Introduction
The integration of digital platforms and various learning management systems has transformed secondary education in Kosovo, as in much of the world. This change, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, has promised increased efficiency and connectivity. This is part of a larger movement in education systems facilitated by the emergence of artificial intelligence and technology-driven approaches, which are changing the way education is practiced, governed, and managed (Pireci Sejdiu & Sejdiu, 2025). However, the adoption of these technologies often occurs without critical examination of their underlying implications. In the Kosovar schools where this study is set, teachers are navigating this new digital landscape with varying levels of support and preparation, raising crucial questions about the practical impact of platformization on their daily pedagogical practice. Critical studies have extensively documented the risks associated with the “platformization” of education, where digital tools are not neutral but embody specific values, leading to the datafication of learning, increased surveillance, and the potential strengthening of commercial interests over pedagogical ones (Biesta, 2021; Freire, 1970; Giroux, 2020; Van Dijck et al., 2018; Williamson, 2022). Very little is known about the everyday experiences of educators who are tasked with using these platforms and the specific strategies they develop. For the purposes of this study, we define platformization as the process by which digital platforms, socio-technical systems that facilitate and shape interactions, become central infrastructures in educational settings, influencing pedagogy, assessment, and student-teacher relationships (Kerssens & Kerssens N, 2022). Accordingly, we see critical digital literacy not only as a technical skill, but as the ability of teachers and students to critically investigate these platforms, understanding their political and economic dimensions, including data privacy, algorithmic bias, and commercial motivations (Pangrazio & Sefton-Green, 2022). While there is an expanding body of research on platformization and datafication in the context of education, surprisingly little is known about what teachers actually do about platformization and datafication in their daily work, especially in less represented countries like Kosovo. Much of the research literature on platformization and datafication in the context of education has focused on structural analysis or normative approaches to critical digital literacy, while less attention has been paid to the actual gap between awareness and action in teachers’ daily work. This gap resonates with emerging research in sustainability education, in which similar gaps in knowledge and action have been found, emphasizing the challenges in translating knowledge into action without affective and structural support (Sejdiu & Ramadani, 2026). This study aims to address this gap by focusing on teachers’ understanding, negotiation, and response to platformization-imposed limitations in their daily work. In so doing, the study introduces the concept of an ‘awareness-action gap’ as a framework for understanding the gap between teachers’ awareness of digital risks and their capacity to act critically or emancipatorily in structurally limited environments.
This qualitative study aims to bridge the gap between high-level critique and classroom-level practice by investigating the following research questions:
1. Q1: What are secondary school teachers’ experiences and perceptions of using digital platforms for teaching?
2. Q2: What strategies do teachers use to foster student autonomy and critical awareness regarding digital platforms?
3. Q3: How do teachers understand and manage issues of data privacy and algorithmic governance?
4. Q4: What institutional supports do teachers identify as necessary for the ethical implementation of digital platforms?
The paper is structured as follows. In the first section, we outline our theoretical framework, drawing on sociocultural and ecological perspectives. We then detail our qualitative methodology, based on semi-structured interviews with 14 secondary school teachers in Kosovo. The findings section presents our analysis of teachers’ experiences, organised around their tactical responses to platform constraints and their demands for institutional support. Finally, we discuss the implications of our findings for developing a more robust and institutionally supported approach to critical digital literacy and emancipatory teaching in the era of platformisation. The study thus makes a contribution to international scholarship by conceptualizing the agency of the teacher in the context of the platformization of education as not fully transformative, but situated, tactical, and ecological.
Theoretical and empirical background
To analyse how teachers navigate platformised education, this study uses an integrated framework that combines sociocultural, ecological, and critical perspectives on digital literacy, allowing us to situate individual teachers’ practices within broader institutional and market structures.
A sociocultural and ecological view of platform mediation
From a sociocultural perspective (Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1991), digital platforms are not neutral tools but mediating artifacts that shape classroom interactions and pedagogical relationships. This aligns with earlier work emphasizing that technologies actively shape human learning processes rather than merely supporting them (Sejdiu, 2018). Platforms like Google Classroom or ClassDojo structure how knowledge is shared, how participation is measured, and how teacher and student roles are defined (Selwyn, 2019). In our analysis, this perspective focused our attention on how teachers described platforms as actively shaping their teaching methods and their relationships with students, for instance, by making student performance constantly visible and quantifiable.
Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory provides a crucial multi-level framework (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Navarro & Tudge, 2022). It posits that teacher practice (the microsystem) is influenced by school-level policies (the mesosystem), district or commercial platform mandates (the exosystem), and broader cultural ideologies about technology in education (the macrosystem). We applied this ecological model to interpret our data, analyzing how teachers’ actions, such as P13’s use of coded names to protect privacy, were enabled or constrained by a lack of institutional policy (exosystem) and the pervasive influence of commercial platform markets (macrosystem). Scholars have aptly characterised this interconnected environment as a “platform society,” where public values in sectors like education must constantly negotiate with the data-driven, commercial logic of digital infrastructures (Decuypere et al., 2021; Gilliard, 2017; Kerssens & Van Dijck, 2022; Van Dijck et al., 2018; Van Dijck, 2024; Williamson, 2017).
Critical digital literacy as a response to datafication
The processes of platformization are closely linked to the datafication of education (Jarke & Breiter, 2019). Critical scholars argue this datafication raises significant concerns about student surveillance, algorithmic bias, and the commodification of education (Benjamin, 2019; Couldry & Mejias, 2019; Floridi & Taddeo, 2016; Macgilchrist, 2021a). Our study investigated how these macro-level concerns manifest in teachers’ awareness and practices, particularly in their understanding of data privacy (RQ3).
In response, the concept of critical digital literacy (CDL) has emerged as an essential educational goal (Selwyn, 2019; Selwyn & Stirling, 2011; Selwyn & Jandrić, 2020). Moving beyond functional skills, CDL equips learners to interrogate the political and economic dimensions of digital tools, asking who benefits from a platform’s design and what values it reinforces (Pangrazio & Sefton-Green, 2022; Selwyn, 2019). For this study, we operationalised CDL by examining if and how teachers fostered this critical stance in their classrooms. We coded for instances where they reported discussing data privacy with students, analysing platform terms of service, or encouraging students to question algorithmic recommendations, as hinted at by P14’s practice of talking about privacy “when situations arise.”
In the context of the research, emancipatory teaching has been conceptualized in the Freirean tradition as a form of teaching practice that creates the conditions for the learner to not just interrogate but also transform the socio-political conditions in which the learning process takes place (Freire, 1970; Giroux, 2020). Three levels of pedagogical practice in the context of digital platforms have been identified in the research:
1) The pragmatic use of the digital platform, in which the functionality of the platform is the main concern;
2) The critical awareness of the digital platform, in which the reflection on the use of the data and the power of the algorithms and the digital platform itself plays a role;
3) Emancipatory practice, in which the aim is to transform the relation in the classroom and to create the conditions for the collective critical agency of the learners.
This distinction in the research allows us to assess the emancipatory potential of the teacher’s awareness of the risks associated with the digital platform.
The gap: From theoretical critique to classroom practice
While the theoretical critiques of platformisation are well-established, and the normative case for critical digital literacy is strongly made, there remains a relative lack of empirical research into how these dynamics play out in the daily lives of teachers. We know what scholars say teachers should do, but we have less insight into what they actually do within the constraints of their specific contexts (Pangrazio et al., 2022).
This study addresses this gap by focusing on the lived experiences of high school teachers in Kosovo. It investigates the concrete, often tactical, ways they mediate between platform constraints and their pedagogical values, providing a grounded perspective on the possibilities and limits of resistance and critical practice in a platformising educational landscape.
Methodology
Research design and rationale
This study employed a qualitative research design to gain an in-depth understanding of teachers’ experiences and perceptions regarding the use of digital platforms. A qualitative approach was deemed most appropriate as it allows for the exploration of complex, nuanced phenomena in a real-world context, prioritising depth, detail, and the subjective meanings that participants ascribe to their experiences (Creswell & Poth, 2016). This aligns with our goal of uncovering the lived realities of teachers navigating platformized classrooms.
Participants and sampling
Participants were 14 high school teachers (12 female, 2 male) from schools in Prishtina, Ferizaj, and Prizren, with teaching experience ranging from under 3 years to over 20 years. The majority held a Master’s degree. A purposive sampling strategy was used to select participants who were actively using digital platforms in their teaching, ensuring they could provide rich, relevant insights related to the research questions (Palinkas et al., 2015).
Data collection
Data was collected through semi-structured interviews, which allowed for consistency across participants while providing flexibility to probe interesting leads that emerged during conversations (Kallio et al., 2016). Each interview, lasting 45–60 minutes, was conducted in person at the participants’ schools, audio-recorded, and later transcribed verbatim.
The interview guide was developed based on the study’s theoretical framework and research questions. Core questions included:
1. What digital platforms do you use most frequently in your teaching, and what has your experience been like?
2. How do you support students in using these platforms independently and responsibly?
3. What is your understanding of what happens to student data on these platforms?
4. Have you ever had concerns about student privacy or how a platform works? Can you describe that?
5. What kind of training or institutional support would help you use these technologies more effectively and ethically?
Data analysis
The data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis following the six-phase process outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006, 2019). This method was selected for its utility in identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns (themes) within qualitative data, and its compatibility with both experiential and critical research questions. Considering the nature of reflexive thematic analysis as an interpretative approach, the researchers position themselves as scholars in the domain of education and digital pedagogy. This positioned the researchers to take a critical approach to the phenomenon of platformization, datafication, and power. The researchers had regular sessions to discuss the potential bias and ensure the interpretations were grounded in the participants’ accounts. Data saturation was considered to be achieved when new themes were not emerging from the final interviews. The consistency of the themes from the participants from different schools and levels of experience was seen as an indicator of the sufficiency of the sample size in terms of addressing the research questions.
The analysis process was as follows:
1.
Familiarization: Researchers repeatedly read the transcripts to immerse themselves in the data.
2.
Initial Coding: We systematically generated initial codes across the entire dataset. This was a data-driven (inductive) process, focusing on capturing key ideas from the teachers’ statements.
3.
Generating Themes: The coded data were then collated and organized into potential themes. At this stage, we began a more theoretical, deductive interpretation, examining how the initial codes related to our theoretical framework (e.g., instances of “teacher agency,” “ecological constraints,” “critical literacy practices”).
4.
Reviewing Themes: Potential themes were checked against the coded data and the entire dataset to ensure they formed a coherent pattern and accurately reflected the participants’ accounts.
5.
Defining and Naming Themes: We further refined the essence of each theme and generated clear, descriptive names for them (e.g., “Pragmatic Adoption,” “Tactical Resistance,” “The Institutional Support Gap”).
6.
Producing the Report: The final analysis was woven into a narrative, supported by vivid, compelling extracts from the interviews.
During the coding process, initial codes were generated independently by members of the research team and subsequently compared and refined through iterative discussions. Differences in coding interpretations were resolved through consensus, ensuring consistency and analytical rigor. This collaborative process contributed to the refinement of the coding framework and the development of coherent and well-defined themes.
The analysis was thus a hybrid approach: themes were primarily emergent from the data, but their final organization and interpretation were informed by the concepts of our theoretical framework. The coding was conducted using MAXQDA software to facilitate data management. To enhance credibility, the research team held regular debriefing sessions to discuss and reconcile coding interpretations, ensuring a consistent analytical approach.
Ethical considerations
Prior to participation, all teachers received a detailed information sheet and provided written informed consent. They were advised of their right to withdraw at any time. Confidentiality was maintained by using pseudonyms (P1, P2, etc.) in the data analysis and reporting. Audio recordings were deleted following transcription.
Results
Our analysis of teacher interviews revealed a complex navigation of the platformized classroom, characterized by pragmatic adoption, tactical resistance, and a pronounced gap between awareness of digital risks and the capacity to address them. The findings are organized into three central themes.
Theme 1: Pragmatic adoption and constrained choice
In response to RQ1 (teachers’ experiences and perceptions), we found that platform use was driven primarily by pragmatism and institutional adoption rather than critical selection. Teachers relied on a narrow ecosystem of tools, predominantly Google Classroom and the school’s “E-system,” which were often mandated or became the default, especially after their widespread use during the pandemic. As P6 noted, “None, only during the pandemic we used Google Classroom.”
The perceived value of these platforms was largely functional, focused on efficiency in communication, assignment distribution, and assessment. P4 described their approach as “contemporary and functional,” while P5 stated, “I use technology only as a tool to facilitate communication and conduct online lessons.” This suggests that the “innovation” of platforms is, in practice, often reduced to utility and administrative convenience, with teachers exercising little critical choice over which digital infrastructures shape their pedagogy.
Though the intention behind the adoption of such platforms by the teacher has been described as functional and efficiency-based, such a functional approach also conceals the structural limitations and constraints. For instance, the restricted number and normalized presence of such platforms indicate a situation where the decisions and choices of the teacher might be more externally dictated than based on a preference for a particular teaching approach. Such a situation, therefore, also conceals the fact that the adoption and implementation of such a neutral and functional approach might also be based on the logic of the platformization process, where the interests of efficiency and standardization might take priority over other considerations.
Theme 2: Tactical resistance and mitigation strategies
Addressing RQ2 (strategies for autonomy and critical awareness) and RQ3 (navigating data privacy), we identified several nuanced strategies teachers employed to assert agency and mitigate perceived risks. These were not large-scale rebellions but everyday “tactics” to reclaim pedagogical space.
A key strategy was the conscious limitation of data sharing. P13 reported “Using coded names or initials to avoid displaying full data,” and P2 confirmed using “only minimal personal data... for administrative purposes.” Others exercised platform choice within constraints, with P12 stating, “If a platform doesn’t serve me well, I switch, I don’t stick with it.” To foster student autonomy (RQ2), teachers used a scaffolded approach. P2 provided “initial guidance then independent action,” and P8 emphasized “concrete instructions for each digital task and space for individual effort.” These practices demonstrate that teacher agency exists, but manifests as localized, tactical resistance rather than systemic opposition.
Such practices of tactical resistance clearly illustrate that teachers are not passive users of digital platforms but active mediators of their constraints. Nevertheless, these resistive practices are still local, fragmented, and individual in nature. Most importantly, while teachers are trying to resist the risks associated with digital platforms, such as data exposure, they still remain dependent on these platforms for their teaching activities. This shows us a fundamental paradox in terms of how these teachers resist and reproduce these digital platforms. This can be seen as a manifestation of asymmetrical power relations in terms of how these digital platforms are influencing the possibilities for pedagogical practice.
Theme 3: The awareness-action gap and the call for support
Finally, addressing RQ3 and RQ4 (institutional supports), a clear disconnect emerged between teachers’ awareness of digital ethics and their ability to act upon it, largely due to a lack of institutional support. While many participants expressed a moderate understanding of data tracking, with P1 noting, “we know about cookies and trackers, but we don’t know exactly what happens afterward”, this awareness was coupled with feelings of uncertainty and a lack of authority. P11 confessed, “I’m not sure, we haven’t had any training on this,” and P12 called it “a part missing in my practice; I have many uncertainties.”
This gap fuelled a powerful, consistent demand for structured support. Participants requested “practical training on data protection” (P3) and guidance on “integrating ethics topics into the curriculum” (P14). They advocated for stronger institutional policies, with P3 demanding “regulations banning platforms that lack data transparency.” This collective voice highlights that without formal training and clear policies, teachers feel individually responsible for managing systemic risks, limiting their capacity to implement consistent critical digital literacy education.
This identified gap in awareness and action suggests an important misalignment between teacher cognition and institutional capacity. While teachers have emerging awareness of datafication, privacy, and algorithmic processes, this does not translate into pedagogical practice. This is less about teachers’ lack of desire than about structural limitations in training, policy, and institutional support. Ecologically, we can think about the gap between teachers’ practice at the micro-level and the conditions of the exosystem and macrosystem, in which governance conditions do not support teachers’ critical engagement. Thus, we can think about critical digital literacy as an aspirational practice rather than an actual practice, reinforcing the need to reconceptualize digital literacy as structurally rather than individually focused.
Discussion
Synthesis of findings
This study contributes to existing knowledge on platformized education by providing an empirically informed account of how teachers manage the relationship between awareness, agency, and structural constraint. Although prior studies highlighted the need for critical digital literacy and teacher agency, this study’s findings show that such teacher capabilities are not solely an individualistic matter but are significantly influenced by structural factors. In this respect, this study contributes to contemporary understandings of teacher agency by revealing its tactical and situated nature, as opposed to its emancipatory potential. Teachers are neither passive agents of technological adoption, nor are they completely empowered agents of change, but rather operate in a constrained environment where teacher agency is limited by the lack of support, policies, and programs.
This study set out to investigate how teachers experience and navigate platformized education. Our findings paint a picture of educators as tactically aware but structurally unsupported (Jacovkis et al., 2024; Knox, 2020; Markauskaite et al., 2024). They are not passive consumers of edtech; they are active agents who make deliberate, if constrained, choices to protect student privacy and foster independence. However, their agency is significantly limited by a stark awareness-action gap, where their concerns about datafication and algorithmic governance are not met with adequate institutional resources or policy frameworks.
On this basis, the notion of the ‘awareness-action gap’ can be seen not only as an empirical phenomenon, but also as an ecological one. At the individual level, teachers have an awareness of issues related to data privacy, algorithmic bias, and platform governance. Nevertheless, at the institutional level, teachers lack the conditions necessary to translate their awareness into their pedagogical practice.
At the ecological level, the gap between awareness and practice can be seen as a misalignment between individual practice (micro-level – teachers), institutional conditions (exosystem – school policies and training), and structural factors (macrosystem – market logics of platforms). Consequently, the development of critical digital literacy is patchy, which calls for the reconceptualization of digital literacy as something other than an individual capacity.
Teacher agency as tactical resistance
Our finding that teachers engage in “tactical resistance”, using coded names, minimizing data, and selectively abandoning platforms, resonates with literature that positions teachers as critical mediators of technology (Erstad & Sefton-Green, 2013). However, our study specifies the form this mediation takes. These are not grand acts of refusal but what Macgilchrist (2021b) might term “frictions,” subtle subversions of platform logics to preserve pedagogical values. This aligns with a sociocultural view, demonstrating how teachers re-contextualize the mediating artifact of the platform to align with local ethical concerns, even when they cannot change the artifact itself.
The structural constraints on critical practice
The pronounced “awareness-action gap” we identified is a critical contribution. Teachers in our study were aware of the risks outlined by critical scholars (e.g., Couldry & Mejias, 2019; Van Dijck et al., 2018) but lacked the capacity to systematically address them. This finding directly supports Pangrazio and Sefton-Green’s (2022) argument that critical digital literacy cannot be left to individual teacher initiative. The calls for “practical training” (P3) and integrated curriculum (P14) highlight that without dedicated professional development, CDL remains an abstract concept rather than a classroom practice.
An ecological disconnect
Viewing these findings through an ecological lens (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) clarifies the root of the problem. Teachers at the microsystem level are actively trying to create ethical, critical digital learning environments. However, they are operating within a deficient exosystem (school and policy levels) that lacks transparent platform governance and mandated training. Furthermore, they are subject to a macrosystem (broader market and cultural ideologies) that prioritizes commercial platform adoption without concurrent investment in digital ethics. This ecological misalignment means teacher agency is expended on navigating systemic failures rather than being amplified by supportive structures.
Importantly, the findings also raise critical questions regarding the emancipatory potential of digital pedagogy. While teachers demonstrate elements of critical awareness and tactical resistance, there is limited evidence of fully emancipatory practice in a Freirean sense. This suggests that emancipatory teaching cannot emerge solely from individual teacher initiative, but requires supportive institutional conditions, dialogical pedagogical spaces, and explicit integration into curricula and teacher education. Without these conditions, emancipatory pedagogy risks remaining an aspirational concept rather than a sustained classroom reality.
Conclusion and recommendations
Conclusion
This study sought to understand how high school teachers in Kosovo experience and navigate the platformized classroom. Our findings, in response to our research questions, clearly show that teachers are not passive recipients of technology but active, tactical agents. They primarily rely on a narrow set of platforms for pragmatic reasons (RQ1) and have developed specific strategies to protect student privacy and foster autonomy, such as using coded names and scaffolding independent platform use (RQ2). However, their understanding of data ethics, while present, is often partial and uncertain (RQ3). Crucially, this awareness does not translate into confident practice due to a significant lack of institutional support, with teachers uniformly calling for structured training and clear policies (RQ4).
The primary contribution of this study is its empirical demonstration of the gap between tactical awareness and strategic action. We have documented the specific, everyday ways teachers resist platform logics, but we have also shown that this resistance is fragile, individual, and ultimately limited without systemic backing. Our ecological analysis confirms that teacher agency at the microsystem level is insufficient when the exosystem (school policy) and macrosystem (broader edtech market) are misaligned with the goals of critical, ethical digital education.
Limitations
This study has several limitations. The qualitative design and small sample size (14 teachers) from specific regions in Kosovo mean the findings are not statistically generalizable. The data are based on self-reported practices and perceptions, which may differ from observed behavior. Furthermore, the study reflects the particular context of Kosovar education, and while the themes may be transferable, the specific challenges and policy landscapes may vary in other countries.
Recommendations
Based on our findings, we propose the following concrete recommendations aimed at bridging the identified awareness-action gap and providing the structural support teachers need:
1. For School Administrators:
Develop a School Digital Ethics Policy: Create and implement a clear policy that outlines approved educational platforms, specifies data handling and privacy protocols (e.g., what student data can be uploaded), and establishes criteria for evaluating new digital tools based on transparency and ethical design.
Provide Practical, Not Theoretical, Training: Move beyond one-off workshops. Instead, establish ongoing professional learning communities where teachers can workshop real-world scenarios, such as how to conduct a “platform audit” with students or how to adapt a lesson plan to include a discussion of algorithmic bias.
2. For Teacher Training Institutions (Pre-service and In-service):
Integrate Critical Digital Literacy into Pedagogy Courses: Mandate that teacher training programs include modules on data privacy, algorithmic governance, and the political economy of edtech. This should not be a separate IT skills course but must be embedded into methods courses for all subjects.
Equip Teachers with Classroom-Ready Resources: Provide trainers and teachers with concrete lesson plans and activities that integrate critical digital literacy. For example, a history teacher could analyze the bias in search engine results, or an English teacher could deconstruct the persuasive design of a popular app.
3. For Policymakers (Ministry of Education):
Formalize Critical Digital Literacy in the National Curriculum: Mandate critical digital literacy as a cross-curricular competency, ensuring it is systematically developed across subjects and grade levels, rather than being left to individual teacher initiative.
Establish Vetting and Procurement Guidelines: Create national guidelines for the procurement of educational software, prioritizing platforms that demonstrate transparency in data use, robust privacy protections, and a commitment to interoperability to avoid vendor lock-in.
By implementing these multi-level recommendations, stakeholders can transform the current reality where teachers bear the sole burden of ethical navigation. The goal is to build an educational ecosystem that doesn’t just provide digital tools but also equips teachers and students with the critical framework to use them wisely and justly.
Ethics and consent
This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approval was granted by the Scientific Committee of the Faculty of Philology at the University “Ukshin Hoti” Prizren on 10 March 2025. As indicated in the official approval letter, the committee did not issue an ethics reference or permit number.
All participants provided written informed consent before participating in interviews and questionnaire activities.
Data availability
The primary data consist of written survey-style interview responses from teachers and contain sensitive personal information. In line with participant consent and the conditions set by the Scientific Committee of the Faculty of Philology, University “Ukshin Hoti” Prizren (approval date: 10.03.2025), these data cannot be made publicly available due to the risk of re-identification. However, restricted access may be granted for non-commercial academic research following a formal request to the corresponding author. All requests will undergo ethical assessment, and access, if approved, will require a data-sharing agreement ensuring confidentiality, non-redistribution, and compliance with the original ethical approval. All analytical procedures, coding frameworks, and methodological details are fully described in the article, allowing full transparency and replication of the analytical approach.
References
- Braun V, Clarke V:Using thematic analysis in psychology.
Qual Res Psychol.
2006; 3(2): 77–101. Publisher Full Text
- Braun V, Clarke V:Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis.
Qual Res Sport Exerc Health.
2019; 11(4): 589–597. Publisher Full Text
- Benjamin R:
Race after technology: abolitionist tools for the new Jim code.
Polity Press;2019. Reference Source
- Biesta G:
World-centred education: a view for the present.
1st ed.Routledge;2021. Publisher Full Text
- Bronfenbrenner U:
The ecology of human development: experiments by nature and design.
Harvard University Press;1979. Publisher Full Text
- Creswell JW, Poth CN:
Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches.
Sage publications;2016. Reference Source
- Couldry N, Mejias UA:
The costs of connection: how data is colonizing human life and appropriating it for capitalism.
Stanford University Press;2019. Reference Source
- Decuypere M, Grimaldi E, Landri P:Introduction: critical studies of digital education platforms.
Crit Stud Educ.
2021; 62(1): 1–16. Publisher Full Text
- Erstad O, Sefton-Green J:
Identity, community, and learning lives in the digital age.
Cambridge University Press;2013. Reference Source
- Floridi L, Taddeo M:What is data ethics?
Philos Trans R Soc Lond A Math Phys Eng Sci.
2016; 374(2083): 20160360. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
- Freire P:
Pedagogy of the oppressed.
Herder and Herder;1970. Reference Source
- Gilliard G:Pedagogy and the logic of platforms.
Educause Rev.
2017; 52(4). Reference Source
- Gilliard C: Pedagogy and the logic of platforms. In:
Jandrić EP, Ford DR (eds.), Postdigital Ecopedagogies: Genealogies, Contradictions, and Possible Futures.
Postdigit Sci Educ.
2022;4. : 692–710. Publisher Full Text
- Giroux HA:
On critical pedagogy.
2nd ed.Bloomsbury Academic;2020. Reference Source
- Jacovkis J, Rivera-Vargas P, Helsper EJ:Plataformización de la educación pública: propuestas para abordar las desigualdades socio-digitales y reforzar el rol de la administración pública en Cataluña.
Int Multidiscip J Soc Sci.
2024; 13(1): 39–57. Publisher Full Text
- Jarke J, Breiter A:Editorial: the datafication of education.
Learn Media Technol.
2019; 44(1): 1–6. Publisher Full Text
- Kallio H, Pietilä AM, Johnson M, et al.:Systematic methodological review: developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide.
J Adv Nurs.
2016; 72(12): 2954–2965. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- Kerssens N, Van Dijck J:Governed by edtech? Valuing pedagogical autonomy in a platform society.
Harv Educ Rev.
2022; 92(2): 284–303. Publisher Full Text
- Knox J:Artificial Intelligence and education in China.
Learn Media Technol.
2020; 45(3): 298–311. Publisher Full Text
- Macgilchrist F:Students and the quantification of learning: implications for democratic education.
Learn Media Technol.
2021a; 46(1): 7–20.
- Macgilchrist F:Cruel optimism in edtech: when the digital data practices of educational technology providers inadvertently hinder social justice.
Learn Media Technol.
2021b; 46(1): 77–87.
- Markauskaite L, Schwarz B, Damşa C, et al.:Beyond disciplinary engagement: researching the ecologies of interdisciplinary learning.
Journal of the Learning Sciences.
2024; 33(2): 213–241. Publisher Full Text
- Navarro JL, Tudge JRH:Technologizing Bronfenbrenner: neo-ecological theory.
Curr Psychol.
2022; 42: 19338–19354. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- Palinkas LA, Horwitz SM, Green CA, et al.:Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research.
Adm Policy Ment Health.
2015; 42(5): 533–544. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
- Pangrazio L, Sefton-Green J:
Learning to live with datafication: educational case studies and initiatives from across the world.
1st ed.Routledge;2022. Publisher Full Text
- Pangrazio L, Stornaiuolo A, Nichols TP, et al.:Datafication meets platformization: materializing data processes in teaching and learning.
Harv Educ Rev.
2022; 92(2): 257–283. Publisher Full Text
- Sejdiu NP, Sejdiu S:The quiet transformation of higher education in the AI era.
Open Res. Eur.
2025; 5: 249. Publisher Full Text
- Sejdiu S:Human learning process with technologies.
Балканистичен Форум.
2018; 3: 230–240. Reference Source.
- Sejdiu S, Ramadani R:Catalytic Communication in Sustainability Education: Bridging the Knowledge–Action Gap Through Affective Engagement and Strategic Praxis.
Educ. Sci.
2026; 16(3): 494. Publisher Full Text
- Selwyn N:
Should robots replace teachers? AI and the future of education.
1st ed.Polity Press;2019.
- Selwyn N, Stirling E:
Social media and Education.
London:Routledge;2011.
- Selwyn N, Jandrić P:Postdigital living in the age of COVID-19: unsettling what we see as possible.
Postdigit. Sci. Educ.
2020; 2(3): 989–1005. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
- Van Dijck J:Governing platforms and societies.
Platforms & Society.
2024; 1. Publisher Full Text
- Van Dijck J, Poell T, De Waal M:
The platform society: public values in a connective world.
Oxford University Press;2018. Reference Source
- Vygotsky LS: Mind in society: development of higher psychological processes.Cole M, Jolm-Steiner V, Scribner S, et al., editors. Harvard University Press;1978. Publisher Full Text
- Wertsch JV:
Voices of the mind: a sociocultural approach to mediated action.
Harvard University Press;1991. Reference Source
- Williamson B:
Big data in education: The digital future of learning, policy and practice.
SAGE Publications Ltd;2017. Publisher Full Text
- Williamson B: Afterword: the future of datafication in education? Clouds, bodies and ethics. In: Learning to live with datafication. pp. (209–215). Routledge;2022. Reference Source
