Digital education in Germany: Policies, teacher perspectives, and challenges in a post-pandemic world

Eucidio Pimenta  Arruda; Suzana dos Santos  Gomes; Durcelina Pimenta  Arruda

doi:10.59400/fes1976

Digital education in Germany: Policies, teacher perspectives, and challenges in a post-pandemic world

Eucidio Pimenta Arruda Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte 31270-905, Brazil
Suzana dos Santos Gomes Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte 31270-905, Brazil
Durcelina Pimenta Arruda Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte 31270-905, Brazil

Article ID: 1976

56 Views, 28 PDF Downloads

DOI: https://doi.org/10.59400/fes1976

Keywords: digital education; digital technologies; teacher training; educational policies; Germany; post-pandemic; artificial intelligence; digital skills

Abstract

This article intends to conduct a theoretical examination of education and technology public policies proposed for the German school system, under a post-pandemic context in which governments around the world have strengthened their pedagogical initiatives in digital technologies in the school environment. The results presented here are part of the research “Post-pandemic education: understanding of analogic education and digital education from the perspective of educational institutions and teachers in Brazil and Germany”, carried out between 2023 and 2024. As a method, we conducted extensive documentary research that analyzed within the context of technology-mediated educational policies in Germany, in a global context. We sought to relate these policies to a possible change in school education that can also reposition teacher training in the country. In the German context, the article describes the education system, digital education policies and the challenges in their implementation. The results show important avenues for changes in teacher training for the use of technology and the need for additional research to assess the impact of digital education.

References

[1]Arruda EP, Kerres M. Education Practices Mediated by Digital Technologies: Mobilization and Teachers’ Strategies in Primary and Secondary Schools in Germany. Education Sciences. 2024; 14(8): 838. doi: 10.3390/educsci14080838

[2]Teräs M, Suoranta J, Teräs H, et al. Post-Covid-19 Education and Education Technology ‘Solutionism’: a Seller’s Market. Postdigital Science and Education. 2020; 2(3): 863-878. doi: 10.1007/s42438-020-00164-x

[3]Sintema EJ. Effect of COVID-19 on the Performance of Grade 12 Students: Implications for STEM Education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. 2020; 16(7). doi: 10.29333/ejmste/7893

[4]Kerres M. Against All Odds: Education in Germany Coping with Covid-19. Postdigital Science and Education. 2020; 2(3): 690-694. doi: 10.1007/s42438-020-00130-7

[5]Arruda EP. Emergency remote education: elements for public policies in Brazilian education in times of Covid-19. In Rede-Journal of Distance Education. 2020.

[6]Selwyn N. Looking beyond learning: notes towards the critical study of educational technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2010; 26(1): 65-73. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00338.x

[7]Buckingham D. Digital Media Literacies: Rethinking Media Education in the Age of the Internet. Research in Comparative and International Education. 2007; 2(1): 43-55. doi: 10.2304/rcie.2007.2.1.43

[8]Moursund D, & Bielefeldt T. Will new teachers be prepared to teach in a digital age? A national survey on information technology in teacher education; 1999.

[9]Papert S. The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York; 1993.

[10]UNESCO. Technology in Education: A Tool on Whose Terms. Glob. Educ. Monit. Rep; 2023.

[11]Olofsson AD, Fransson G, Lindberg JO. A study of the use of digital technology and its conditions with a view to understanding what ‘adequate digital competence’ may mean in a national policy initiative. Educational Studies. 2019; 46(6): 727-743. doi: 10.1080/03055698.2019.1651694

[12]Komljenovic J. The rise of education rentiers: digital platforms, digital data and rents. Learning, Media and Technology. 2021; 46(3): 320-332. doi: 10.1080/17439884.2021.1891422

[13]Esteve A. The business of personal data: Google, Facebook, and privacy issues in the EU and the USA. International Data Privacy Law. 2017; 7(1): 36-47. doi: 10.1093/idpl/ipw026

[14]Decuypere M, Grimaldi E, Landri P. Introduction: Critical studies of digital education platforms. Critical Studies in Education. 2021; 62(1): 1-16. doi: 10.1080/17508487.2020.1866050

[15]Grimaldi E, Ball SJ. Paradoxes of freedom. An archaeological analysis of educational online platform interfaces. Critical Studies in Education. 2020; 62(1): 114-129. doi: 10.1080/17508487.2020.1861043

[16]Marone M, Van Durme B. Data portraits: Recording foundation model training data. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems; 2024.

[17]Statistisches Bundesamt (Destatis). Genesis-Online. Available online: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Home/_inhalt.html (accessed on 1 June 2024).

[18]Marshall TH. Sociology at the Crossroads and Other Essays. Heinemann: London, UK; 1963.

[19]Cubberley EP. Readings in the History of Education. Houghton Mifflin: Boston, MA, USA; 1920.

[20]Pinto ÁV. The Concept of Technology. Counterpoint: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; 2005.

[21]Cury CRJ. For a National Education System. Moderna: São Paulo, Brazil; 2010.

[22]Muller JZ. Capitalism and inequality: What the right and the left get wrong. Foreign Aff; 2013.

[23]Beck EM, Colclough GS. Schooling and capitalism: the effect of urban economic structure on the value of education. In Industries, Firms, and Jobs; 2017.

[24]Schumpeter JA. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Routledge. 2013.

[25]ARRUDA EP. Implementation of digital technologies in the curricula of basic education schools in OECD member countries. (Portuguese). Subsídios à elaboração da BNCC; 2018.

[26]Frankema E, & Van Waijenburg M. The great convergence. Skill accumulation and mass education in Africa and Asia; 2019.

[27]Ramirez FO, Boli J. The Political Construction of Mass Schooling: European Origins and Worldwide Institutionalization. Sociology of Education. 1987; 60(1): 2. doi: 10.2307/2112615

[28]European Commission (2024). Digital learning and ICT in education. Available online: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/digital-learning (accessed on 20 May 2024).

[29]Pressick-Kilborn K, Buchanan J, Maher D. Promoting Environmental Education for Primary School-aged Students Using Digital Technologies. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. 2018; 15(2). doi: 10.29333/ejmste/100639

[30]Kerres, M., McElvany, N., Lorenz, R., et al. Education in the digital world: (How) Can digital literacy be taught? In Learning in and for Schools in the Age of Digitality—Opportunities and Challenges for Teachers, Teaching and Learners. (German). Münster: Waxmann; 2023.

[31]Tigert JJ. Radio in the American School System. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science; 1929.

[32]Gee JP. Why video games are good for your soul: Pleasure and learning. Common Ground; 2005.

[33]Turkle S. The second self: Computers and the human spirit. Mit Press; 2005.

[34]Arruda EP. Learning and digital games. Campinas: Alínea; 2011.

[35]Arruda EP. Digital skills shortages and curricula options in Brazilian PhD programs in education. Environment and Social Psychology. 2023; 9(1). doi: 10.54517/esp.v9i1.1859

[36]Haleem A, Javaid M, Qadri MA, et al. Understanding the role of digital technologies in education: A review. Sustainable Operations and Computers. 2022; 3: 275-285. doi: 10.1016/j.susoc.2022.05.004

[37]UNESCO. Global Education Monitoring Report 2023: Technology in education—A tool on whose terms? Paris, UNESCO; 2023.

[38]Vasquez Cano LY. (2022). Study of sustainable construction for the improvement of the urban image in the district of San Juan de Lurigancho. (Spanish). Universidad César Vallejo; 2022.

[39]Mao H, Liu S, Zhang J, et al. Information technology resource, knowledge management capability, and competitive advantage: The moderating role of resource commitment. International Journal of Information Management. 2016; 36(6): 1062-1074. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.07.001

[40]Ertmer PA. Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development. 2005; 53(4): 25-39. doi: 10.1007/bf02504683

[41]BMBF. Grundsatzpapier des Bundesministeriums für Bildung und Forschung zur Wissenschaftskommunikation. Available online: https://www.bmbf.de/upload_filestore/pub/Grundsatzpapier_zur_Wissenschaftskommunikation.pdf (accessed on 25 May 2024).

[42]Dogan ME, Goru Dogan T, Bozkurt A. The Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Online Learning and Distance Education Processes: A Systematic Review of Empirical Studies. Applied Sciences. 2023; 13(5): 3056. doi: 10.3390/app13053056

[43]Tiede J, & Grafe S. The Integration of Media-Related Studies and Competencies into US and German Initial Teacher Education. A Cross-National Analysis of Contemporary Practices and Trends. In: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE); 2019.

[44]Webb M, Doman E. Impacts of flipped classrooms on learner attitudes towards technology-enhanced language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 2019; 33(3): 240-274. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2018.1557692

[45]Storte D, Webb M, Bottino R, et al. Coding, programming and the changing curriculum for computing in schools. In: Proceedings of the Report of UNESCO/IFIP TC3 Meeting at OCCE; Linz, Austria; 2019.

[46]Okoye K, Hussein H, Arrona-Palacios A, et al. Impact of digital technologies upon teaching and learning in higher education in Latin America: an outlook on the reach, barriers, and bottlenecks. Education and Information Technologies. 2022; 28(2): 2291-2360. doi: 10.1007/s10639-022-11214-1

[47]Dirckinck-Holmfeld L, Ipsen BJ, Tamborg AL, et al. Modes of Teacher Participation in the Digitalization of School. Designs for Learning. 2019; 11(1): 63-71. doi: 10.16993/dfl.109

[48]Wohlfart, O., & Wagner, I. (2023). Digitale Transformation unter Berücksichtigung zentraler Funktionen des Schulsystems–welchen Beitrag leistet der Digital-Pakt Schule 2019–2024?. PraxisForschungLehrer* innenBildung. Zeitschrift für Schul-und Professionsentwicklung.(PFLB), 5(1), 246-257.

[49]Sailer M, Murböck J, Fischer F. Digital learning in schools: What does it take beyond digital technology? Teaching and Teacher Education. 2021; 103: 103346. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2021.103346

[50]Burke PF, Schuck S, Aubusson P, et al. Exploring teacher pedagogy, stages of concern and accessibility as determinants of technology adoption. Technology, Pedagogy and Education. 2017; 27(2): 149-163. doi: 10.1080/1475939x.2017.1387602

[51]Kong SC, Abelson H. Computational Thinking Education. Springer Singapore; 2019.

[52]BMBF. Karliczek: In Zeiten von Corona fördern wir digitales Lernen wie noch nie zuvor. Available online: https://www.bmbf.de/de/karliczek-in-zeiten-von-corona-foerdern-wir-digitales-lernen-wie-noch-nie-zuvor-11453.html (accessed on 15 July 2024).

[53]KMK (Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bun-desrepublik Deutschland) & BMBF (Bundesministerium für Bildung und For-schung) (Hrsg). DigitalPakt Schule von Bund und Ländern. Gemeinsame Erklärung. Available online: https://www.dstgb.de/aktuelles/archiv/archiv-2017/dstgb-zu-den-eck punkten-der-bund-laender-vereinbarung-digitalpaktschule/ergebnis-eckpunkte-st-ag-230517.pdf?cid=7p2 (accessed on 15 July 2024).

[54]Wohlfart O, & Wagner I. (2022). “DigitalPakt Schule 2019 bis 2024”—Analysis of the structural digitization of the education system in Germany. (German). PraxisForschungLehrer*innenBildung; 2022.

[55]BMBF. Wissenswertes zum DigitalPakt Schule. Available online: https://www.bmbf.de/de/wissenswertes-zum-digitalpakt-schule-6496.html (accessed on 15 July 2024).

[56]Hepp A. Cultures of mediatization. John Wiley & Sons; 2013.

[57]Lund A, Furberg A, Bakken J, et al. What Does Professional Digital Competence Mean in Teacher Education? Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy. 2014; 9(4): 280-298. doi: 10.18261/issn1891-943x-2014-04-04

[58]Mattar J, Ramos DK, Lucas MR. DigComp-Based Digital competence Assessment Tools: Literature Review and Instrument Analysis. Education and Information Technologies. 2022; 27(8): 10843-10867. doi: 10.1007/s10639-022-11034-3

[59]Lang M. Teacher development of computer use in education in Germany. Education and information technologies; 2000.

[60]Clark-Wilson A, Robutti O, Sinclair N, et al. The Mathematics Teacher in the Digital Era. Springer Netherlands; 2014.

[61]Braun T, Büsch A, Dander V, et al. Position paper on further development of the KMK-Strategy ‹Bildung in der digitalen Welt›. MedienPädagogik: Zeitschrift für Theorie und Praxis der Medienbildung; 2021.

[62]Thyssen C, Huwer J, Irion T, et al. From TPACK to DPACK: The “Digitality-Related Pedagogical and Content Knowledge”—Model in STEM-Education. Education Sciences. 2023; 13(8): 769. doi: 10.3390/educsci13080769

[63]Thorvaldsen S, Sollied Madsen S. Decoding the Digital Gap in Teacher Education: Three Perspectives across the Globe. Teacher Education in the 21st Century - Emerging Skills for a Changing World. IntechOpen; 2021.

[64]Fernández-Batanero JM, Montenegro-Rueda M, Fernández-Cerero J, et al. Digital competences for teacher professional development. Systematic review. European Journal of Teacher Education. 2020; 45(4): 513-531. doi: 10.1080/02619768.2020.1827389

[65]Sarker MNI, Wu M, Cao Q, et al. Leveraging Digital Technology for Better Learning and Education: A Systematic Literature Review. International Journal of Information and Education Technology. 2019; 9(7): 453-461. doi: 10.18178/ijiet.2019.9.7.1246

Published

2024-12-16

How to Cite

Arruda, E. P., Gomes, S. dos S., & Arruda, D. P. (2024). Digital education in Germany: Policies, teacher perspectives, and challenges in a post-pandemic world. Forum for Education Studies, 3(1), 1976. https://doi.org/10.59400/fes1976

Download Citation

Issue

Vol. 3 No. 1 (2025)

Section

Article

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Editor-in-Chief

Dr. Surapati Pramanik

Nandalal Ghosh B.T. College, India

eISSN

3029-2956

Publication Frequency

Quarterly

About the Publisher

Academic Publishing insists on taking academic exchange and publication as the main line, carrying out comprehensive management based on science and technology, and fully exploring excellent international publishing resources. Within 5 years, it will form a strategic framework and scale with science (S), technology (T), medicine (M), education (E), and humanities and arts (H) as the main publishing fields. Academic Publishing is headquartered in Singapore and based in Malaysia, with the United States and China providing the main scientific and academic resources. At the same time, it has established long-term good cooperative relations with other publishing companies, scientific research communities, and academic organizations in more than a dozen countries and regions. Academic Publishing uses English and Chinese as its main publishing languages, mainly publishing books, journals, and conference papers in print and online. The vast majority of publications follow the international open access policy, providing stable and long-term quality and professional publications. With the joint efforts of the expert team and our professional editorial team, our publications will gradually be indexed by international databases in stages to provide convenient and professional retrieval for various scholars. At the same time, manuscripts we accept will be subject to the peer review principle, and cutting-edge and innovative research articles will be preferentially accepted for peer reference and discussion. All kinds of our publications are welcome for peer to contribute, access, and download.

more

Volume Arrangement

2025

2024

2023

Featured Articles

Diachronic analysis of Spanish scientific production on teaching methodologies in Primary Education: A scientometric and conceptual perspective (2000–2023)

The evaluation of science is essential to ensuring the quality, validity, and reliability of scientific results. Science needs to undergo a review process to ensure the rigorousness of scientific output. This evaluation provides a solid basis for political and economic decisions related to the design and execution of research projects, the establishment of new lines of research, or the identification of areas of specialization. This paper analyses diachronically the Spanish scientific production related to the implementation and development of teaching methodologies in primary education and indexed in the Scopus and Web of Science databases during the period 2000–2023. This analysis is carried out on the one hand, from a scientometric perspective, based on the analysis of indicators such as diachronic production, the journals with the highest scientific productivity, and the most productive institutions, and, on the other hand, from a conceptual perspective, trying to define its relationship with other areas of education. The general results of this study reveal two clear stages: the first, up to 2010, with little scientific production; and the second, from 2011 onwards, characterised by a general growth. The relationship between this field and others such as initial teacher training, ICT, and didactics is also evident.

The relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy and classroom management practices in secondary schools

This study explores the intricate relationship between teacher self-efficacy and classroom management practices in secondary schools in the Mansehra district of Pakistan. Teacher self-efficacy, defined as the belief in one’s ability to manage and influence classroom environments effectively, has been identified as a critical factor influencing both teaching performance and student outcomes. The research employed a mixed-method approach, gathering data from 62 teachers and 310 students using both online surveys (via Google Forms) and physical questionnaires to ensure a diverse and inclusive participant pool. Data analysis was conducted using two complementary tools: SPSS and Smart PLS. SPSS was used for descriptive statistics and inferential analyses, such as t-tests, chi-square tests, and measures of central tendency, to offer an overview of group differences and relationships between variables. Meanwhile, Smart PLS was employed for Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), a technique suited for complex models and smaller sample sizes. This method allowed for the analysis of both direct and indirect relationships between the study variables—teacher self-efficacy, teaching practices, and classroom management. The findings reveal a significant positive correlation between teacher self-efficacy and classroom management practices. Additionally, teaching practices were found to mediate this relationship, indicating that higher levels of self-efficacy not only directly improve classroom management but also enhance teaching performance, which in turn contributes to better-managed classrooms. These results suggest that interventions aimed at enhancing teacher self-efficacy can have far-reaching effects on educational outcomes. The study highlights the need for focused teacher development programs that foster self-efficacy, thereby improving classroom management, student engagement, and overall academic success.

Artificial Intelligence in education: A comprehensive study

This comprehensive study delves into the multifaceted role of AI in education, exploring its applications, benefits, challenges, and future implications. The purpose of the study is to show how AI in education helps educators identify gaps in student knowledge and provide targeted feedback to improve learning outcomes. As a methodology, the library method and the study and review of various documents have been used in this research. The study examines the diverse range of AI technologies employed in educational settings, including intelligent tutoring systems, personalized learning platforms, educational chatbots, and virtual reality simulations. Furthermore, the study delves into the numerous benefits that AI brings to education. It highlights how AI-powered analytics and data-driven insights enable educators to gain deeper insights into student learning patterns, identify areas for improvement, and tailor instructional strategies accordingly. Additionally, AI-driven tools promote inclusivity by providing personalized support to learners with diverse needs and learning styles. Despite its transformative potential, the study also acknowledges the challenges and ethical considerations associated with integrating AI into education. Data privacy, algorithmic bias, and the digital divide are examined in detail, emphasizing the importance of responsible AI deployment and ethical guidelines. Looking ahead, the study explores the future implications of AI in education and the evolving role of educators in AI-enabled classrooms. It discusses how AI technologies will continue to evolve, offering new opportunities for collaborative learning, skill development, and lifelong education. In conclusion, this comprehensive study underscores the profound impact of AI on education and the need for thoughtful implementation strategies that prioritize equity, inclusivity, and ethical considerations. By harnessing the potential of AI, education systems can better prepare learners for the challenges and opportunities of the future.

Enhancing adult learner success in higher education through decision tree models: A machine learning approach

This article explores the use of machine learning, specifically Classification and Regression Trees (CART), to address the unique challenges faced by adult learners in higher education. These learners confront socio-cultural, economic, and institutional hurdles, such as stereotypes, financial constraints, and systemic inefficiencies. The study utilizes decision tree models to evaluate their effectiveness in predicting graduation outcomes, which helps in formulating tailored educational strategies. The research analyzed a comprehensive dataset spanning the academic years 2013–2014 to 2021–2022, evaluating the predictive accuracy of CART models using precision, recall, and F1 score. Findings indicate that attendance, age, and Pell Grant eligibility are key predictors of academic success, demonstrating the strong capability of the model across various educational metrics. This highlights the potential of machine learning (ML) to improve data-driven decision-making in educational settings. The results affirm the effectiveness of Decision Tree (DT) models in meeting the educational needs of adult learners and underscore the need for institutions to adapt their strategies to provide more inclusive and supportive environments. This study advocates for a shift towards nuanced, data-driven approaches in higher education, emphasizing the development of strategies that address the distinct challenges of adult learners, aiming to enhance inclusivity and support within the sector.