Search

Two educational trends that have had major impacts on school policies of the last few decades are inclusive education and digitalisation. To that end, the purpose of this study is to examine how inclusive education and the digitalisation of education are related, understood, and represented in one case of Swedish special education practice. Using activity theory as a theoretical framework, the results of this study suggest that the meaning of inclusive education has shifted, and that digitalisation has entailed both congruencies and contradictions in special education activities aiming for inclusive education. Although digitalisation was described as providing alternatives for inclusive school practices, new expectations and work assignments sometimes exceeded the special educators' professional knowledge.

Two educational trends that have had major impacts on school policies of the last few decades are inclusive education and digitalisation. To that end, the purpose of this study is to examine how inclusive education and the digitalisation of education are related, understood, and represented in one case of Swedish special education practice. Using activity theory as a theoretical framework, the results of this study suggest that the meaning of inclusive education has shifted, and that digitalisation has entailed both congruencies and contradictions in special education activities aiming for inclusive education. Although digitalisation was described as providing alternatives for inclusive school practices, new expectations and work assignments sometimes exceeded the special educators' professional knowledge.

Two educational trends that have had major impacts on school policies of the last few decades are inclusive education and digitalisation. To that end, the purpose of this study is to examine how inclusive education and the digitalisation of education are related, understood, and represented in one case of Swedish special education practice. Using activity theory as a theoretical framework, the results of this study suggest that the meaning of inclusive education has shifted, and that digitalisation has entailed both congruencies and contradictions in special education activities aiming for inclusive education. Although digitalisation was described as providing alternatives for inclusive school practices, new expectations and work assignments sometimes exceeded the special educators' professional knowledge.

Two educational trends that have had major impacts on school policies of the last few decades are inclusive education and digitalisation. To that end, the purpose of this study is to examine how inclusive education and the digitalisation of education are related, understood, and represented in one case of Swedish special education practice. Using activity theory as a theoretical framework, the results of this study suggest that the meaning of inclusive education has shifted, and that digitalisation has entailed both congruencies and contradictions in special education activities aiming for inclusive education. Although digitalisation was described as providing alternatives for inclusive school practices, new expectations and work assignments sometimes exceeded the special educators' professional knowledge.

This paper unpacks the commercial rhetoric of Google for Education. Through the analysis of information published on the official Google for Education website, the paper seeks to make visible how this service promotes and reproduces certain ways of talking, thinking about and doing education. The aim is to contribute to a critical discussion of the potential implications of allowing major commercial players to take the lead in the development of digital infrastructure in education. Guiding the analysis is the notion of 'problem' understood as central for Google for Education's success story. The case of Sweden, in which Google for Education has become widely used, forms the vantage point for this discussion. The study makes visible how Google for Education, in the commercial rhetoric, is constructed as the solution to problem representations by being positioned as a much-needed bridge, in the shape of digital information infrastructure, between digital policy and educational practice. However, Google for Education is far from simply a practical solution to a set of expensive and urgent problems. To uncritically embrace Google as the information infrastructure of education is to hand over power to one actor, which closes doors to alternative paths of doing and knowing in education.