The phenomenal growth in computing power as outlined by Moore’s Law has driven change from both, traditional education settings to digital environments along with continuing change for professional educators. Within the discipline of Paramedicine, like many others, one of the fundamental changes has been the death of ‘the sage on stage‘ due to the affordances of the Web-based lecture technologies (WBLT) and web 2.0. However, while students report positive experiences with WBLT they require digital literacy skills to engage safely within this environment (Bawden 2008; Gosper et al. 2008).
Professional educators cannot assume digital natives, (those born within the computer age) popularised by Prensky (2001) have some innate multiformat digital literacy. These terms along with the i-generation or the Google generation are too blunt to be of use (Brabazon, Dear, Greene and Purdy 2009). Much of the time when discussing digital natives or digital immigrants the focus is on tools and technologies, rather than on critical thinking, creativity and a mix of other skills which make up digital literacy (Hauge and Payton 2010). See skills below.
These skills are about becoming a lifelong and life-wide learner required by the 21st century and it is people with the depth and breadth of skill above who will succeed (Toffler 1990).
But how do we as professional educators know what our students are focusing upon?
One of the affordances of the web 2.0 environment is the plethora of data available to us. Formally this may be available in proprietary learning analytics or through the digital traces we all leave behind on a daily (Conole 2013). These traces in the form of social and participatory media can be a rich source of data which the skilled digital educator can utilise for the purposes of improving learning environments.
The professional educator of today and into the future has a diverse skill set based on the above but there is also a need to be comfortable with the current and changing technology (Dong, Kumar, Rajaratnam, and Kowitlawakul 2015). This includes considering our technology, content and pedagogy knowledge to deliver learning within the digital age. Carefully considering the affordances of technology, how it can be utilised to deliver content and incorporating it into our daily pedagogy are essential (Mishra and Koehler 2009).
Our professional environment is also about the research into and use of appropriate learning theories for the digital age. I question whether there are any acceptable theories in use today. This is based on the plethora of contradictory opinion from the experts including George Siemens who along with Stephen Downes established the Connectivist Learning Theory in 2005.
https://twitter.com/gsiemens/status/1110519047202967553
Rather than becoming disheartened with the controversy, as educators, we must instead engage with it. The current era is one of ease in collaboration with like-minded and not so like-minded individuals from across the globe. It is about the co-creation of knowledge and sharing this knowledge with each other and the world.
We have at our fingertips an infinite number of resources through the Open Education Resources (OER), but what are OERs?
Our role as educators is to assist students to learn skills in sorting resources to determine those with appropriate levels of currency, reliability, authority and purpose better known as the C.R.A.P. test developed by Molly Beestrum. In the age of false news and the undermining of faith in some of the largest democracies on earth, this is one of the most important skills we can develop within our students.
The combination of technology and digital literacy skills has the potential to democratise learning and bridge the gap with marginalised groups but it also has equal potential to widen it if not utilised correctly (Selwyn 2016). Our role in the fabric of society has never been more important.
References
Bawden, D. (2008). Origins and concepts of digital literacy. In (Vol. 30, pp. 17-32).
Brabazon, T., Dear, Z., Greene, G., & Purdy, A. (2009). Why the Google Generation will not speak: the invention of Digital Natives.
(Discussion). Nebula, 6(1), 163-181.
Dong, C., Kumar, N., Rajaratnam, V., & Kowitlawakul, Y. (2015). How Health Profession Educators Produced Videos: Three Examples.
Medical Science Educator, 25(4), 383-386. doi:10.1007/s40670-015-0170-2
Gosper, M., Green, D., McNeill, M., Phillips, R., Preston, G., & Woo, K. (2008). The impact of web-based lecture technologies on current and
future practices in learning and teaching.
Hague, C., & Payton, S. (2010). Digital literacy across the curriculum. Retrieved from www.futurelab.org.uk/projects/digital-participation.
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and
Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
mooreslaw.org. Moore’s Law or how overall processing power for computers will double every two years. Retrieved from
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. doi:10.1108/10748120110424816
Selwyn, N. (2016). Is Technology Good for Education? Oxford: Polity Press.
Toffler, A. (1990). Future shock: Bantam.
