–109.
Nichols, T. P. , & LeBlanc, R. J. (2021). Media education and the limits of ‘literacy’: Ecological
orientations to performative platforms. Curriculum Inquiry, 51(4), 389–412.
Nichols, T. P. , & Stornaiuolo, A. (2019). Assembling ‘digital literacies’: Contingent pasts,
possible futures. Media and Communication, 7(2), 14–24.
Pandya, J. Z. (2020). The uses of writing for digital video. Theory into Practice, 60(2), 194–201.
Pangrazio, L. , & Sefton-Green, J. (2020). The social utility of ‘data literacy.’ Learning, Media
and Technology, 45(2), 208–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.170722
Pangrazio, L. , Stornaiuolo, A. , Nichols, T. P. , Garcia, A. , & Philip, T. M. (2022). Datafication
meets platformization: Materializing data processes in teaching and learning. Harvard
Educational Review, 62(2), 257–283.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816661553
Price-Dennis, D. M. , & Sealey-Ruiz, Y. (2021). Advancing racial literacies in teacher education:
Activism for equity in digital spaces. Teachers College Press.
Robinson, B. (2020). The ClassDojo app: Training in the art of dividuation. International Journal
of Qualitative Studies in Education, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2020.1771460
Rowsell, J. , & Burke, A. (2009). Reading by design: Two case studies of digital reading
practices. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(2), 106–118.
https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.53.2.2
Sanchez-Cartas, J. M. , & León, G. (2021). Multisided platforms and markets: A survey of the
theoretical literature. Journal of Economic Surveys. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12409
Sefton-Green, J. (2021). Towards platform pedagogies: Why thinking about digital platforms as
pedagogic devices might be useful. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education,
1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2021.1919999
Sefton-Green, J. , Nixon, H. , & Erstad, O. (2009). Reviewing approaching and perspectives on
digital literacy. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4(2), 107–125.
Stornaiuolo, A. (2020). Authoring data stories in a media makerspace: Adolescents developing
critical data literacies. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 29(1), 89–103.
Stornaiuolo, A. , & Thomas, E. E. (2017). Disrupting educational inequalities through youth
digital activism. Review of Research in Education, 41(1), 337–357.
Street, B. V. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.
Tanksley, T. (2022). Race, education and #blacklivesmatter: How online transformational
resistance shapes the offline experiences of black college-age women. Urban Education,
00420859221092970. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420859221092970
Tierney, R. , & Pearson, D. (2021). A history of literacy education: Waves of research and
practice. Teachers College Press.
U.S. Department of Education (2022). Launching a digital literacy accelerator: An overview and
lessons learned. Retrieved from:
https://tech.ed.gov/files/2022/10/DLA_Report_Launching_Digital_Literacy_Accelerator.pdf
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2018). A global
framework of reference on digital literacy skills for indicator 4.4.2. Author. Retrieved from:
https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/ip51-global-framework-reference-digital-
literacy-skills-2018-en.pdf
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2020). Growing
digital literacy through coding. Retrieved from: https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/growing-
digital-literacy-through-coding
Vakil, S. , & Higgs, J. (2019). It’s about power. Communications of the ACM, 62(3), 31–33.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3306617
Van Dijck, J. (2013). The culture of connectivity: A critical history of social media. Oxford
University Press.
Van Dijck, J. (2020). Seeing the forest for the trees: Visualizing platformization and its
governance. New Media & Society, 1461444820940293.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820940293
Vee, A. (2017). Coding literacy: How computer programming is changing writing. The MIT
Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10655.001.0001
Warschauer, M. (2009). Digital literacy studies: Progress and prospects. In M. Baynham & M.
Prinsloo (Eds.), The future of literacy studies (pp. 123–140). Palgrave Macmillan.
Wineburg, S. , & McGrew, S. (2019). Lateral reading and the nature of expertise: Reading less
and learning more when evaluating digital information. Teachers College Record, 121(11),
1–40.
Wolf, M. (2018). Skim reading is the new normal. The effect on society is profound. The
Guardian. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/25/skim-
reading-new-normal-maryanne-wolf
Social media's education grab

Anders, G. (1962). Theses for the atomic age. The Massachusetts Review, 3(3), 493–505.
Ball, M. (2021, June 29). Framework for the metaverse. MatthewBall.vc.
https://www.matthewball.vc/all/forwardtothemetaverseprimer
Bertram, S. (2022, May 5). State and local tax incentives part of Meta expansion in DeKalb. The
Center Square. https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/state-and-local-tax-incentives-part-of-
meta-expansion-in-dekalb/article_276ac39a-cca0-11ec-a1fb-b7ef06a08f8f.html
Bishop, M. , & Green, M. (2008). Philanthrocapitalism: How giving can save the world.
Bloomsbury Press.
Bishop, M. , & Green, M. (2015). Philanthrocapitalism rising. Society, 52(6), 541–548.
Boninger, F. , Molnar, A. , & Saldaña, C. (2020). Big claims, little evidence, lots of money: The
reality behind the Summit Learning Program and the push to adopt digital personalized learning
platforms. National Education Policy Center.
Cukier, K. , & Mayer-Schoenberger, V. (2013). The rise of big data: How it’s changing the way
we think about the world. Foreign Affairs, 92(3), 28–40.
Danziger, K. (1990). Constructing the subject: Historical origins of psychological research.
Facebook . (2020, June 30). Hello DeKalb!
https://www.facebook.com/DeKalbDataCenter/videos/hello-dekalb/963238794121719/
Frenkel, S. , & Kang, C. (2021). An ugly truth: Inside Facebook’s battle for domination. Hachette
UK.
Garfield, L. (2018, May 12). Mark Zuckerberg once made a $100 million investment in a major
US city to help fix its schools — now the mayor says the effort ‘parachuted’ in and failed.
Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-schools-education-newark-mayor-
ras-baraka-cory-booker-
20185#:~:text=The%20Facebook%20founder%20gave%20%24100,improve%20the%20city%2
7s%20public%20schools
Grubbs, S. (2022, March 22). 55,000-student global school moves to metaverse education.
Medium. https://steve-grubbs.medium.com/55-000-student-global-school-moves-to-metaverse-
education-753d6db4f0c4
Haydon, S. , Jung, T. , & Russell, S. (2019). ‘You’ve Been Framed’: A critical review of
academic discourse on philanthrocapitalism. International Journal of Management Reviews,
23(3), 353–375.
Higgins, C. (2018). The death spiral of contemporary public higher education. Thresholds,
41(3), 185–200.
Hursh, D. (2007). Assessing no child left behind and the rise of neoliberal education policies.
American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 493–518.
Hursh, D. (2017). The end of public schools? The corporate reform agenda to privatize
education. Policy Futures in Education, 15(3), 389–399.
Koopman, C. (2019). How we became our data: A genealogy of the informational person.
University of Chicago Press.
Lanier, J. (2011). You are not a gadget. Vintage Books.
Lanier, J. (2017). Dawn of the new everything: Encounters with reality and virtual reality. Henry
Holt & Company.
Lanier, J. (2018). Ten arguments for deleting your social media accounts right now. Henry Holt
& Company.
Mandinach, E. B. (2012). A perfect time for data use: Using data-driven decision making to
inform practice. Educational Psychologist, 47(2), 71–85.
Mandinach, E. B. , & Gummer, E. S. (2013). A systemic view of implementing data literacy in
educator preparation. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 30–37.
Mayer, V. (2023). When do we go from here? Data center infrastructure labor, jobs, and work in
economic development time and temporalities. New Media & Society, 25(2), 307–323.
McGoey, L. (2012). Philanthrocapitalism and its critics. Poetics, 40(2), 185–199.
Meta . (2021, October 28). Introducing Meta: A social technology company.
https://about.fb.com/news/2021/10/facebook-company-is-now-meta/
Meta . (2023a). Create, learn and grow in the metaverse. https://about.meta.com/immersive-
learning/
Meta . (2023b). Meta data centers. https://datacenters.fb.com/
Meta . (2023c). Our story: Enter the future of learning. https://about.meta.com/immersive-
learning/our-story/
Meta . (n.d.). Community action grants. https://datacenters.fb.com/grants/
Miller, R. (2023, February 2). Meta will run its servers for up to 5 years. Data Center Frontier.
https://www.datacenterfrontier.com/hyperscale/article/21548840/meta-will-abandon-some-data-
center-builds-run-servers-longer
NIU Today . (2022, November 21). Goggles on, paddles in hand: NIU serves as pilot
‘metaversity’ to test VR teaching. https://niutoday.info/2022/11/21/goggles-on-paddles-in-hand-
niu-serves-as-pilot-metaversity-to-test-vr-teaching/
Ravitch, D. (2013). Reign of error: The hoax of the privatization movement and the danger to
America’s public schools. Vintage Books.
Reuters Staff . (2012, February 1). Zuckerberg’s letter to investors. Reuters.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-letter/zuckerbergs-letter-to-investors-
idUSTRE8102MT20120201
Rose, N. (1996). Inventing our selves: Psychology, power, and personhood. Cambridge
University Press.
Saltman, K. (2010). The gift of education: public education and venture philanthropy. Palgrave
Macmillan.
Saltman, K. (2018). The swindle of innovative educational finance. University of Minnesota
Press.
Siebrasse, K. (2011, Nov–Dec). Fiber is the future. DeKalb County InVironments Magazine,
28–32. https://dekalbcounty.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/imo-data-invironmentsmag.pdf
The Oprah Winfrey Show . (2010, September 24). Mark Zuckerberg announces $100 million
grant [Video].OWN. https://www.oprah.com/own-oprahshow/mark-zuckerbergs-big-
announcement-video
VanLear, S. , Clark-Sutton, K. , Gonzalez, M. , Brown, E. , Lim, B. , Depro, B. (2020). The
impact of Facebook’s U.S. data center fleet. RIT International.
VictoryXR . (2023a). About Us. https://www.victoryxr.com/about-us/
VictoryXR . (2023b). Your digital twin metaversity construction company.
https://www.victoryxr.com/metaversity-construction/
Watters, A. (2015, February 25). How Steve Jobs brought the Apple II to the classroom. Hack
Education. http://hackeducation.com/2015/02/25/kids-cant-wait-apple
Watters, A. (2021). Teaching machines: The history of personalized learning. The MIT Press.
Williamson, B. (2020). Re-engineering the infrastructure of performance-based accountability:
For-profit philanthropy, learning sciences, and automated education at the Chan–Zuckerberg
Initiative. In S. Grek , C. Maroy , & A. Verger (Eds.), World yearbook of education:
Accountability and datafication in the governance of education (pp. 59–75). Routledge.
Williamson, B. (2022). Governing through infrastructural control: Artificial intelligence and cloud
computing in the data-intensive state. In W. Housley , A. Edwards , R. Beneito-Montagut , & R.
Fitzgerald (Eds.), The Sage handbook of digital society. SAGE.
Womack, A. (2022). The matter of black living: The aesthetic experiment of racial data,
1880–1930. University of Chicago Press.
Zizek, S. (2009). Violence. Profile Books.
Algorithmic bias and discrimination through digitalisation in education

Adam, T. (2019). Digital neocolonialism and massive open online courses (MOOCs): colonial
pasts and neoliberal futures, Learning, Media and Technology, 44(3), pp. 365–380.
Baker, R. S. and Hawn, A. (2022). Algorithmic bias in education, International Journal of
Artificial Intelligence in Education, 32(4), pp. 1052–1092.
Barocas, S. , Hardt, M. and Narayanan, A. (2019). Fairness and machine learning: limitations
and opportunities. https://fairmlbook.org
Berendt, B. , Littlejohn, A. and Blakemore, M. (2020). AI in education: learner choice and
fundamental rights, Learning, Media and Technology, 45(3), pp. 312–324.
Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control, and identity: theory, research, critique.
Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.
Birhane, A. (2021). Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach, Patterns, 2(2).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2021.100205
Birhane, A. , Prabhu, V. U. and Kahembwe, E. (2021). Multimodal datasets: misogyny,
pornography, and malignant stereotypes. https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.01963
Boellstorff, T. (2013). Making big data, in theory, First Monday, 18(10).
https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v18i10.4869
Boninger, F. , Molnar, A. and Murray, K. (2017). Asleep at the switch: schoolhouse
commercialism, student privacy, and the failure of policymaking. National Education Policy
Center. Available at. https://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/schoolhouse-commercialism-2017
(Accessed: 5 January 2023 )
Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J. C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture. 2nd
edn. London: Sage.
Buolamwini, J. and Gebru, T. (2018). Gender shades: intersectional accuracy disparities in
commercial gender classification, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research Conference on
Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, New York, 23–24 February .
https://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/buolamwini18a.html
Crawford, K. (2021). The atlas of AI: power, politics, and the planetary costs of artificial
intelligence. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Crenshaw, Kimberlé Williams (1989). Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A
Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics.
University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989, pp. 139–167.
D'Ignazio, C. and Klein, L. (2019). Data feminism. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Denton, E. , Hanna, A. , Amironesei, R. , Smart, A. and Nicole, H. (2021). On the genealogy of
machine learning datasets: a critical history of imagenet, Big Data & Society, 8(2).
https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211035955
Dixon-Román, E. , Nichols, T. P. and Nyame-Mensah, A. (2020). The racializing forces of/in AI
educational technologies, Learning, Media and Technology, 45(3), pp. 236–250.
Eynon, R. (2022). Datafication and the role of schooling. In Pangrazio, L. & Sefton-Green, J.
(Eds.), Learning to live with datafication: educational case studies and initiatives from across the
world. London: Routledge.
Eynon, R (2023). The future trajectory of the AIED community: defining the ‘knowledge tradition’
in critical times, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, iFirst
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-023-00354-1
Facer, K. and Selwyn, N. (2021). Digital technology and the futures of education: towards ‘non-
stupid’ optimism. Paris: UNESCO. Available at,
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000377071 (Accessed: 5 January 2023 ).
Fischer, C. , Parados, Z. and Baker, R. (2020). Mining big data in education: affordances and
challenges, Review of Research in Education, 44(1), pp. 130–160.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum books.
Funes, M. and Mackness, J. (2018). When inclusion excludes: a counter narrative of open
online education, Learning, Media and Technology, 43(2), pp. 119–138.
Furlong, J. and Whitty, G. (2017). Knowledge traditions in the study of education. Knowledge
and the study of education: An international exploration, pp. 13–57.
Garcia, A. and Lee, C. H. (2020). Equity-centered approaches to educational technology. In M.
J. Bishop , E. Boling , J. Elen , & V. Svihla (Eds.), Handbook of research in educational
communications and technology, pp. 247–261. Springer. New York.
Gillani, N. , Chu, E. , Beeferman, D. , Eynon, R. and Roy, D. (2021). Parents’ online school
reviews reflect several racial and socioeconomic disparities in K–12 education, AERA Open, 7.
https://doi.org/10.1177/233285842199234
Green, B. (2021). Data science as political action: grounding data science in a politics of justice.
Journal of Social Computing, 2(3), pp. 249–265.
Green, B. and Hu, L. (2018). The myth in the methodology: towards a recontextualization of
fairness in machine learning. Machine Learning: The Debates Workshop at the 35th
International Conference on Machine Learning.
https://www.benzevgreen.com/wpcontent/uploads/2019/02/18-icmldebates.pdf
Hakimi, L. , Eynon, R. and Murphy, V. (2021). The ethics of using digital trace data in education:
a thematic review of the research landscape, Review of Educational Research. 91(5), pp.
671–717.
Hanna, A. , Denton, E. , Smart, A. and Smith-Loud, J. (2020). Towards a critical race
methodology in algorithmic fairness, Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness,
Accountability, and Transparency, Barcelona, January 27–30 . https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.03593
Hershkovitz, A. and Alexandron, G. (2020). Understanding the potential and challenges of big
data in schools and education, Tendencias pedagógicas, 35, pp. 7–17.
Hoffmann, A. L. (2019). Where fairness fails: data, algorithms, and the limits of
antidiscrimination discourse, Information, Communication & Society, 22(7), 900–915.
Holmes, W. (2023). AIED—Coming of Age? International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in
Education, iFirst https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-023-00352-3
Holmes, W. and Porayska-Pomsta, K. (Eds.). (2022). The ethics of artificial intelligence in
education: practices, challenges, and debates. Taylor & Francis.
Holstein, K. and Doroudi, S. (2021). Equity and artificial intelligence in education: will AIEd
amplify or alleviate inequities in education? https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2104.12920
Kizilcec, R. F. and Lee, H. (2022). Algorithmic fairness in education. In Holmes, W. & Porayska-
Pomsta, K. (Eds.), Ethics in artificial intelligence in education: current challenges, practices and
debates. London: Routledge.
Madaio, M. , Blodgett, S. L. , Mayfield, E. and Dixon-Román, E. (2022). Beyond ‘fairness’:
structural (in) justice lenses on AI for education. In Holmes, W. & Porayska-Pomsta, K. (Eds.),
Ethics in artificial intelligence in education: current challenges, practices and debates. London:
Routledge.
Mayfield, E. , Madaio, M. , Prabhumoye, S. , Gerritsen, D. , McLaughlin, B. , Dixon-Román, E.
and Black, A. W. (2019). Equity beyond bias in language technologies for education,
Proceedings of the Fourteenth Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational
Applications, Florence, August . https://aclanthology.org/volumes/W19-44/
McStay, A. (2020). Emotional AI and EdTech: serving the public good? Learning, Media and
Technology, 45(3), pp. 270–283.
Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: how search engines reinforce racism. New York:
NYU Press.
Paquette, L. , Ocumpaugh, J. , Li, Z. , Andres, A. and Baker, R. (2020). Who’s learning? Using
demographics in EDM research, Journal of Educational Data Mining, 12(3), pp. 1–30.
Rafalow, M. H. and Puckett, C. (2022). Sorting machines: digital technology and categorical
inequality in education. Educational Researcher, 51(4), pp. 274–278.
Regan, P. M. and Jesse, J. (2019). Ethical challenges of edtech, big data and personalized
learning: twenty-first century student sorting and tracking, Ethics and Information Technology,
21(3), pp. 167–179.
Robinson, L. , Chen, W. , Schulz, J. and Khilnani, A. (2018). Digital inequality across major life
realms, American Behavioral Scientist, 62(9), 1159–1166.
Schiff, D. (2022). Education for AI, not AI for education: the role of education and ethics in
national AI policy strategies, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 32(3),
pp. 527–563.
Suresh, H. and Guttag, J. V. (2020). A framework for understanding unintended consequences
of machine learning. https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.10002v3
Warschauer, M. (2004). Technology and social inclusion: rethinking the digital divide.
Cambridge: MIT press.
Williamson, B. and Eynon, R. (2020). Historical threads, missing links, and future directions in
AI in education, Learning, Media and Technology, 45(3), pp. 223–235.
Williamson, B. , Eynon, R. , Knox, J. and Davies, H. (2023). Critical perspectives on AI in
education: political economy, discrimination, commercialisation, governance and ethics. In Du
Boulay, B. , Mitrovic, T. & Yacef, K. (Eds.), The handbook of artificial intelligence in education.
London: Routledge.
Winters, N. , Eynon, R. , Geniets, A. , Robson, J. and Kahn, K. (2020). Can we avoid digital
structural violence in future learning systems? Learning, Media and Technology, 45(1), pp.
17–30.
Zeide, E. (2017). The structural consequences of big data-driven education, Big Data, 5(2), pp.
164–172.
Digitalisation of education in the era of climate collapse and planetary

breakdown
Ale, H. (2021). Why climate emergency and climate justice can’t go hand in hand. The
Sociological Review. July 23rd. https://doi.org/10.51428/tsr.ohpe8915
Amoore, L. (2020). Why ‘ditch the algorithm’ is the future of political protest. The Guardian,
August 19th, www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/19/ditch-the-algorithm-generation-
students-a-levels-politics
Becker, S. and Otto, D. (2019). Digital learning and sustainable development. In Leal Filho, W.
(ed.) Encyclopedia of sustainability in higher education. Springer.
Boston Consulting Group . (2022, October 27). Technology Is the Fast Track to Net Zero.
BCG.com: https://www.bcg.com/publications/2022/using-technology-helps-companies-measure-
and-reduce-emissions
Brevini, B. (2021). Is AI good for the planet? Polity.
Burbules, N. , Fan, G. and Repp, P. (2020). Five trends of education and technology in a
sustainable future. Geography and Sustainability 1(2): 93–97.
Büscher, B. , Feola, G. and Fischer, A. (2021). Planning for a world beyond COVID-19. World
Development 140: 105357.
Caird, S. , Lane, A. , Swithenby, E. , Roy, R. and Potter, S. (2015). Design of higher education
teaching models and carbon impacts. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education
16(1): 96–111.
Caird, S. and Roy, R. (2019). Blended learning and sustainable development. In Leal Filho, W.
(ed.) Encyclopedia of sustainability in higher education. Springer (pp. 107–116).
Compudanzas . (2022). Low-level programming. February, https://compudanzas.net/low-
level.html
Crary, J. (2022). Scorched earth. Verso.
Decker, K. , Abbing, R. and Otsuka, M. (2020). How sustainable is a solar powered website?
Low-Tech Magazine, www.lowtechmagazine.com/2020/01/how-sustainable-is-a-solar-powered-
website.html
Dillet, B. and Hatzisavvidou, S. (2022). Beyond technofix. Contemporary Political Theory 21:
351–372.
Facer, K. and Selwyn, N. (2021). Digital technology and the futures of education: towards ‘non-
stupid’ optimism. UNESCO, Futures of Education Initiative.
Fox, N. (2023). Green capitalism, climate change and the technological fix. The Sociological
Review, 00380261221121232.
Gallagher, M. (2019). Educational unsustainability in sub-Saharan Africa. Visions for
Sustainability 12: 40–51. http://doi.org/10.13135/2384-8677/4040
Gismondi, A. and Osteen, L. (2017). Student activism in the technology age. New Directions for
Student Leadership, 153: 63–74.
Heikkilä, V. (2021). Permacomputing update 2021. http://viznut.fi/texts-
en/permacomputing_update_2021.html
Heikkurinen, P. (2018). Degrowth by means of technology? Journal of Cleaner Production 197:
1654–1665.
Hickel, J. (2020). We need a new green deal without growth.
www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2020/10/19/we-need-a-green-new-deal-without-growth
Hickel, J. (2021). Less is more: how degrowth will save the world. Penguin.
Hogan, M. (2018). Big data ecologies. Ephemera 18(3): 631–657.
Hulme, M. (2011). Reducing the future to climate. Osiris 26(1): 245–266.
Kallis, G. , Paulson, S. , D'Alisa, G. and Demaria, F. (2020). The case for degrowth. Polity.
Kennedy, K. (2022). Remote proctoring services are facing legal, legislative challenges. Teen
Vogue, October 20th, www.teenvogue.com/story/remote-proctoring-services-lawsuits
Lange, S. and Santarius, T. (2020). Smart green world. Routledge.
Latouche, S. (2009). Farewell to growth. Polity.
Macgilchrist, F. (2021). Rewilding technology. On Education (12): www.oneducation.net/no-
12_december-2021/rewilding-technology/
Macgilchrist, F. , Allert, H. and Bruch, A. (2020). Students and society in the 2020s. Learning,
Media and Technology 45(1): 76–89.
Macgilchrist, F. , Potter, J. and Williamson, B. (2021). Shifting scales of research on learning,
media and technology. Learning, Media and Technology 46(4): 369–376.
McQuillan, D. (2022). Resisting AI. Bristol University Press.
Meadows, D. , Meadows, D. , Randers, J. and Behrens, W. , (1972). The limits to growth.
Universe Books.
Mendes, M. (2022). Big tech firms and the politics of climate change. Unpublished PhD thesis –
Universidade de Brasília.
Monserrate, S. (2022). The cloud is material. MIT case studies in social and ethical
responsibilities of computing, Winter 2022.
Pargman, D. and Wallsten, B. (2017). Resource scarcity and socially just internet access over
time and space. In Proceedings of the 2017 Workshop on Computing Within Limits (pp. 29–36).
Piattoeva, N. (2021). On the tight grip of the modernist sentiment and the need to decentre the
human in critical studies of digital education technology. October 14th, www.edu-
digitalinequality.org/2021/10/14/on-the-tight-grip-of-the-modernist-sentiment-and-the-need-to-
decenter-the-human-in-critical-studies-of-digital-education-technology/
Rosenberger, R. (2021). Against spectatorial utopianism. AI & Society. doi.org/10.1007/s00146-
021-01254-5
Santarius, T. Bieser, J. , Frick, V. , Höjer, M. , Gossen, M. , Hilty, L. , Kern, E. , Pohl, J. , Rohde,
F. and Lange, S. (2022). Digital sufficiency. Annals of Telecommunications,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12243-022-00914-x
Schumacher, E. (1973). Small is beautiful. Blond & Briggs.
Sekulova, F. , Kallis, G. , Rodríguez-Labajos, B. and Schneider, F. (2013). Degrowth: from
theory to practice. Journal of Cleaner Production 38: 1–6.
Selwyn, N. (2021). Ed-tech within limits: anticipating educational technology in times of
environmental crisis. E-Learning & Digital Media 18(5): 496–510.
Selwyn, N. , Hillman, T. , Eynon, R. , Ferreira, G. , Knox, J. , Macgilchrist, F. and Sancho-Gil, J.
(2020). What’s next for Ed-Tech? Learning Media & Technology 45(1): 1–6.
Siddarth, D. and Nabben, K. (2021). What tech futurists get wrong about human autonomy.
Noema, December 9th, https://www.noemamag.com/ai-blockchain-human-autonomy-future/
Sultana, F. (2022). The unbearable heaviness of climate coloniality. Political Geography 99:
102638.
Taffel, S. (2023). Data and oil. New Media & Society 25(3): 980–998.
Vanderbauwhede, W. (2022). Low carbon and sustainable computing.
http://dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wim/low-carbon-computing/index.html
Versteijlen, M. , Salgado, F. , Groesbeek, M. and Counotte, A. (2017). Pros and cons of online
education as a measure to reduce carbon emissions in higher education in the Netherlands.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 28: 80–89.
Werse, N. (2023). The quest to cultivate an ecocritical awareness in educational technology
scholarship. British Journal of Educational Technology, https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13327
The EdTech Stack

Allhoff, F. & Henschke, A. (2018). The internet of things: foundational ethical issues. Internet of
Things, 1, 55–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iot.2018.08.005
Alombert, A. (2022). From computer science to ‘Hermeneutic Web’: towards a contributory
design for digital technologies. Theory, Culture & Society, 39(7–8), 35–48.
https://doi.org/10.1177/02632764221141684
Amoore, L. (2020). Cloud ethics: algorithms and the attributes of ourselves and others. Durham
and London: Duke University Press.
Arendt, H. (1958). The human condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Auger, J. (2013). Speculative design: crafting the speculation. Digital Creativity, 24(1), 11–35.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2013.767276
Barendregt, L. & Vaage, N.S. (2021). Speculative design as thought experiment. She Ji, 7(3),
374–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2021.06.001
Barthe, Y. , Meyer, M. & Sundqvist, G. (2022). Technical problematisation: a democratic way to
deal with contested projects?. Science Technology and Society, 27(1), 7–22.
https://doi.org/10.1177/097172182199558
Bratton, B. (2015). The stack: on software and sovereignty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
https://direct.mit.edu/books/book/3504/The-StackOn-Software-and-Sovereignty
Callon, M. , Lascoumes, P. & Barthe, Y. (2009). Acting in an uncertain world: an essay on
technical democracy, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Castañeda, L. & Williamson, B. (2021). Assembling new toolboxes of methods and theories for
innovative critical research on educational technology. Journal of New Approaches in
Educational Research, 10(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2021.1.703
Crawford, K. (2022). Atlas of AI. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Dunne, A. & Raby, F. (2013). Speculative everything: design, fiction, and social dreaming.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Easterling, K. (2014). Extrastatecraft: the power of infrastructure. New York: Verso Books.
Easterling, K. (2021). Medium design. New York: Verso Books.
Edtech Equity Project (2022). Edtech Equity Projects. https://www.edtechequity.org/projects
Edwards, P.N. (2010). A vast machine: computer models, climate data, and the politics of global
warming. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Farías, I. & Blok, A. (2016). Technical democracy as a challenge to urban studies, City, 20(4),
539–548. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2016.1192418
Fourcade, M. & Gordon, J. (2020). Learning like a state: statecraft in the digital age. Journal of
Law and Political Economy, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.5070/LP61150258. Retrieved from
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3k16c24g
Fredette, J.M. , Marom, R. , Steinert, K. , & Witters, L.R. (2012). The promise and peril of
hyperconnectivity for organizations and societies. The Global Information Technology Report,
Chapter 1.10 (pp. 113–119). World Economic Forum.
Gourlay, L. (2022). Surveillance and datafication in higher education: documentation of the
human. Postdigit Sci Educ. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-022-00352-x
GovUk . (2022). Protections of biometric data of children in schools and colleges. Department of
Education.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fi
le/1092507/Biometrics_Guidance_July_2022.pdf
Gulson, K. , Thompson, G. , Swist, T. , Kitto, K. , Rutkowski, L. , Rutkowski, D. , Hogan, A. ,
Zhang, V. & Knight, S. (2022). Automated Essay Scoring in Australian Schools: key Issues and
Recommendations . White Paper, November 2022. Education Innovations White Paper Series
ISSN 2653-6749. Sydney Social Sciences and Humanities Advanced research Centre
(SSSHARC). University of Sydney, Australia. https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/29760
Gulson, K. N. , Lewis, S. , Lingard, B. , Lubienski, C. , Takayama, K. & Taylor Webb, P. (2017).
Policy mobilities and methodology: a proposition for inventive methods in education policy
studies. Critical Studies in Education, 58(2), 224–241.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2017.1288150
Gulson, K. N. & Sellar, S. (2019). Emerging data infrastructures and the new topologies of
https://doi.org/10.1177/0263775818813144
Hartong, S. (2016). Between assessments, digital technologies and big data: the growing
influence of ‘hidden’ data mediators in education. European Educational Research Journal,
15(5), 523–536. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904116648966
Hayles, K. N. (2017). Unthought: The Power of the Cognitive Unconscious. Chicago. University
of Chicago Press.
Hayles, K. (2021). Three species challenges. Toward a general ecology of cognitive
assemblages. In S. Lindberg & H-R Roine (Eds.), The ethos of digital environments (pp. 27–45).
Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/The-Ethos-of-Digital-Environments-Technology-Literary-
Theory-and-Philosophy/Lindberg-Roine/p/book/9780367643270
Hayles, N.K. (2022). Ethics for cognitive assemblages: who’s in charge here?. In S. Herbrechter
, I. Callus , M. Rossini , M. Grech , M. de Bruin-Molé & C. J. Müller (Eds.), Palgrave handbook
of critical posthumanism. Palgrave Macmillan.
https://link.springer.com/referencework/10.1007/978-3-030-42681-1
Hernandez-de-Menendez, M. , Morales-Menendez, R. , Escobar, C.A. et al. (2021). Biometric
applications in education. International Journal on Interaction Design and Manufacturing, 15,
365–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-021-00760-6
Howard, S. , Swist, T. , Gasevic, D. , Bartimote, K. , Knight, S. , Gulson, K. , Apps, T. , Peloche,
J. , Hutchinson, N. & Selwyn, N. (2022). Educational data journeys: where are we going, what
are we taking and making for AI?. Computers & Education Artificial Intelligence, 3(100073), 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100073
King, P. & Persson, J . (2022). The State of Biometrics 2022: a review of policy and practice
around biometric data in UK education. https://defenddigitalme.org/wp-
content/uploads/2022/05/The-State-of-Biometrics-in-UK-education-2022-v1.3.pdf
Komljenovic, J. (2021). The rise of education rentiers: digital platforms, digital data and rents.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2021.1891422
Lury, C. & Wakeford, N. (2012). Introduction. A perpetual inventory. In C. Lury & N. Wakeford
(Eds.), Inventive methods: the happening of the social (pp. 1–23). New York: Routledge.
Macgilchrist, F. (2021) What is ‘critical’ in critical studies of edtech? Three responses. Learning,
Media and Technology, 46(3), 243–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2021.1958843
Macgilchrist, F. , Potter, J. & Williamson, B. (2021). Shifting scales of research on learning,
media and technology. Learning, Media and Technology, 46(4), 369–376.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2021.1994418
Mendoza, J.M.F. , Gallego-Schmid, A. & Azapagic, A. , (2019). A methodological framework for
implementation of circular economy thinking in higher education institutions: towards
sustainable campus management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 226, 831–834.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652619311370?via%3Dihub
Mu, S. , Cui, M. & Huang, X. (2020). Multimodal data fusion in learning analytics: a systematic
review. Sensors, 20(23), 6856. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20236856
Nowotny, H. (2003). Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge, Science and
Public Policy, 30(3), 151–156. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154303781780461
Pasquale, F. (2020). New laws of robotics: defending human expertise in the age of AI.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Perrotta, C. (2021). Programming the platform university: learning analytics and predictive
https://doi.org/10.1177/0034523720965623
Reidenberg, J. , Cameron, R. N. , Kovnot, J. , Norton, T. B. , Cloutier, R. & Alvarado, D. (2013).
Privacy and cloud computing in public schools. Center on Law and Information Policy.
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/clip/2
Rivas, A. (2021). The platformization of education: a framework to map the new directions of
hybrid education systems. UNESCO International Bureau of Education. In-Progress Reflection
No. 46. On Current and Critical Issues in Curriculum, Learning and Assessment.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000377733
Ross, J. (2017). Speculative method in digital education research. Learning, Media and
Technology, 42(2), 214–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2016.1160927
Ruipérez-Valiente, J. A. , Martínez-Maldonado, R. , Di Mitri, D. & Schneider, J. (2022). From
sensor data to educational insights. Sensors, 22(21), 8556. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22218556
Sellar, S. & Gulson, K. N. (2021) Becoming information centric: the emergence of new cognitive
infrastructures in education policy. Journal of Education Policy, 36(3), 309–326.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2019.1678766\
Selwyn, N (2018, Oct 25). EdTech is killing us all: facing up to the environmental consequences
of digital education. Education Futures, Monash University.
https://lens.monash.edu/@education/2018/10/25/1363185/edtech-is-killing-us-all
Selwyn, N. (2021). Ed-tech within limits: anticipating educational technology in times of
environmental crisis. E-Learning and Digital Media, 18(5), 496–510.
https://doi.org/10.1177/20427530211022951
Selwyn, N. (2023). Digital degrowth: toward radically sustainable education technology.
Selwyn, N. , Hillman, T. , Eynon, R. , Ferreira, G. , Knox, J. , Macgilchrist, F. & Sancho-Gil, J. M.
(2020). What’s next for Ed-tech? critical hopes and concerns for the 2020s, Learning, Media
and Technology, 45(1), 1–6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1694945
Sharma, K. & Giannakos, M. (2020). Multimodal data capabilities for learning: what can
multimodal data tell us about learning? British Journal of Educational Technology 51(5):
1450–1484. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12993
Southgate, E. (2020). Artificial intelligence, ethics, equity and higher education: a ‘beginning-of-
the-discussion’ paper. https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Southgate_AI-
Equity-Higher-Education_FINAL.pdf
Stengers, I. (2021). Putting problematization to the test of our present. Theory, Culture &
Society, 38(2): 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276419848061
Stiegler, B. (2016). Automatic society: volume 1, The future of work. Translated by Daniel Ross
. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Swirski, T. (2013). Towards the “digital creativity of action”. In K. C. Lee (Ed.), Digital creativity:
individuals, groups and organizations (pp. 139–149). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5749-
7_10
Swist, T. & Collin, P. (2017). Platforms, data and children’s rights: introducing a ‘networked
capability approach’. New Media and Society, 19(5), 671–685.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816686319
Swist, T. , Humphry, H. & Gulson. K. (2023). Pedagogic encounters with algorithmic system
controversies. Learning Media and Technology.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2023.2185255
Thompson, G. , Gulson, K.N. , Swist, T. & Witzenberger, K. (2022). Responding to
sociotechnical controversies in education: a modest proposal toward technical democracy,
Thylstrup, N. , Flyverbom, M. & Helles, R. (2019). Datafied knowledge production: introduction
to the special theme. Big Data & Society, 6(2), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951719875985
UNESCO . (2021). Reimagining our futures together: a new social contract for education.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379707.locale=en
Wark, M. & Jandrić, P. (2016). New knowledge for a new planet: critical pedagogy for the
Anthropocene, Open Review of Educational Research, 3(1), 148–178.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23265507.2016.1217165
Wilkins, A. & Olmedo, A. (2019). Introduction: conceptualizing education governance: framings,
perspectives and theories. In A. Wilkins & A. Olmedo (Eds.), Education governance and social
theory: interdisciplinary approaches to research (pp. 1–20). London, UK: Bloomsbury.
Williamson, B. (2015). Educating the smart city: schooling smart citizens through computational
urbanism. Big Data & Society, 2(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.10.1177/2053951715617783
Williamson, B. (2016). Digital education governance: an introduction. European Educational
Williamson, B. (2021). Meta-edtech. Learning, Media and Technology, 46(1), 1–5.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2021.1876089
Williamson, B. , Gulson, K.N. , Perrotta, C. & Witzenberger, K. (2022). Amazon and the new
global connective architectures of education governance. Harvard Educational Review, 92(2),
231–256. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-92.2.231
Design justice and educational technology

Adamczak, B. (2017). Beziehungsweise Revolution. 1917, 1968 und kommende. Suhrkamp.
Allert, H. (2019). Plattformökonomie und Entstaatlichung: Familienorientiert, ortsunabhängig
und #freilernend. In V. Dander , P. Bettinger , E. Ferraro , C. Leineweber , & K. Rummler (Eds.),
Digitalisierung – Subjekt – Bildung: Kritische Betrachtungen der digitalen Transformation (pp.
183–212). Verlag Barbara Budrich.
Bali, M. , & Sharma, S. (2014). Bonds of Difference: Illusions of Inclusion. Hybrid Pedagogy,
Alterity CFP. https://hybridpedagogy.org/bonds-difference-illusions-inclusion/
Beal, F. (1969). Black Women’s Manifesto; Double Jeopardy: To Be Black and Female.
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/196.html
Berlant, L. (2011). Cruel Optimism. Duke University Press.
Bessette, L. S. (2022). Digital Redlining, Minimal Computing, and Equity. In S. Koseoglu , G.
Veletsianos , & C. Rowell (Eds.), Critical Digital Pedagogy – Broadening Horizons, Bridging
Theory and Practice. Athabasca University Press.
Bieling, T. , & Joost, G. (2018). Technikgestaltung und Inklusion – Behinderung im
Spannungsfeld von Technologie und Design. In IT für soziale Inklusion (pp. 11–28).
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110561371-002
Brock, A. J. (2020). Distributed Blackness. African American Cybercultures. New York
University Press.
Buckingham Shum, S. (2022). The UTS “EdTech Ethics” Deliberative Democracy Consultation:
Rationale, Process and Outcomes. University of Technology Sydney.
https://cic.uts.edu.au/projects/edtech-ethics/
Burke, K. , & Larmar, S. (2021). Acknowledging another face in the virtual crowd: Reimagining
the online experience in higher education through an online pedagogy of care. Journal of
Further and Higher Education, 45(5), 601–615. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2020.1804536
Collier, A. (2020). Inclusive Design and Design Justice: Strategies to Shape Our Classes and
Communities. EduCauseReview.
Collins, P. H. (1990). Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of
Empowerment. Unwin Hyman.
Costanza-Chock, S. (2020). Design Justice: Community-Led Practices to Build the World We
Need. MIT Press. https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/43542
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence
against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039
Czerniewicz, L. , & Cronin, C. (Eds.). (2023). Higher Education for Good. Open Humanities
Press.
Dabiri, E. (2021). What White People Can Do Next. From Allyship to Coalition. Penguin.
Daly, A. , Devitt, A. K. , & Mann, M. (Eds.). (2019). Good Data. Institute of Network Cultures.
Dencik, L. , Hintz, A. , Redden, J. , & Treré, E. (2019). Exploring data justice: Conceptions,
applications and directions. Information, Communication & Society, 22(7), 873–881.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2019.1606268
D'Ignazio, C. , & Bhargava, R. (2018). Creative data literacy: A constructionist approach to
teaching information visualization. DHQ: Digital Humanities Quarterly, 12(4).
http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/12/4/000403/000403.html#wolf2015
Elkhoury, E. , & Usman, F. (2021). Designing for every student: Practical advice for instructional
designers on applying social justice in learning design. The Journal of Applied Instructional
Design, 10, 4. https://edtechbooks.org/jaid:10_4/designing_for_every_
Emejulu, A. , & McGregor, C. (2019). Towards a radical digital citizenship in digital education.
Critical Studies in Education, 60(1), 131–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2016.1234494
Escobar, A. (2018). Designs for the Pluriverse. Duke University Press.
Eynon, R. 2024. In this volume.
Fjeld, J. , Morrow, M. , Jayaram, M. , Abdilla, A. , Adamson, C. , Taylor, J. , Souza, C. A. ,
Ghazal, F. , Chatila, R. , Quijano, P. R. , Krishnan, A. , Jordan, S. , Çetin, R. B. , Havens, J. C. ,
Mhlambi, S. , Lach, E. M. , Moon, A. J. , Rizk, N. , Rosenstock, S. , & Dotan, R. (n.d.). AI
Decolonial Manyfesto. https://manyfesto.ai/
Gibson-Graham, J. K. (2006). A Postcapitalist Politics. University of Minnesota Press.
Gutiérrez, M. (2018). Data Activism and Social Change. Palgrave.
Guyan, K. (2022). Queer Data. Using Gender, Sex and Sexuality Data for Action. Bloomsbury.
Hagendorff, T. (2020). The ethics of AI ethics: An evaluation of guidelines. Minds and Machines,
30(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09517-8
Hof, B. (2018). From Harvard via Moscow to west berlin: Educational technology, programmed
instruction and the commercialisation of learning after 1957. History of Education, 47(4),
445–465. https://doi.org/10.1080/0046760x.2017.1401125
Holbert, N. , Dando, M. , & Correa, I. (2020). Afrofuturism as critical constructionist design:
Building futures from the past and present. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(4), 328–344.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1754237
Holmes, K. (2020). Mismatch: How Inclusion Shapes Design. The MIT Press.
Kelty, C. (2020). The Participant. University of Chicago Press.
Korsgaard, M. T. (2018). Education and the concept of commons. A pedagogical
reinterpretation. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 51(4), 445–455.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2018.1485564
Kousa, P. , & Niemi, H. (2022). AI ethics and learning: EdTech companies’ challenges and
solutions. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2043908
Lee, C. H. , & Soep, E. (2023). Code for What? Computer Science for Storytelling and Social
Justice. MIT Press.
Light, A. , & Akama, Y. (2014). Structuring future social relations: The politics of care in
participatory practice. Participatory Design Conference.
Lyons, K. , & Howarth, M. (2022). The importance of hemispheric perspectives for the
environmental humanities: Reflections on bilingual digital environmental justice storytelling.
Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society, 5(1), 2098685.
https://doi.org/10.1080/25729861.2022.2098685
Macgilchrist, F. (2019). Cruel optimism in Edtech: When the digital data practices of educational
technology providers inadvertently hinder educational equity. Learning, Media and Technology,
44(1), 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2018.1556217
Macgilchrist, F. , Jarke, J. , Allert, H. , & Cerratto Pargman, T. (2023). Designing postdigital
futures: Which designs? Whose futures? Postdigital Science and Education.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-022-00389-y
McKercher, K. A. (2020). Beyond Sticky Notes. Codesign for Real: Mindsets, Methods &
Movements. Beyond Sticky Notes.
Mouffe, C. (2000). The Democratic Paradox. Verso.
netzforma (Ed.). (2020). Wenn KI, dann feministisch: Impulse aus Wissenschaft und Aktivismus.
https://netzforma.org/publikation-wenn-ki-dann-feministisch-impulse-aus-wissenschaft-und-
aktivismus
Pangrazio, L. , & Selwyn, N. (2019). ‘Personal data literacies’: A critical literacies approach to
enhancing understandings of personal digital data. New Media & Society, 21(2), 419–437.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818799523
Parreira do Amaral, M. , Steiner-Khamsi, G. , & Thompson, C. (Eds.). (2019). Researching the
Global Education Industry. Commodification, the Market and Business Involvement. Springer.
Payne, B. H. (2021). Bringing Design Justice to the Classroom.
https://tanginstitute.andover.edu/blog/2021/bringing-design-justice-to-the-classroom
Poltze, K. , Demuth, K. , Eke, S. , Moebus, A. , & Macgilchrist, F. (2022). Erfahrungen des
Partizipierens. Reflexionen zu partizipativen Forschungs- und Gestaltungsprozessen.
bildungsforschung, 2022(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.25539/bildungsforschung.v0i2.900
Rancière, J. (1999). Disagreement: Politics and Philosophy. University of Minnesota Press.
Richter, C. , Allert, H. , Albrecht, J. , & Ruhl, E. (2015). Grappling with the Not-Yet-Known. In O.
Lindwall , P. Häkkinen , T. Koschman , P. Tchounikine , & S. Ludvigsen (Eds.), Exploring the
Material Conditions of Learning: The Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL)
Conference 2015, Volume 1 (pp. 284–291). The International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Rodriguez, C. (2001). Fissures in the Mediascape: An International Study of Citizen’s Media.
Hampton Press.
Rose, N. (2000). Government and Control. In D. Garland & R. Sparks (Eds.), Criminology and
Social Theory. OUP.
Schneider, N. (2015). The joy of slow computing. The New Republic.
https://newrepublic.com/article/121832/pleasure-do-it-yourself-slow-computing
Seeman, M. , Macgilchrist, F. , Richter, C. , Allert, H. , & Geuter, J. (2022). Konzeptstudie.
Werte und Strukturen der Nationalen Bildungsplattform. https://www.wikimedia.de/wp-
content/uploads/2022/11/Konzeptstudie-Werte-und-Strukturen-der-Nationalen-
Bildungsplattform.pdf
Sheya, S. (2020). JusticexDesign: Developing a Sensitivity to Designed Injustices.
http://www.agencybydesign.org/node/466
Suchman, L. (2007). Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions 2nd ed.
SuperrrLab . (n.d.). Feminist Tech Principles. https://superrr.net/feministtech/principles/
Thompson, G. , Gulson, K. N. , Swist, T. , & Witzenberger, K. (2022). Responding to
sociotechnical controversies in education: A modest proposal toward technical democracy.
Learning, Media and Technology, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2022.2126495
Tunstall, D. (2019). Respectful design. The context for design’s ethical obligations towards
cultural, social, and environmental justice. Joint Futures Conference.
https://jointfuturesconf.com/keynote/dori-tunstall.html
UNESCO . (2021). Reimagining Our Futures Together: A New Social Contract for Education.
UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379707.locale=en
Vetter, A. (2018). The matrix of convivial technology – Assessing technologies for degrowth.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 197, 1778–1786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.195
Vetter, A. (2022). Konviviale Technik. Empirische Technikethik für eine
Postwachstumsgesellschaft. Transcript.
von Redecker, E. (2020). Ownership’s shadow: Neoauthoritarianism as defense of phantom
possession. Critical Times, 3(1), 33–67. https://doi.org/10.1215/26410478-8189849
von Redecker, E. (2021). Revolution für das Leben. Philosophie der neuen Protestformen.
Fischer.
Watters, A. (2021). Teaching Machines. The History of Personalized Learning. MIT Press.
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/teaching-machines
Williamson, B. (2022). Big EdTech. Learning, Media and Technology, 47(2), 157–162.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2022.2063888
Willis, A.-M. (2006). Ontological designing. Design Philosophy Papers, 4(2), 69–92.
https://doi.org/10.2752/144871306x13966268131514
Winograd, T. , & Flores, F. (1986). Understanding Computers and Cognition. Ablex.
View publication stats

WilliamsonKomljenovicGulson Introduction WorldYearbookEducation2024 Preview

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

WilliamsonKomljenovicGulson Introduction WorldYearbookEducation2024 Preview

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

World Yearbook of Education 2024: Digitalisation of Education in the Era of

Book · October 2023

Ben Williamson Janja Komljenovic

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Providing a comprehensive, global overview of the digitalisation of education,

• The historical, scientific and technical foundations of contemporary digital-

This resource is ideal reading for researchers, students, educational practition-

Kalervo N. Gulson is a professor in the Sydney School of Education and

Titles in the series:

World Yearbook of Education 2022

World Yearbook of Education 2023

World Yearbook of Education 2024

For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.com/World-Yearbook-of-

Edited by Ben Williamson,

List of contributors viii

1 Introduction: digitalisation of education in the era of

2 Theoretical foundations and historical roots of the

3 AI and lifelong learning: a genealogical approach to the

4 Natural language generation and the automation of

5 Educational vanishing points: when interoperable platforms

6 How platformisation affects pedagogical autonomy in

7 The relational powers of platforms and infrastructures played

8 Assetisation of higher education’s digital disruption 122

9 AI-shaped hole: anticipation regimes and liminal policy

10 A political economy of AI and education in China 155

11 Platforming PISA: the OECD as a mobile governance actor

12 Digital literacies as a ‘soft power’ of educational governance 196

13 After digital literacy: media pedagogies for platform ecologies 212

14 Social media’s education grab: philanthrocapitalism, data

15 Algorithmic bias and discrimination through digitalisation

16 Digitalisation of education in the era of climate collapse and

17 The EdTech Stack: a speculative design thought experiment 276

18 Design justice and educational technology: designing in the

Thomas Hillman is a professor at the Department of Applied Information

Barbara Hof is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Lausanne, where

Niels Kerssens is an assistant professor in the Department of Media and Cul-

Jeremy Knox is an associate professor of Digital Education at the University

Carlo Perrotta is an associate professor of Digital Education at the Melbourne

Lanze Vanermen is a doctoral candidate in educational sciences at the Meth-

Ben Williamson, Janja Komljenovic and

Digitalisation of any industry or sector does not, therefore, represent a de-

Digitalisation, datafication, algorithms, AI and automation

scientific accumulations that underpin many recent developments, as well as

into education systems around the world, impacting in a range of intended

These developments have been accompanied by increasing attention to the

Social and technical expectations

The first condition is the construction of social and technical expectations,

New educational data sciences

The second condition for the emergence of digitalisation and datafication in

education goods and services, global-scale operations such as digital educa-

Digital economy transformations

The fourth condition for digitalisation and datafication in education is the

The final condition concerns the development of an increasingly powerful ed-

Outline of the collection

include: (1) particular sociotechnical foundations, or historically situated accu-

Digitalisation and datafication of education are underpinned by technical arte-

technical interests and imaginaries in education. Efforts to make everyone

Besides their sociotechnical foundations, digitalisation and datafication of ed-

Design and justice

years, including the participation of excluded and marginalised communities,

Birch, K. (2022). Reflexive expectations in innovation financing: An analysis of venture

Theoretical foundations and historical roots of the ‘automated