March 2024 – A Librarium of Adventure

Creating Digital Tools – a Reflection

In my teaching practice, I make a deliberate effort to incorporate various digital tools to enhance student engagement, promote collaboration, and equip students with essential skills for the modern world. Research has demonstrated the strong correlation between the use of digital tools, student motivation, and positive learning outcomes (Heindl & Nader, 2018). One aspect I particularly value is how online resources can expand students’ perspectives and engage them in learning experiences beyond the confines of our classroom walls. Until now, I have primarily relied on ready-made digital tools gathered over my years of teaching, never considering the possibility of creating my own.

Initially, I felt daunted by the task of creating a web-based guide and digital artifact for this assessment. I questioned whether my technical abilities were sufficient to develop something truly valuable that could address a technology need in my current context. However, as I delved into the task, I was pleasantly surprised by my ability to create, although not without encountering challenges. Overcoming issues such as video syncing, ensuring functional links, and creating a user-friendly design led me to seek assistance from my colleagues. This process of collaboration yielded a surprising discovery: my utilisation of technology actually fostered increased collaboration as I sought help from my colleagues, asking for guidance on video syncing in Canva and verifying the functionality of my links. This finding has ignited my curiosity and serves as a catalyst for potential future action research on the impact of technology on student collaboration in the classroom.

I intend to utilise my web guide to assist teachers in my school in understanding how artificial intelligence (AI) can be implemented ethically and responsibly in the classroom. Given the prevailing hesitancy in my current context towards embracing technology, I hope that through education and exploration, it can be the start of alleviating their concerns and showcase the benefits of digital technologies for teaching and learning.

References

Heindl, M., & Nader, M. (2018). Digital technologies in a design and technology lesson and their influence on a learner’s situationally perceived value of a task when engaged in inquiry-based learning. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 37(3), 239-263.

The Digital Divide

When we think of the concept of the digital divide we often think of those that have and those that have not. However, this is a far more complex and nuanced issue.

The Oxford Dictionary (2024) defines this concept as: ‘the gulf between those who have ready access to computers and the internet, and those who do not.’ Before thinking and reading about this, I would have summarised this concept in a similar way. However, I know it to be broader. Even though it does capture access to technology in its essence, it also refers to those who have the right skills and training to utilise digital technology, infrastructure, connectivity, inclusive sites for those with a disability and even your location.

The Australian Digital Inclusion Index (2023) tells us that 1 in 4 Australians are digitally excluded and those at the highest risk are: People with low levels of income, education and employment, those living in some regional areas, people aged over 65 and people with a disability (ADII, 2023).

Key data from the ADII (2024) gives us a lot of interesting data: Some key figures that caught my attention:

Digital exclusion is closely linked with age. Of those who are digitally excluded, 48% of those are aged 75 or older.
The nation’s digital ability score is only 64.5%
The affordability of digital technology in Australia is high – 95% affordability score.
Additionally, those living in public housing, living alone and First nations people are still the most disadvantaged when it comes to digital inclusivity.

It was interesting to compare this to places elsewhere – one being Finland. It is described as a highly digitalised country where being online is necessary for essential services, such as banking, taxation and pensions (Lehtinen et al., 2023). It was interesting to note that because of the need for all citizens to be digitally active, action research had been undertaken to consider the impact that librarians are having in providing this all important education and access to some of Finland’s disadvantaged citizens. (Lehtinen et al., 2023) discusses the services that local libraries provide, such as:

free bus shuttles to local libraries for those living in isolated communities
extended opening hours, catering to a wide variety of clientele.
free access to digital services, especially computers
their vast network of local libraries mean that it is within a reasonable distance for most people to access

The study outlines that this kind of support is not isolated to Finland, but in many countries around the world, even in America – where the digital support patrons get at their local library is often superior to the service they receive from the actual providers (Giesler, 2017)

This confirmed what I knew all along – librarians and libraries are the answer to society’s problems!!

____________________________________________

Australian Digital Inclusion Index (2023) Measuring Australia’s Digital Divide. https://www.digitalinclusionindex.org.au/

Giesler, M. A. (2017). A place to call home?: A qualitative exploration of public librarians’ response to homelessness. Journal of Access Services, 14(4), 188–214. doi:10.1080/15367967.2017.1395704

Lehtinen, E., Seppo Poutanen, & Kovalainen, A. (2023). Librarians bridging the digital divide: Experiences from Finland. Journal of Access Services, 20(3-4), 120–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/15367967.2023.2292210

‌Oxford Dictionary. (2023). Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. https://www.oed.com/

‌

AI – My thoughts

The explosion of AI technologies into our society has come with great fear across the education sector. Many teachers are afraid of what it will do to learning and assessment, with fears of academic dishonesty rife. In our traditional methods of assessment and learning, teachers have relied heavily on written tasks to demonstrate knowledge. Students now have at their disposal bots that can write essays in seconds, solve complex problems and answer questions (Chiu, 2023). This new technology, often deemed either angel, or devil, has given motivation for my own reflections on the value of written assessment and the potential for these new platforms to invigorate learning.

Oddone et al. (2023) in their article, Navigating Generative AI: The teacher librarian’s role in cultivating ethical and critical practices, undertake research using 3 different AI platforms, utilising the CATWOE framework methodology. Of particular interest was the implementing TL’s worldview – which is based upon ‘their own beliefs about learning, teaching and their understanding of the tools ‘capabilities and limitation’ (Oddone et al., 2023, pg. 16, para.2). My own worldview is to utilise and explore new technologies and what they can offer students as an asset and additional method to build creative and critical thinking. My only detriment is often the time it takes to explore and learn these new platforms. I am aware, however, that for other educators in my school, this may not be their worldview. I can only approach this with sensitivity, and offer support and education around these tools. New technology can often be a scary process for people, such as the arrival of calculators or citation generators – which many thought would be the antithesis of student learning (Dobrin, 2023). I appreciate the work done by Furze (2023) and the information he provides for schools via the article Teaching AI Ethics. This work provides me with an essential overview of what I need to take into consideration when educating others around the use of AI and its many implications. The infographic he provides for educators in this article provides this overview in a way that can spark conversation for a deeper dive into each of these issues: AI Ethics Infographic

As we broach the topic of AI in my current school, we can either go two ways – to ignore and silence it; or to teach students the critical skills they will need as they continue to live in a world where AI (and it’s continual evolvement) is a reality. I believe balance is key. Teaching students the critical use of these tools sits alongside other methods of information – such as databases, books, online articles and interactions with their teachers is one way to move forward.

My current challenge is to:

allocate time to explore the many different AI platforms – getting to know their settings and purposes and how they could be utilised in a school environment
Consider the needs of the teachers in my school – what do they need to know? Do they need to learn the language of these tools, or given a broad overview of the ethical considerations when using these tools in the classroom (especially with students being under 18)
How could these tools be used in the assessment of learning? What consideration and ideas could we look at that may invigorate the methods we have traditionally used to assess student learning? Are these methods encouraging critical thinking? Are they preparing students for the world beyond the classroom?

References

Chiu, T. K. (2023). The impact of Generative AI (GenAI) on practices, policies and research direc-tion in education: a case of ChatGPT and Midjourney.Interactive Learning Environments,1–17.https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2253861.

Dobrin, S. I. (2023).Talking about generative AI: A guide for educators. Broadview Press.https://sites.broadviewpress.com/ai/talking/.

Furze, L. (2023) AI Ethics. https://leonfurze.com/2023/01/26/teaching-ai-ethics/

Oddone, K., Garrison, K., & Gagen-Spriggs, K. (2023) Navigating Generative AI: The teacher librarian’s role in cultivating ethical and critical practices. Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association, https://doi-org/10.1080/24750158.2023.2289093

Reflections on Digital Literacy

In schools across Australia, many students sit through what may be defined as digital citizenship lessons – where they learn about the big, bad internet and all the awful things that can happen to you in the present and future if you don’t play by the digital citizenship rules. Most teachers would agree that teaching in the negative, that reminding students of all the things they can’t do, tends to go in one ear and out the other.

After engaging in some really challenging, yet enlightening research readings, my vision and concept of digital literacy has been expanded – to the point of needing to get some of my ideas down to prevent them from running around wildly in my brain!

There are many definitions of digital literacy, which seem to change as often as a new app might appear, due to the nature of how quickly technology is evolving and how slippery a definition can feel (Pangrazio & Sefton-Green, 2021). Should we define digital literacy as an activity outlined by signs and symbols mediated by the electronic (Thorne, 2013), or is it the mastery of the skills required to operate digitally, or is it the ability to evaluate and make judgements on what we find online? (Lankshear & Knobel, 2011).

The digital literacy skills I have seen being taught in schools has tended to focus on how to be an appropriate and responsible person online, what (Pangrazio & Sefton-Green, 2021) define as the ‘protectionist’ approach. Even though teaching children to make appropriate and responsible decisions online, to consider their digital footprint, and to act in a way that would befit a positive member of any community is a good thing, it is only halfway toward what students actually need.

This concept is similar to the thought of attempting to distinguish what might be considered ‘literacy’ and ‘digital literacy’ – in order to be deemed competent in digital literacy, wouldn’t you need to be literate in the true sense of the word? Perhaps it is time to end the separation of the two forms – digital dualisms- (Vivienne et al., 2016) and think of all the eggs as being in one basket – that concepts like literacy, responsible online monitoring, and individual and collective creativity, are what it looks like to be a citizen that is informed by what they consume and makes meaning to share with others (Vivienne et al., 2016) – whether that occurs in the online world or the original 2D version. This seems to me an essential step as the lines continue to blur as to what could be considered online life and real life – I put forward that we can’t even properly define and distinguish the two in our post digital world – they are one and the same (which serves a great teaching point – don’t we want our students to act with the same good character and morals whether they are online or not?)

We still have a way to go. As those in power over children, it is often easier to mandate protective rights (which can tend to be negative) rather than positive rights (Green, 2020). However, children and teenagers are already using the technology at their disposal to assert their independence, and create and share their own meaning – whether we allow it or not. It seems to me that we better get on the wagon, and get on quick. If we want the horse to be controlling the speed of the cart, and help to guide the direction it might take, then digital literacies must go hand in hand with teaching on character and moral directives. If we are not clear in our direction on this, digital media becomes the place for power struggles between adults and childre (Livingstone, 1992), not a place where autonomy and agency can be respected and celebrated.

References

Green, L. (2020). Confident, capable and world changing: Teenagers and digital citizenship. Communication Research and Practice, 6(1), 6-19.

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2011). New Literacies: Everyday Practices and Social Learning (3rd ed.). Open University Press.

Livingstone, S. (1992). The meaning of domestic technologies: A personal construct analysis of familial gender relations. In R. Silverstone & E. Hirsch (Eds.), Consuming technologies: Media and information in domestic spaces (pp. 113–130). Routledge.

Pangrazio, L., & Sefton-Green, J. (2021). Digital Rights, Digital Citizenship and Digital Literacy: What’s the Difference?. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 10(1), 15-27.

Thorne, S. L. (2013). Digital literacies. In M. Hawkins (Ed.), Framing Languages and Literacies (pp. 192-218). Routledge.

Vivienne, S., McCosker, A., & Johns, A. (2016). Digital citizenship as fluid interface between control, contest and culture. In A. McCosker, S. Vivienne, & A. Johns (Eds.), Negotiating digital citizenship: Control, contest and culture (pp. 1–17). Rowman & Littlefield.

Who should be teaching Digital Citizenship?

Being a teacher is a tough job – one that is constantly crowded by student needs, administration demands and an ever increasing full curriculum. It can seem like whenever something goes wrong in society, it can be traced back to ‘not being taught to the kids at school’. Teaching seems to be one of the many answers the public, and often, those in political power, pull out as an answer to correcting society’s wrongs. Add it to the curriculum! Teach this in school!

Even though teachers are weighed down by demands, most teachers I know want to be effective, successful teachers. They want to equip their students to become responsible, active citizens that make the most of their lives. The answer is not adding to the curriculum per se, but teachers being resourced to teach and to teach well. What does this have to do with digital citizenship, you may ask?

The Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2024) define a list of general capabilities that teachers should be integrating into their busy curriculum. These include digital citizenship, creative and critical thinking, and intercultural understanding (just to name 3). Even though this may seem like an additional burden, when all teachers take responsibility for these key learning concepts, across stages and KLA’s, the burden becomes lighter and teachers achieve what they really want – student success.

In a world that is now considered ‘post-digital’- the use of digital tools in schools is not a special occurrence in a specific type of subject – it is integrated and a real part of the learning process in all subjects (Gagen-Spriggs, 2024). This applies to all subjects and all teachers. Digital citizenship is a skill that can be applied successfully when students understand that it is like being a good member of their local neighbourhood – whether you live in the big city or rural town. It applies to everything we do online – reading information, creating content, or sharing that hilarious cat video with a friend. This is reinforced by (Huk, 2021) who discusses the rapid pace of digital media development and the implication of social and cultural changes. If the role of the school is to help prepare the child for the real world – then they need to be prepared for a world dominated by these changes.

In short, we all need to be teaching digital citizenship. Just like all teachers advocate for good manners, respect for others and a collaborative and safe learning culture. It requires a similar approach – just because it is online doesn’t mean it belongs to the domain of the tech experts. Our world is online and we need to speak its language.

ACARA. (2023). Digital Literacy. Australian Curriculum, v9. https://v9.australiancurriculum.edu.au/teacher-resources/understand-this-general-capability/digital-literacy

Gagen-Spriggs, K. (2024) Learning and teaching in a post digital world (Study notes). ETL 523: Digital Citizenship in Schools. Interact 2. https://interact2.csu.edu.au/webapps/blackboard/execute/displayLearningUnit?course_id=_71810_1&content_id=_6252521_1

Huk, T. (2021). From education 1.0 to education 4.0 – Challenges for the contemporary school. New Educational Review, 66(4), 36-46. https://doi.org/10.15804/tner.21.66.4.03