NJCIE 2017, Vol.
1(2), 14–28
http://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.2299
Comparing antecedents for Norwegian, Swedish, and
Finnish youths’ agentic beliefs in informal online learning
Eyvind Elstad[1]
Professor, University of Oslo,
Norway
Thomas Arnesen
Assistant Professor, Western Norway
University of Applied Sciences, Norway
Knut Andreas Christophersen
Associate Professor, University of
Oslo, Norway
Copyright the authors
Abstract
Technology has become an ever-present
factor in virtually every contemporary situation, and digital media has gained
a significant role in the lives of young people. This article explores and
compares the antecedents for agentic beliefs in informal online learning
amongst young people in Norway, Sweden and Finland. The promotion of such
agentic beliefs in informal online learning is an important task for school systems
that seek to prepare young people for responsible citizenship, capable of
directing their own lives and supporting others. A sample of 3045 urban
Finnish, Swedish and Norwegian students in general study programs
(15–17-year-olds) participated in a cross-sectional questionnaire. Structural
equation modelling was used for analysis. We discovered that the patterns in
some of these relations were astonishingly similar in Sweden, Norway, and
Finland. In each of these countries, online culture, defined in terms of free
choice and self-actualisation by using internet, is positively associated with
agentic beliefs and with time online. A duality in school and internet
orientation demonstrates that the educational systems in these three countries
face challenges to build bridges between the attitudes of youth and the
emphasis on knowledge found in traditional educational subjects. Furthermore,
the agentic beliefs of youngsters in these three countries differ depending on
the degree to which youths value education.
Keywords: agentic beliefs;
informal online learning; Finland; Sweden; Norway
The term
youth refers to the transitional age between childhood and adulthood
(Gillis, 2013). This transition is often associated with experimental behaviour
and social adjustments at school (Capuzzi & Gross, 2014). Jenkins (2006)
claims that youth are unprecedently empowered to participate in media
communication because of their access to online networks and digital
interactivity. From the education perspective, internet access opens a range of
learning opportunities beyond the scope of formal schooling (Means, Toyama,
Murphy & Baki, 2013). However, opportunities given are not the same as
opportunities taken. The crucial issue is the degree to which youths take advantage
of these informal online learning opportunities, to exercise agency in informal
online learning. Arguably, bolstering learners’ digital skills and digital
self-confidence will become increasingly important for achieving educational
objectives.
Some
researchers presume that influential informal pedagogies operate in youths’
everyday participatory online cultures, which can empower youths through
“greater agency, opportunities to participate in networked communities, and
access [to] a wide range of resources to support knowledge building and
collaboration” (Loveless & Williamson, 2013, p. 13). Agentic beliefs in
informal online learning refer to youths’ attitudes associated with agency in
online learning in informal settings. Antecedents are presumed and preceding
conditions that we believe are related to agentic beliefs in online learning.
This study explores and compares antecedents of youths’ agentic beliefs about
online learning by applying structural equation modelling to a sample of 3045
youths from Norway, Sweden, and Finland. These youths were aged 15–17. Digital
media plays a significant role in the lives of Nordic youths (Syvertsen, Enli,
Mjøs, & Moe, 2014), and we did not expect differences between the
countries, for theoretical reasons. Some have speculated that the identities of
youths are in flux because they are in a transitional stage in life (Gillis,
2013; Stald, 2008; Loveless & Williamson, 2013). It is possible that
digital media trends help promote transnational cultural tendencies, which over
time can lead to a greater convergence of youth cultures (Jenkins, 2006). Many
young people in this age group expressed a desire to discover their own
identity and find their own way in life (Gardner & Davis, 2013). They also
tend to express ideals of self-definition, independence and expectations of
satisfaction (Wearing, McDonald & Wearing, 2013). In terms of youth’s
multifarious online activities, Ito et al. (2010) claim they are mainly
friends- and interest-driven. This kind of self-directed engagement in
participatory digital cultures (Jenkins, Purushotma, Weigel, Clinton, &
Robison, 2009) might affect how young people understand learning, the role of
formal schooling in their lives (Loveless & Williamson, 2013) and the
relationship between their informal online learning experiences and the
purposes, processes and content of formal education (Buckingham & Willett,
2013; Greenhow & Lewin, 2015).
Youths
construct their self-image and idea formation by digitally interacting with
their peers. Digital media also represent an opportunity for imagination and
criticism, and in the epistemological spirit of Appadurai (1996), some scholars
have termed these experiences youthscapes (Maira & Soep, 2004).
Participation in these digital communities is thought of as a space for
self-realisation and self-definition, reinforced by the increasing
self-determination that comes with age. In this article, we define this
phenomenon as online culture, defined in terms of free choice and self-actualisation
by using the internet (abbreviated online culture). The extent, frequency and
intensity of youths’ digital interaction and communication could indicate the
development of a new participatory youth culture. At the same time, youthscapes
are an expression of global cultural trends that create a platform for
distinctive elements that contribute to distinguishing one individual from
another and the tendency to follow in others’ footsteps. Converging trends in
youth culture have a firm foothold in digitalised youth cultures within
northern Europe, which make Swedish, Norwegian and Finnish youths an
appropriate sample for studying the antecedents of agentic beliefs in informal
online learning.
The
purpose of this article is to explore and compare the antecedents of agentic
beliefs in informal online learning amongst young people in Norway, Sweden and
Finland. Using structural equation modelling (SEM), we estimate the strength of
the relations (path coefficients) between the presumed antecedents and agentic
beliefs in informal online learning. Structural equation modelling is a general
and powerful multivariate technique that includes specialized versions of other
analytic methods as special cases. Structural equation modelling allows path
analyses, which hypothesizes causal relationships among variables and test
causal models through linear equation systems.
The
study integrates two strands of theories dealing with youths’ agentic beliefs
in learning: (1) the theory of school socialisation and (2) the theory of
youths’ internet values.
School
socialisation is associated with learners’ sense of belonging at school
(Cemalcilar, 2010). The aim of schooling is to expand learners’ capacities to perceive,
participate and develop greater agency so that they can face the challenges of
life. Learning school-related content, social skills and competencies are
important life skills (Deming, 2017; Hanushek, Schwerdt, Wößmann & Zhang,
2017). Social skills include taking general agentic beliefs and agentic beliefs
on informal online learning into account. However, regarding the former,
schools enable learners to learn the competencies they will need in future
education and workplace situations (Elstad, 2016). Students listen to the
educator’s explanations, read defined study material and rehearse the material
by carrying out specific learning tasks from the teacher (Hopmann, 2007).
Educational research has shown that instructional qualities are related to learners’
cognitive activation and achievement, and this theory provides a plausible
explanation for the learning mechanisms involved (Baumert et al., 2010; Kunter
et al., 2013). To some extent, the content of traditional school subjects and
transnational ideas of globalised social development have converged (Rogers,
2014). For example, large-scale international surveys have promoted this kind
of convergence across national borders, whilst international organisations have
influenced conservative school systems by focusing on basic skills like
literacy and numeracy (Wößmann, 2015). However, the school model remains an
important premise for how designing institutional arrangements (Hopmann, 2007).
This model requires institutionalised interactions. For instance, learners
could, to a certain extent, appreciate schools’ values, which legitimise
schools’ curriculums and educators’ authority. We expect that learners’ school
appreciation and learners’ school associations are positively related to their
agentic beliefs in online learning outside schools. Further, we expect that
learners’ school appreciation is positively related to their associations with
the school as an institution.
Youth is
the period between childhood and adult age (Ogden, Carroll, Kit, & Flegal,
2014). Youths have various attitudes towards the values upon which the
traditional educational model is constructed (Wearing et al., 2013). Youths’
different genres of participation (Ito et al., 2010) in digital environments
foster a preference for the internet, representing free choice and
self-actualisation. This internet preference supports individual choice,
personal freedom, self-expression and self-actualisation (Inglehart &
Oyserman, 2004). Proponents of connectivism (Siemens, 2005) argue that internet
activities are important sources for acquiring the relevant knowledge, skills
and attitudes for functioning intelligently in the 21st century
(Frånberg, Dunkels, & Hällgren, 2011). These activities are nodes in
youths’ networked learning ecologies, in which school is only one of a
multitude of meaningful learning arenas.
Whilst
some learners value the ideas upon which the traditional school model is
constructed (Cemalcilar, 2010), others wish that their work at school could
more closely align with their individual interests (Erstad & Sefton-Green,
2013). For some learners, the traditional model conflicts with their
self-determination and independent choices. Youths’ ideas of personal autonomy
are supported by physical maturity and are related to by ideas spread through
digital media (Capuzzi & Gross, 2014). International trends towards
increased self-realisation and through an enhanced material standard of living,
also affect how youths perceive the power they can exert over their own lives
(Brake, 2013). This illustrates that the appreciation young people have for
agentic beliefs is an indicator of their future roles as full-fledged citizens
in adult society (Benedicto & Luz Morán, 2007).
The
traditional school model, therefore, needs adjusting to incorporate another
factor that will affect schools’ future challenges: agentic beliefs in informal
online learning. Agentic beliefs in informal online learning are related to
expectations of how students, educators and school leaders should exercise
their roles in school society. As a result, some schools will encourage
designing a learning process that emphasises what a young person wants to
learn. This type of progressive school may place greater emphasis on working
methods than academic achievement (Vavik & Salomon, 2015). In such cases,
the individual’s perception of agentic beliefs would be the core concern. There
are, however, relatively few progressive schools like this in Nordic countries,
and the reference population of students in this study attend schools that are
closely aligned with the traditional school model. Therefore, we asked youths,
between the ages of 15 and 17, about their experience at school and the society
in which they grew up, has affected their appreciation of the values associated
with progressive schooling ideals.
Online
tools facilitate online conversations and interactions amongst youths (Selwyn,
2011). Young people use social media in multiple ways (Ito et al., 2010;
Anderson, Hattakka, Grönlund, & Wiklund, 2013). The use of social media is
instantiated in youth cultures (Wortham, 2011) and is related to youth identity
formation (Turkle, 2011; Gangadharbatla, 2008; Boyd, 2010). Amongst youths,
online culture generates structures that support individual choice, personal
freedom, self-expression and self-actualisation (Inglehart & Oyserman
2004).
Youths
perceive the value of their activities in terms of their ability to help them
make sense of the world and participate in discussions. This varies from person
to person, and some youths engage more directly in school-related activities
than others. To understand and respond to youths’ beliefs, it is important to
explore the antecedents for their agentic beliefs in informal online learning
activities. We expect that learners’ access to ICT is positively related to
their agentic beliefs in informal online learning. Further, we expect that
learners’ online culture is positively related to their agentic beliefs in informal
online learning. We also expect that access to ICT is positively related to
learners’ online culture.
From a
European perspective, Norway, Sweden and Finland form an interesting enclave
since each is considered a Nordic welfare community that emphasises youth
self-determination. Alongside an interest in digital media, schools in these
countries form a core institution in the lives of adolescents (Blossing, Imsen,
& Moos, 2014). At 15 years of age, young people in Norway, Sweden and Finland
make active choices regarding their future education. In the Nordic educational
model, this is the age that young people are first sorted into grades or
streams (Blossing et al., 2014). Opportunities to enter the workplace are
limited for youths between 15 and 17 years old, and so upper secondary
education is the customary alternative.
Norway,
Sweden and Finland have some similarities in the design of their educational
systems. For instance, their systems are all based on ideals of equality
(Blossing et al., 2014). In addition, they have comparable structural features,
such as universal compulsory 9- or 10-year schooling and a relatively moderate
proportion of private schools. Conversely, there are also some differences
between schooling in these countries.
Finnish
learners have consistently performed in the top range of school achievement
amongst European countries, whilst Norwegian and Swedish learners have shown
more mediocre performance (OECD, 2016). Some commentators attribute this to the
high status of educators in Finnish society (Sahlberg, 2014) and the
correspondingly lower status of educators in Swedish and Norwegian society. As
such, Finnish educators can call on a stronger position of authority whilst
conducting their work as educators (OECD, 2014). However, Finnish learners are
low in school satisfaction while Norwegian and Swedish students express higher
school satisfaction (OECD, 2014). Furthermore, on measures of student
engagement, Finland ranks below the international average on levels of student
interest. Another difference is the degree to which computers are used at
school. Finnish students use computers somewhat less often than Swedish and
Norwegian learners (European Commission, 2013, pp. 104–107).
The
Nordic school model accommodates a continuum of differences. The national
authorities in Norway and Sweden have implemented a policy of strengthening
learning in the academic areas covered by large-scale international surveys
(Blossing et al., 2014). As such, these international surveys have shaped
traditional academic subjects, such as maths, science and reading (Rogers,
2014; OECD, 2016). To strengthen students’ learning outcomes, the Swedish and
Norwegian authorities asked educators to increase cognitive activation in
classrooms (Blossing et al., 2014). Maths and science, however, are not
subjects that youths are intrinsically motivated to study (Eccles, 2014). The
prospective importance and high expectations of these academic subjects have
widened the gap between learners’ personal fields of interest and the content
offered by schools. Some researchers (Erstad & Sefton-Green, 2013) have
entertained hopes that computers can help bridge learners’ interests and the
content offered by schools. There are no theoretical reasons to expect differences
in the paths of the theoretical model in the Norwegian, Swedish and Finnish
samples.
This
study aims to explore and compare the antecedents of agentic beliefs in
informal online learning amongst Swedish, Norwegian and Finnish youths. The
overarching research questions addressed by this study were: How do youths’
values and perceptions of school relate to their agentic beliefs in informal
online learning in these three Nordic countries? How do these youths’ online
culture, which is defined in terms of free choice and self-actualisation by
using the internet, relate to their agentic beliefs in informal online learning
in these three Nordic countries? How does these youths’ online culture relate
to their scholastic orientations (school appreciation and school associations)
in these three Nordic countries?
An
empirical cross-sectional study was completed with 60 schools in Norway (20
schools), Sweden (16 schools) and Finland (24 schools) between February and
March 2013. We chose schools located in or close to urban areas, as urban teens
are most likely to have full broadband access. Thus, they were more likely to
have the opportunity to engage in the same spectrum of digital activities and
develop similar digital habits in all three countries. 479 Finnish students,
1058 Norwegian students, and 1508 Swedish students voluntarily participated,
totally 3045 general study students.
We
applied ethical standards required by the national authorities of Norway,
Sweden and Finland. First, the study’s participants were informed of the
project’s aims and scope. Second, informed consent was obtained from each
participant. In addition, the learners were informed that they could skip
questions on the questionnaire whenever they wanted. Third, the participants’
privacy and confidentiality were assured since no personal or identifiable
information was collected. The code key for the names of the schools was stored
in a separate document. All contact prior to data collection happened only
between one of the authors and the contact person at each school. As a result,
the respondents’ anonymity was guaranteed. None of the students declined to
take the survey.
The
learners answered a questionnaire on different aspects of school situations and
propositions about schools. We had to translate the questionnaires from
Norwegian to Finnish and Swedish before distributing them. We double-checked
these translations by running the questionnaires by our professor colleagues in
Finland and Sweden. Once the learners completed the paper-based survey, the
data were coded into Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). The
work was done within a classical test theoretical paradigm in which
psychological constructs and items (see table 1) were contextualised through a
set of individual questions. We used professional standards for developing
multi-item constructs (Haladyna & Rodriguez, 2013). Students were asked to
respond to questions on a six-point Likert scale, where the options were:
Strongly disagree (1), Disagree (2), More disagree than agree (3), More agree
than disagree (4), Agree (5) and Strongly agree (6). The constructs were:
agentic beliefs in online learning (abbreviated as agentic beliefs), online culture,
perceived school associations (abbreviated as school assoc.), positive
attitudes induced by the internet (abbreviated as positive attitudes), and
school appreciation (abbreviated as school apprec.). A final construct was an
exception, as this question asked respondents to record the number of hours
they spend using Information and Communication Technology (ICT) at school
(abbreviated as time online). In table 1, we present concepts and indicators,
plus descriptive findings (mean and standard deviation) for each indicator for
each country separately. We found only small variations in these results
between Norway, Sweden and Finland.
|
|
Finland |
Finland |
Norway |
Norway |
Sweden |
Sweden |
|
Concepts and indicators |
Mean |
Standard deviation |
Mean |
Standard deviation |
Mean |
Standard deviation |
|
Agentic beliefs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Online experiences strengthen my ability to
participate in discussions. |
3.23 |
1.29 |
3.40 |
1.40 |
3.44 |
1.27 |
|
The net helps me develop good study habits. |
3.13 |
1.14 |
3.01 |
1.24 |
3.03 |
1.15 |
|
My thoughts and opinions are taken seriously online. |
3.16 |
1.16 |
3.10 |
1.22 |
3.03 |
1.18 |
|
The net enables me to better understand the
world around me. |
4.26 |
1.18 |
4.47 |
1.13 |
4.30 |
1.17 |
|
Online culture |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would prefer to learn wherever and whenever
it suits me, rather than in school according to a common curriculum. |
2.18 |
1.07 |
1.81 |
1.02 |
1.99 |
1.03 |
|
School learning is of minor importance for my future life. |
2.05 |
1.12 |
2.00 |
1.19 |
1.98 |
1.08 |
|
Come to think of it, the internet is now more
important than school. |
2.78 |
1.39 |
2.24 |
1.33 |
2.74 |
1.34 |
|
School associations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meaningful content |
3.50 |
1.11 |
4.23 |
1.10 |
4.09 |
1.09 |
|
Learning |
4.45 |
1.01 |
4.59 |
1.07 |
4.48 |
1.06 |
|
Engaged participation |
3.81 |
1.19 |
4.03 |
1.10 |
3.99 |
1.06 |
|
Positive attitudes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Respect for others |
2.15 |
1.07 |
2.41 |
1.27 |
2.30 |
1.15 |
|
Honesty |
2.01 |
1.01 |
2.38 |
1.26 |
2.27 |
1.16 |
|
Good behaviour |
1.91 |
1.00 |
2.12 |
1.11 |
2.07 |
1.07 |
|
School appreciation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I hate school (reversed) |
4.33 |
1.28 |
4.58 |
1.26 |
4.45 |
1.22 |
|
I enjoy school learning |
4.09 |
1.08 |
3.85 |
1.13 |
4.15 |
1.05 |
|
Time online |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How many hours per day do you spend online at school?[2] |
3.18 |
1.41 |
3.67 |
1.42 |
3.46 |
1.43 |
The analyses were conducted using SPSS and AMOS.
|
Construct |
Item no. |
Finland |
Sweden |
Norway |
Total |
|
Positive attitudes |
3 |
.86 |
.85 |
.85 |
.85 |
|
School appreciation |
2 |
.72 |
.66 |
.71 |
.68 |
|
Online culture |
3 |
.72 |
.70 |
.74 |
.71 |
|
School associations |
3 |
.73 |
.84 |
.82 |
.81 |
|
Agentic beliefs |
4 |
.67 |
.70 |
.71 |
.70 |
The
sample comprised of 3045 students after excluding those responses containing
missing values. We used Cronbach alpha to assess the measurement reliability of
the indicators for each of the subscales (varying in table 2 between 0.66 and
0.86, which is typically considered acceptable or nearly acceptable) (Nunnally,
Bernstein, & Berge, 1967). In table 2, we present the Cronbach alpha for
each construct or concept, for each country and the total sample. Confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) was used to assess factor structure. The assessments were
based on the p-values for the χ2-statistic, root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA), confirmative fit index (CFI) and goodness of fit index
(GFI). The standard criteria of p < 0.05, RMSEA < 0.05, and GFI and CFI
> 0.95 were used to determine a good fit (Kline, 2015). The fit indices of
the three structural models were good: RMSEA measures were about 0.03, GFIs
were from .961 to .977, and CFIs were from .972 to .977. Table 3 shows the main
results of the structural equation models from each country: the pathways and
path coefficients. Structural equation modelling shows clear similarities
between the samples. A main inference was that the pathways have a quite
similar structure of loadings for Sweden, Norway and Finland.
|
Pathways |
Finland |
Sweden |
Norway |
|
Positive attitudes→ Agentic beliefs |
.07 |
.26 |
.23 |
|
School apprec.→ Agentic beliefs |
.18 |
.33 |
.23 |
|
Online culture→ Agentic beliefs |
.44 |
.50 |
.47 |
|
School assoc.→ Agentic beliefs |
.22 |
.18 |
.12 |
|
Time online→ Agentic beliefs |
.29 |
.26 |
.17 |
|
Time online→ Online culture |
.18 |
.10 |
.11 |
|
Positive attitudes→ School apprec. |
-.36 |
-.42 |
-.41 |
|
Positive attitudes→ School assoc. |
-.07 |
-.19 |
-.17 |
|
School apprec.→ School assoc. |
.64 |
.56 |
.59 |
|
Positive attitudes→ Online culture |
.21 |
.18 |
.23 |
|
School apprec.→ Online culture |
-.46 |
-.55 |
-.58 |
The
purpose of this article was to explore and compare the antecedents of agentic
beliefs in informal online learning amongst young people in Norway, Sweden and
Finland. As shown in table 3, the main conclusion is that the path coefficients
of the structural models (which explain antecedents of agentic beliefs in
informal online learning in Sweden, Norway and Finland) are astonishingly
similar. However, we cannot say that digital youth cultures in Norway, Sweden
and Finland have converged over time. This study was only a snapshot of a
possible direction for development, and longitudinal research is required to
determine long-term trends in youth cultures. One avenue of further research
could investigate the dynamics of youth cultures through qualitative
approaches.
Another
main conclusion is that youths in all three countries displayed a duality in
school orientation and internet orientation (see the pathway school
appreciation→ online culture in table 3). This duality in their values
demonstrates that their education system faces challenges in bridging youth’s
attitudes induced by the internet and values induced by traditional schooling:
school appreciation and school associations (see the pathways positive
attitudes → school appreciation induced by the internet, and positive
attitudes induced by the internet → school association in table 3).
Students’
agentic beliefs in informal online learning create tensions between traditional
learning and expectations for reform within schools. Within the classical
school model, learners submit to what schools offer in academic content and
rules for behaviour (Cemalcilar, 2010; Hopmann, 2013). In this way, the
students’ identities are inculcated through school (Rich & Schachter,
2012). Learners, thus, need to submit to the educators’ expectations and
requirements, even though the schools in Norway, Sweden and Finland also
emphasise paying attention to learners’ wishes and expectations. There has been
a great deal of documentation on young people’s motivational orientation
changes towards school during adolescence: intrinsic motivation was reduced
whilst external motivation increased (Eccles, 2014).
To some
extent, schools’ provisions have shifted to better accommodate youth interests,
for example, through study options (at lower-secondary schools, for example),
study programmes (arts and sports) and special offerings that closely relate to
youths’ free-time activities (multiple outward-bound courses at Nordic folk high
schools, for instance skiing). Despite schools’ efforts to implement these
measures, part of being a learner is submitting to adult expectations and
demands to make an effort in their academic work. This particularly applies to
higher education preparatory programmes. Such learners may feel a desire for
self-fulfilment through agentic beliefs in informal online learning whilst
continuing to value school as an institution because success there will
increase their future value in the workplace. Oftentimes, the learners who
follow this type of academic programme—those who are the object of this
article’s study—will examine factors that explain youth agentic beliefs in
informal online learning. The traditional schooling model, with its expectation
that learners must submit to expectations created by an external authority
clashes with other school models that emphasise independence and the free use
of digital resources (online culture dominance). This finding is also an avenue
for further research.
There
were several limitations to this study. Particularly, this type of analyses
(based on parsimonious modelling) has limitations from a conceptual
perspective. Multiple factors are related to human behaviour, and thus, we need
more in-depth studies on the complexities of young people’s use of digital
resources. We acknowledge these limitations and argue that they can inspire
future research.
In all
three countries, we found stronger relationships between online culture
dominance and agentic beliefs in informal online learning than between
school-culture dominance (school appreciation) and agentic beliefs in online
learning (see table 3). Many researchers have previously predicted the demise
of traditional schooling based on the assumption that media-related developments
will revolutionise current thinking about education (Papert, 1980; Tapscott,
1998; Prensky, 2001; Thomas & Brown, 2011). An expected educational
revolution is based on the idea that 21st-century learners have
experienced a shift from the world of writing to the world of images, and from
the world of books to screens (Kress, 2008). These learners have acquired a new
set of skills, preferences and knowledge, all of which are fundamentally
different from those rooted in the traditional print-based world. So far,
however, this has not happened.
However,
media developments have affected education. Political expectations of school
modernisation through ICT, with the expectation that allocated funds will be
used in accordance with politically created agendas, has led to perceived
pressure on school staff to employ ICT as a teaching aid. Norway and Sweden are
in a distinctive position regarding the actual use of ICT in the school, whilst
Finland differs in its relatively modest use of ICT (European Commission, 2013).
However, we did not find substantial differences in the average of ICT use at
school in Norway, Sweden, and Finland. Despite the contextual difference
between Swedish and Norwegian schools on the one hand, and Finnish schools, on
the other hand, we found no substantial difference in youths’ orientations.
The
value young people place on agentic beliefs in informal online learning and
their desire for internet are related to those areas that have traditionally
been determined by state control of content. Some claim that youth can learn a
great deal from engaging in games, interacting with peers on social media,
processing information for personal interest, consuming media for entertainment
and feeding their curiosity by coproducing or combining digital content
(Prensky & Gee, 2006; Boyd, 2010). Most of this kind of activity is powered
by interest and supported by peers (Ito et al., 2013), and thus feeds into the
broader tendencies of youth to hang out, mess around and geek out (Ito et al.,
2010). Agentic beliefs in informal online learning can contribute to renewing
young people’s understanding of how they control their own lives and help
others.
More
self-determination, however, is a double-edged sword. Many of the decisions
that young people make often lead to unfavourable consequences, self-discipline
problems (Arnesen, Elstad & Christophersen, 2017). Another example is that
a quite large proportion of youths in Finland, Norway and Sweden drop out of
upper-secondary education. However, more research is needed in this area.
Drop-out is a mark of weakness within an internationalised labour market, in
which there is heavy competition for jobs that do not require higher education.
The trends, however, are ambiguous. Some young people who drop out of upper-secondary
education can recover their position through a career-based working life
(Markussen, 2014). Equally, favouring informal online learning and
self-determination creates a dilemma for those individuals who cannot cope with
such freedom and make choices that do not benefit them in the long term
(Elstad, 2008). Regarding these processes of change, some people place their
trust in the renewal of the school system by enabling learners to learn
self-regulation techniques and skills (Mooij, 2009). While this is difficult to
carry out, some promising attempts have been made based on libertarian
paternalism, which nudges learners to align themselves to a fruitful trajectory
(Sunstein & Thaler, 2008). However, we cannot avoid the conclusion that we
need more research on how to provide more space for agentic beliefs in informal
online learning within the normal context of school. Our analysis shows that
tensions exist between different learner-cultures in Nordic school systems in
terms of how to adapt traditional school appreciation to the values of freedom
of choice and self-realisation. Learners hold these values dearly, and the
question is how priorities, beliefs and positive attitudes lead to actions
(Hopmann, 2013). This has not been studied extensively and requires more
research.
Another
limitation of this study is the use of self-reported questionnaire data. The
subjective component of such data is undeniable. However, we have no reason to
suspect a systematic bias in our sample. While the schools varied in size, it
was not practicable to couple our survey data with indicators for value added
during the period prior to the data collection. This study’s methodological
approach made it difficult to draw clear conclusions without first
acknowledging the need to further validate our findings. Some of the path
coefficients are so small that we must urge caution. However, our basic
theoretical model is based on such a strong research foundation that we do not
believe the statistical relations highlighted in this study are coincidental or
full of spurious connections.
There is
no simple solution to the challenge of bridging traditional school and the
world of youths (Hopmann, 2013; Vavik & Salomon, 2015). Some indications of
changing trends are seen in young people’s subject choices for upper-secondary
education. Heavyweight subjects, such as the most advanced courses in maths,
physics and chemistry, are losing ground and popularity in favour of subjects
that many young people regard as easier (Mullis & Martin, 2014). For
instance, there is a long-term trend towards weakening maths skills in Norway
and Sweden. This may be an indication that the most logical and sequential
academic subjects have poorer prospects at the time when young people have a
choice in which subjects they select for a portfolio. Students get overall
grades for their performance in school. If companies or universities look at
overall grades, then students could feel they would put themselves at a
disadvantage taking challenging classes when their peers do not. The contents,
processes and objectives of informal online learning are radically different
and greatly preferred by youth over regular, disciplined, intellectually and
future-oriented school-based learning (Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005; Ito et
al., 2010).
If young
people have a heightened appreciation for self-realisation and self-identity,
agentic beliefs in informal online learning can form part of an explanatory
chain, creating new prospective educational discourses (Bernstein, 2000;
Hopmann, 2013). There are those who hope that digital opportunities will help
open the walls of the school and contribute to sorely needed education reform
(Erstad & Sefton-Green, 2013). Some also predict that the nature of
schooling can be dramatically changed if learners are set free from the terms
and conditions previously attached to learners (Papert, 1980). However, it is
an irreversible fact that young people in Nordic countries participate in
cultural exchanges through digital media.
Anderson, A., Hattakka, M., Grönlund, Å. & Wiklund,
M. (2013). Reclaiming the pupils—coping with social media in 1:1
schools. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(1), 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2012.756518
Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural
dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota
Press.
Arnesen, T., Elstad, E. & Christophersen, K.A.
(2017). Comparing Instructional Factors Related to Students’ Academic
Self-Discipline in Norway and Finland. Nordic Journal of Comparative and
International Education, 1(1), 18–35. https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.2111 https://journals.hioa.no/index.php/nordiccie/article/view/2111
Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss,
T., Jordan, A., ... Tsai, Y. M. (2010). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge,
cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American
Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 133–180. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209345157
Benedicto, J. & Luz Morán, M. (2007). Becoming
a citizen: Analysing the social representations of citizenship in youth. European
Societies, 9(4), 601–622. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616690701314085
Bernstein, B. B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic
control, and identity: Theory, research, critique. London: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Blossing, U., Imsen, G. & Moos, L. (2014).
Progressive education and new governance in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. In U.
Blossing, G. Imsen & L. Moos (Eds.), The Nordic education model: “A
school for all” encounters neo-liberal policy (pp. 133–154). Dordrecht:
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7125-3_8
Boyd, D. (2010). Social network sites as networked
publics: Affordances, dynamics, and implications. In A. Papacharissi (Ed.), A
networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social network sites (pp.
39–58). New York, NY: Routledge.
Brake, M. (2013). The sociology of youth culture
and youth subcultures: Sex and drugs and rock'n'roll? London: Routledge.
Buckingham, D. & Willett, R. (2013). Digital
generations: Children, young people, and the new media. London: Routledge.
Capuzzi, D. & Gross, D. R. (2014). Youth
at risk: A prevention resource for counselors, teachers, and parents. New
York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Cemalcilar, Z. (2010). Schools as socialisation
contexts: Understanding the impact of school climate factors on students’ sense
of school belonging. Applied Psychology, 59(2), 243–272. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2009.00389.x
Deming, D. J. (2017). The growing importance of social
skills in the labor market. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 132(4),
1593–1640. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjx022
Eccles, J. S. (2014). Families, schools, and
developing achievement-related motivations and engagement. In J. E. Grusec
& P. D. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and research
(pp. 665–691). New York: Guilford Publications.
Elstad, E. (2008). Building self-discipline to promote
learning: students’ volitional strategies to navigate the demands of schooling.
Learning Inquiry, 2(1), 53–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11519-008-0027-3
Elstad, E. (2016). Chapter 1 Educational technology:
expectations and experiences. An introductory overview. In Elstad, E. (Ed.). Digital
expectations and experiences in education (pp. 3–28). Rotterdam/ Boston
/Taipei: Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-648-4_1
Erstad, O. & Sefton-Green, J. (2013). Digital
disconnect? The ‘digital learner’ and the school. In O. Erstad & J.
Sefton-Green (Eds.), Identity, community, and learning lives in the digital
age (pp. 87–106). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
European Commission. (2013). Survey of schools: ICT
in education. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved May 17th,
2017 from https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/sites/digital-agenda/files/KK-31-13-401-EN-N.pdf
Frånberg, G. M., Dunkels, E. & Hällgren, C. (2011). Youth
and contemporary learning: Interactive media use and youth. Learning,
Knowledge Exchange and Behavior, 1(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60960-206-2.ch001
Gangadharbatla, H. (2008). Facebook me: Collective
self-esteem, need to belong, and internet self-efficacy as predictors of the
e-generation's attitudes toward social networking sites. Journal of
Interactive Advertising, 8(2), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2008.10722138
Gardner, H. & Davis, K. (2013). The app
generation: How today’s youth navigate identity, intimacy, and imagination in a
digital world. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Gillis, J. R. (2013). Youth and history: Tradition
and change in European age relations, 1770–present. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Greenhow, C. & Lewin, C. (2016). Social media and
education: reconceptualizing the boundaries of formal and informal learning. Learning,
media and technology, 41(1), 6–30.
Haladyna, T. M. & Rodriguez, M. C. (2013). Developing
and validating test items. London: Routledge.
Hanushek, E. A., Schwerdt, G., Wößmann, L. &
Zhang, L. (2017). General education, vocational education, and
labor-market outcomes over the lifecycle. Journal of Human Resources, 52(1),
48–87. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.52.1.0415-7074R
Hopmann, S. (2007). Restrained teaching: The common
core of Didaktik. European Educational Research Journal, 6(2),
109–124. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2007.6.2.109
Hopmann, S. T. (2013). The end of schooling as we know
it?. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(1), 1-3.
Inglehart, R. & Oyserman, D. (2004).
Individualism, autonomy, self-expression. The human development syndrome. International
Studies in Sociology and Social Anthropology, 23(1), 74–96.
Ito, M., Baumer, S., Bittanti, M., Boyd, D., Cody, R.,
Herr-Stephensen, R. & Horst, H. (2010). Hanging out,
messing around, geeking out: Living and learning with new media.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ito, M., Gutiérrez, K., Livingstone, S., Penuel, B.,
Rhodes, J., Salen, K…Watkins, S. C. (2013). Connected learning: An agenda
for research and design. Irvine, CA: Digital Media and Learning Research
Hub.
Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old
and new media collide. New York, NY: New York University Press.
Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Weigel, M., Clinton, K.
& Robison, A. J. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory
culture: Media education for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and Practice of
Structural Equation Modeling (Fourth Edition). New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Kress, G. (2008). Meaning and learning in a world of
instability and multiplicity. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(4),
253–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-007-9070-2
Kunter, M., Klusmann, U., Baumert, J., Richter, D., Voss,
T. & Hachfeld, A. (2013). Professional competence of teachers:
Effects on instructional quality and student development. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 105(3), 805. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032583
Loveless, A. & Williamson, B. (2013). Learning
identities in a digital age: Rethinking creativity, education and technology.
London: Routledge.
Maira, S. & Soep, E. (2005). Introduction. In S.
Maira & E. Soep (Eds.), Youthscapes: The popular, the national, the
global (pp. 1–11). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Markussen, E. (2014). Utdanning lønner seg. Oslo:
NIFU. https://doi.org/10.9783/9780812205671.xv
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R. F. & Bakia, M.
(2013). The Effectiveness of Online and Blended Learning: A Meta-Analysis of the
Empirical Literature. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1–47.
Mooij, T. (2009). Education and ICT-based
self-regulation in learning: Theory, design and implementation. Education
and Information Technologies, 14(1), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-008-9066-8
Mullis, I. V. S. & Martin, M. O. (2014). TIMSS
advanced 2015 assessment frameworks. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS
International Study Center, Boston College.
Nunnally, J. C., Bernstein, I. H. & Berge, J. M. T.
(1967). Psychometric theory. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Oblinger, D. G. & Oblinger, J. L. (2005). Educating
the next generation. Boulder, CO: Educause.
OECD. (2014). New insights from TALIS 2013. Paris: OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264196261-en
OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 results in focus. Paris: OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/aa9237e6-en
Ogden, C. L., Carroll, M. D., Kit, B. K. & Flegal,
K. M. (2014). Prevalence of childhood and adult obesity in the United States,
2011-2012. Jama, 311(8), 806-814.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers,
and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital
immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816
Prensky, M. & Gee, J. P. (2006). “Don't
bother me, mom, I'm learning!” How computer and video games are preparing your
kids for twenty-first century success – and how you can help! St.
Paul, MN: Paragon House.
Rich, Y. & Schachter, E. P. (2012). High
school identity climate and student identity development. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 37(3), 218–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.06.002
Rogers, A. (2014). PISA, power and policy: The
emergence of global educational governance. International Review of
Education, 60(4), 591–596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-014-9429-x
Sahlberg, P. (2014). Finnish lessons 2.0: What can
the world learn from educational change in Finland? New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Selwyn, N. (2011). Education and technology: Key
issues and debates. London: A&C Black.
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory
for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and
Distance Learning, 2(1), 3–10.
Stald, G. (2008). Mobile identity: Youth, identity,
and mobile communication media. In: D. Buckingham (Ed.), Youth, identity,
and digital media (pp. 143–164). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sunstein, C. & Thaler, R. (2008). Nudge.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Syvertsen, T.,
Enli, G., Mjøs, O. J. & Moe, H. (2014). The media welfare
state: Nordic media in the digital era. Ann Arbour, MI:
University of Michigan Press.
Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: The rise
of the net generation. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Thomas, D. & Brown, J. S. (2011). A new culture
of learning: Cultivating the imagination for a world of constant change.
Lexington, KY: CreateSpace.
Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect
more from technology and less from each other. London: Basic Books.
Vavik, L. & Salomon, G. (2015). Twenty-first
century skills vs. disciplinary studies? In Y. Rosen, S. Ferrara & M.
Mosharraf (Eds.), Handbook of research on technology tools for real-world
skill development (pp.1–21). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Wearing, S. L., McDonald, M. & Wearing, M. (2013).
Consumer culture, the mobilisation of the narcissistic self and adolescent
deviant leisure. Leisure Studies, 32(4), 367–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2012.668557
Wortham, S. (2011). Youth cultures and education. Review
of Research in Education, 35(1), vii–xi. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X10391735
Wößmann, L. (2015). Universal Basic Skills: What countries stand to gain. Paris: OECD Publishing.
[1] Corresponding author: eyvind.elstad@ils.uio.no
[2] The numbers denote hours: 1= 1 hour, 2= 2 hours, 3=3 hours,
4=4hours, 5=5 hours, and 6= 6 or more.