OLJ Task 2: The influence of technology on society or OLJ Task 3: Reflections on the impact of change
To be or not to be (active on social media) is no longer the question
If we want ‘customer-driven, socially rich, and collaborative model of service and content delivery’ (module 2) then we must stop asking ‘why’ or ‘when’ and start asking ‘how.’
Jenkins, Clinton, Purushotma, Robison & Weigel (2006, p.3) define a participatory culture as: “a culture with relatively low barriers to artistic expression and civic engagement, strong support for creating and sharing one’s creations, and some type of informal mentorship whereby what is known by the most experienced is passed along to novice. A participatory culture is also one in which members believe their contributions matter and feel some degree of social connection with one another (at least they care what other people thing about what they have created).”
According to Jenkins (et al., 2006), forms of participatory culture could include affiliations, expressions, collaborative problem-solving and circulations [“Affiliations – memberships, formal and informal, in online communities centred around various forms of media, such as Friendster, Facebook, message boards, meta-gaming , came clans or MySpace); Expressions – producing new creative forms, such as digital sampling, skinning and modding, fan video-making, fan fiction writing, zines, mash-ups); Collaborative Problem-solving – working together in teams, formal and informal, to complete tasks and develop new knowledge (such as through Wikipedia, alternative reality gamine, spoiling); or Circulations – shaping the flow of media (such as podcasting, blogging).”]
Artega (2012, p.72) writes, “social media extends the social milieu to the digital sphere where opportunities for global social participatory learning are plentiful.” Thus, to be viable in today’s globally connected society, particularly in western civilisation where a participatory culture has become the ‘norm,’ an educational facility’s social media presence is not only something that is necessary, but is something that must be done effectively.
“For library managers, questions are moving beyond how to initiate and launch social media to the more challenging problem of how to do social media well— how to better integrate social media into the life of the library, how to more fully engage the library’s staff and users in social media; how to make the library’s social media more effective in outreach and delivery of services, and how to measure the library’s presence and activities within social media in ways that truly matter. The next wave of trends in social media use are also always looming on the horizon— what will be the next big social site where users will be going next within the social media landscape, and should the library follow?” (Mon, 2014, p.51).
Some purposes for social media have been suggested by Mon (2014, p.24) as supported by the research of AlAwadhi (2019) to include: increased avenues for feedback from users, promotion and advocacy of the school &/or library, improved information access through outreach programs, deliverable educational or support hubs, improved collections and stronger or more frequent global collaborations. Notably, Kwon’s (2020) research places building trust ahead of information motivation as a reason for use of community social media platforms.
Roadblocks to consider
While reading Adner & Kapoor (2016) it occurred to me that, like all change processes, there will be roadblocks. This includes access to technology (either because of infrastructure, financial or intellectual constraints), as well as resistance to change from staff or families who are either change fatigued or stuck in the web1.0 mentalities. Perhaps there are issues around work-life balance, either for adults (addicted to screens and social media or overwhelmed by the need to take work home or have work cross over into the social sphere) or children (similarly addicted to screen time). These will all need to be considered in the 4 phases of creating a group digital presence or organisation’s digital learning environment (discussed at length in previous blog posts).
There is also the issue of needing to be innovative in the types of platforms that we promote as educators (as supported by the research of Manca (2020). Which brings up another roadblock to implementing social media for schools is the fact that there is an age limit for access – most students in K-6 Australian educational settings are below the age of 13 and cannot be encouraged by educators to look at nor participate in most social media applications. This means we have to tailor our content to an older demographic and seek out other (less public) social media platforms for younger students.
Some additional roadblocks or things to consider have been provided by Business.gov.au (2019) and they are to have a clear social media strategy, be mindful that additional staff or resources may be required for daily monitoring of all online platforms, be prepared for inappropriate behaviour (bullying, harassment, negative feedback, misleading or false claims, copyright infringement, information leaks or hacking) and have an action plan ready within your policy documents detailing specifically how to deal with these instances prior to launch date(s).
Hicks, Cavanagh & VanScoy (2020) recommend monitoring a library’s online presence via a ‘social network analysis (SNA).’ The SNA is a ‘theoretical framework and quantitatively oriented methodology’ for libraries to understand their ‘big data stories’ or connections with their community identifying relevant patterns and relationships among individuals, groups, or organisations over a specified period of time.
All of these issues need to be incorporated into the digital learning environment creation plan, a four phase process that I’ve detailed in a previous blog post from Digital Citizenship, but that can best be summarised in this infographic:
Digital citizenship implementation phases (Infographic) by Christy Roe
How to design a platform and design it well, improving engagement (web 2.0)
This leads to the next issue – how to have a website (web 1.0), that is interactive (web 2.0) and makes the step towards linking the online world to the offline world (web 3.0). We need to be thinking beyond web 1.0 in terms of having a simple ‘face’ website that offers little to no interaction and does not enable, encourage (nor monitor) engagement but a platform, website and social media presence that actively engages our users. The web 2.0 model of ‘likes’ is also becoming an outdated model and with web 3.0 we must begin to think of our digital presence as fully interactive, including building meaningful ongoing connections (Barnhart, 2020).
But each context must first ask “what does it mean to have ‘engaged users?” and “what platforms / website / social media should we use to engage them?”
(‘How marketers define engagement when measuring social success’ images hyperlinked; Barnhart, 2020).
After my practical work-placement in a local public library, where I completed two weeks of ‘virtual’ research on website design (offering several recommendations for website development for the library), I realise that there are almost infinite resources, research and opinions on how to design effective websites. I don’t believe that my understanding of moving from the web presence currently (as web 1.0) to web 2.0 (more interactivity) to even web 3.0 (content creation by the users) was fully developed, until I watched the video provided in module 2 of INF506 (Schwerdtfeger, 2013). I wish I had been able to communicate this idea previously.
Yet, one key article that I did find, in the interest of brevity, was Garett, Chiu, Zhang & Young’s (2016, p.1) literature review on website design in terms of user engagement. Their 4 notable findings were:
“Websites have become the most important connection to the public and using social media links on websites may increase user engagement;
Proper website design is critical for user engagement, because poorly designed websites result in a higher user ‘bounce’ rate (users do not proceed past the home page) whereas, well designed websites encourage user exploration and revisit rates;
The International Standardised Organisation (ISO) (in Garett, et al., 2016, p.1) defines website ‘usability’ as: “the extent to which users can achieve desired tasks (e.g., access desired information or place a purchase) with effectiveness (completeness and accuracy of the task), efficiency (time spent on the task), and satisfaction (user experience) within a system”;
Out of the 20 identified design elements that impact user engagement, 7 key design elements(in order of importance) are navigation, graphical representation, organisation, content utility, purpose, simplicity and readability.” Garett et al. expand these design element definitions, but the key words are:
Engaging graphical presentation: images, size and resolution, multimedia, font, font colour and size, logos, visual layout, colour schemes, and effective use of white space.
Optimal organisation: logical, understandable, and hierarchical / architectural structure, arrangement / categorisation, and meaningful labels/headings/titles/keywords.
Content utility: information is sufficient, of ongoing quality and relevant
Clear purpose: 1) establishes a unique and visible brand/identity, 2) addresses visitors’ intended purpose and expectations for visiting the site, and 3) provides information about the organisation and/or services.
Arteaga, S. (2012). Self-Directed and transforming outlier classroom teachers as global connectors in experiential learning. (Ph.D.), Walden University. http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/docview/1267825419/BD063751849440E5PQ/1?accountid=10344
Garett, R., Chiu, J., Zhang, L., & Young, S. D. (2016). A literature review: website design and user engagement. Online journal of communication and media technologies, 6(3), 1.
Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robison, A. J., & Weigel, M. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture. https://www.macfound.org/media/article_pdfs/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF
Mon, L. (2014). Social Media and Library Services. Morgan & Claypool Publishers. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csuau/detail.action?docID=2010483.
“Metadata specialists need to know their users, their collections and resources, and the information organisation systems they are working with (sic). They also need to develop an eye for detail, a very clear, succinct form of expression and a systematic and thorough approach. Faced with choices about what and how to describe, they need to apply principles as well as standards” (Hider, 2018, p.103).
Quality metadata: effective, functional, comprehensive, accurate and consistent
If metadata is of the highest quality, that is: effective, functional, comprehensive, accurate and consistent, then users, even with their complex information seeking needs (which they themselves may not even know) are commonly more satisfied (Hider, 2018, p.93-94). The best way to ensure the highest quality, including effectiveness, functionality, comprehension, accuracy, and consistency is through metadata standards and / or use of standards in terms of setting’s community of practice (Hider, 2018, p.123).
Functionality:
Knowing the user information needs (rather than assuming their needs, basing cataloguing on the cataloguer ideas or opinions of librarians) leads to better database quality (Hider, p. 94);
Standardised indexing aids in the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) finding (Hider, 2018, p.94);
Standardised displays aid FRBR selecting (Hider, 2018, p. 94).
Comprehensiveness:
Comprehensive metadata requires a choice: more resources with less detailed metadata descriptions, or less resources with more metadata detail. Full descriptions cost more to create and thus, how comprehensive the data is must be weighed against the cost (Hider, 2018, p. 95);
Brief descriptions aid FRBR discovering (but not selecting) (Hider, 2018, p.95).
Accuracy:
Metadata must be accurate and consistently evaluated and corrected, because small errors can result in a failure for the user to find, identify, select, obtain or explore the information (Hider, 2018, p.95).
Clarity
Metadata descriptive words are chosen carefully to enable clarity. Without clarity, accuracy is moot – including language choice, jargon, abbreviations, codes, homonyms, or even changes in word popularity / common use (e.g. what is commonly called a title = ‘title proper’ to cataloguers; subtitle = ‘other title information’; or a title in a different language = ‘parallel title’) (Hider, 2018, p.96); Here is a screen shot of some common abbreviations used:
Rowe, 2019, Module 3.2 Screen shot of abbreviations
Quality metadata also has clarity, in that it is succinct – brief indexes may improve search results as the fewer the terms, the fewer irrelevant search results occur (Hider, 2018, p.97).
Consistency:
Being consistent, using the same elements and values aids FRBR retrieval across multiple systems (aka interoperability) (Hider, 2018, p.97);
Consistency (in descriptions, lengths, structures and terminologies used in indexes) aids in all FRBR functions (find, identify, select, obtain or explore) (Hider, 2018, p.97);
Consistency of understanding between the cataloguer/indexer and the user / searcher is also important and this is achieved by standardisation (Hider, 2018, p.98);
Vocabulary control, an aspect of consistency, is where the cataloguer/indexer use the same, standardised language, utilising cross referencing tools such as ‘see also’ (Hider, 2018, p.99-100);
Authority control, also an aspect of consistency, is where the names of people, nicknames/pseudonyms/varied bibliographic identities/people with the same name, organisations or corporate bodies, or titles and series are standardised in a list (such as this list by the Library of Congress or this list of standards by the National Libraries of Australia) or written to include birth years (Hider, 2018, p.101-102);
Evaluation systems such as quality control (QC) processes, audits, quality assurance (QA) processes including quality measures and benchmarks, checklists or scorecards ensure metadata consistency based on user needs (Hider, 2018, p.104).
A range of standards for a range of environments
“A range of standards have been developed for all aspects of metadata, including its values, elements, format and transmission” (Hider, 2018, p.123).
These metadata standards relate to ‘key information domains’, such as:
Book publishing – Copy editors refer to ‘style manuals’ such as: the Chicago Manual of Style, Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, MLA Handbook, and AMA Manual of Style; Electronic text publishers adhere to online standards such as the Text Encoding Initiative (TEI) or the Online Information Exchange (ONIX) (Hider, 2018, p.163);
Research – data repositories such as: UK Data Archives, Australian National Data Service (ANDS), Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata (CSDGM), Australia and New Zealand Spatial Information Council (ANZLIC) Metadata Profile, Darwin Core (DwC), earth sciences Directory Interchange Format, space science Space Physics Archive Search and Extract (SPACE) Data Model, and the social science Data Documentation Initiative (DDI) (Hider, 2018, p.165-166).
Education – The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Learning Object Metadata standard (IEEE-LOM), the Gateway to Educational Materials schema (in USA), Education Network Australia (EdNA) schema, and, more recently, the Australia and New Zealand Learning Object Metadata standard (ANZ-LOM) by Education Services Australia (Hider, 2018, p. 167).
Web publishing – Hypertext Markup Language (HTML), Extensible Markup Language (XML) [with namespaces including Universal Resource Identifier (URI/URL)], and Resource Description Framework (RDF) as specified by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C); (Rowe, 2019, Module 3.3; Hider, 2018, p.124-127);
Digital Libraries – Dublin Core (DC), Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) and Metadata Authority Description Schema (MADS), Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS), Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH) and OpenURL (providing access to journal content within subscribed databases); (Rowe, 2018, Module 3.3; Hider, 2018, p. 150, 153-154);
Archives – General International Standard Archival Description (ISAD(G) similar to ISBD below) and Encoded Archival Description (EAD); (Rowe, 2018, Module 3.3; Hider, 2018, p. 155-156, 158);
Museums – Standard Procedures for Collections Recording Used in Museums (SPECTRUM), International Committee for Documentation (CIDOC) International Guidelines for Museum Object Information: the CIDOC information categories (1995) and CRM; (Rowe, 2018, Module 3.3; Hider, 2018, p. 160-161);
Libraries – The Statement of International Cataloguing Principles (Published by the International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA) in 2009 updated in 2016), Anglo American Cataloguing Rules (AACR/AACR2), International Standard Bibliographic Description (ISBD), Machine Readable Cataloguing (MARC/MARC21) (a format for the automatic electronic sharing of library catalogue data – including the description, main entry/entries, subject heading(s) and Dewey Decimal ‘call number’ – that may be updated to the Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative (BIBFRAME) in the future); Z39.50 (client server information retrieval protocol for large searches); and finally, Resource Description Access (RDA) which is based on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD), (Rowe, 2019, Module 3.3; Hider, 2018, p.132-133, 136, 142-143, 147, 149; Furrie, 2009).
Registries of standards – To keep track of all of the standards as they grow and change over time and to select the appropriate standard or crosswalks between various standards for their tasks, metadata specialists use registries of standards such as: “the Open Metadata Registry, the Dublin Core Metadata Registry, the Basel Register of Thesauri, Ontologies and Classifications (BARTOC) and Schema.org, the last of which encourages individuals from across domains to join its community of schema developers” (Hider, 2018, p.168).
What is RDA and the RDA toolkit?
RDA (the main current standard for descriptive cataloguing) was built on the foundational basis of how effective catalogues operate, namely, FRBR & FRAD and is conceptualised by certain things which have inter-relationships to other things, thereby ensuring that users can search for and access information successfully (Hider, 2018, p.136; Oliver, 2010, p.14-15).
Find: “…(T)o bring together information about one or more resources of interest by searching on any relevant criteria” IFLA, 2017, p. 15 in Hider, 2018, p.29; Oliver, 2010, p.15) “The most precise attribute for this purpose is an identifier, which frequently takes the form of a number, uniquely assigned to a particular resource. Another attribute that often serves to identify a resource is its name. This can be more descriptive than an identifier, but may not be totally unique. Nevertheless, it often does the job and is more likely to be remembered than an ‘artificial’ identifier” (Hider, 2018, p.31). “A prime example of a systematic identifier at this level is the ISBN (ISSN, ISTC or ISAN)” (Hider, 2018, p.34);
Identify: “(To identify is) to clearly understand the nature of resources found and to distinguish between similar resources” (IFLA, 2017, p. 15 in Hider, 2018, p.29; Oliver, 2010, p.15); “A manifestation of a work, such as a particular printing of a book, is also unlikely to be named, except in very generic terms, such as ‘third printing’ or ‘2003 release’. This sort of metadata may be used in the identification or selection process, but it is seldom used to find the resource. A user may choose between a PC and a Mac version, or prefer an earlier printing if they are a literary scholar” (Hider, 2018, p.31); “To this end, users need sufficient and accurate description” (Hider, 2018, p.34); “Similarly, if a particular manifestation is required and there is no systematic identifier such as an ISBN to check, the user will typically start by identifying the work and then look at attributes pertaining to the carrier, especially publication and format. At the item level, users may consider attributes such as provenance, i.e. the item’s custodial history, to identify, for example, a piece of art or an archival file” (Hider, 2018, p.35).
Select: “(To select is) to determine the suitability of the resources found, and to be enabled to either accept or reject specific resources” (IFLA, 2017, p. 15 in Hider, 2018, p.29; Oliver, 2010, p.15); “…the selection process essentially occurs inside the user’s head” (Hider, 2018, p.39); “On reading the resource descriptions, the user may be influenced by other elements that they then realise are relevant to the selection process” (Hider, 2018, p.36); “In the field of information retrieval, the attributes used to select resources are referred to as relevance criteria” (Hider, 2018, p.36); “The kind of resource people want, when they do not have a specific resource in mind, often relates to the subject of its content” (Hider, 2018, p.36); “Other aspects of a resource’s content may also be of interest to selectors. For example, users may well be interested in its quality, in which case comments, reviews and ratings can be helpful. The currency of content may also be a factor to consider, so the user may look for a creation date or copyright year, for example. Likewise, the amount of content (e.g. the number of words) may have a bearing. The form of a work could also be relevant. It may be ‘about’ Japan, but it may be a map, website or film documentary. It turns out, then, that information content can be described in many different, and sometimes unanticipated, ways” (Hider, 2018, p.36).
Obtain: “To access the content of the resource” (IFLA, 2017, p. 15 in Hider, 2018, p.29); “To acquire or obtain access to the entity described (ie. to acquire an entity through purchase, loan, etc., or to access an entity electronically through an online connection to a remote computer” (Oliver, 2010, p.15). “In today’s online world, users often need very little by way of metadata in order to obtain, or gain access to, an information resource – just a label on a hyperlink…information about how to obtain it…is the resource’s location” (Hider, 2018, p.39).
Explore: “To discover resources using the relationships between them and thus place the resources in a context” (IFLA, 2017, p. 15 in Hider, 2018, p.29); “In today’s networked world, these linkages are underpinned by the hyperlink mechanism, whereby the linked record is only a mouse-click away. In the analogue world, one might have to look up a cross-reference” (Hider, 2018, p.39); “(T)his process allows the user…to get a feel for a network of resources through their surrogate records. … Relationships between resources, their commonalities and their differences are the heart of what organisation is about (sic)” (Hider, 2018, p.40).
FRBR vs FRAD (Rowe, 2019, Module 3.3) See also, Oliver, 2010, p. 16.
Creating bibliographic records for selected information resource using RDA
SCIS have excellent information resource standards for cataloguing and data entry, based on FRBR/FRAD/RDA. Rowe (2019, module 3.5) has shared an amazing video to help navigate the RDA toolkit, as well as a table to help create a bibliographic record using RDA, which I’ve uploaded to GoogleSheets, including notes from Rowe (2019, Module 3.5). Furthermore, Rowe (2019) writes:
“When using the RDA Toolkit you should note the following…Instructions within RDA move from the general to the specific. … The appendices of RDA contain supplementary information including, among other things, guidelines for capitalisation and abbreviations and symbols, and in Appendices I through to M you will find the controlled lists of relationship designators. There is a glossary which is particularly useful if you are unfamiliar with terminology. RDA also contains a Tools Tab where you will find mappings from RDA to MARC and MARC to RDA; workflows contributed by RDA users; an index to the RDA Toolkit; and examples of records encoded in MARC format. The Resources Tab includes the full text of AACR2; and policy statements from agencies including the National Library of Australia and the Library of Congress-Program for Cooperative Cataloging, as well as a link to the MARC Standards” (Rowe, 2019, Module 3.5).
Screen Shot of the RDA Toolkit taken by Christy Roe August 2020
Welsh, A., & Batley, S. (2012). Bibliographic elements. In Practical cataloguing: AACR, RDA and MARC 21 (pp.17-48). London: Facet. Available from eBook Library.
Digital Learning Environments (DLE) and digital citizenship implementation have a few issues and dilemmas that must be considered by teacher librarians, and all educational stakeholders:
Lack of growth mindset: Educators are often reluctant to change. We expect students to have an open mind to proactively embrace new things and attempt to connect to personal learning networks – and recognise that, generally, failure is a part of learning. We expect 21st century learners to be quick to learn and be resilient, yet we ourselves are sometimes close minded, reactive, afraid to fail, and stuck in ruts and ‘old’ methods or tools – as teacher librarians, we must lead in professional reflection, respond to needs and initiate change, particularly in terms of individualising learning plans and environments and recognising that the ways students access information is much different than what it once was (Cooke, 2012).
Communication via DLE is different: We must tailor the methods and means by which we communicate to ensure that we are understood and authentic. Communication in an DLE is different to face to face communication in terms of turn taking, online digital footprints or identities may not be authentic, the level of commitment or willingness to behave ethically vary understanding and clarity can be varied or blurred, and community expectations are different (Cooke, 2012).
Lack of thought into quality control: While there are several methods for measuring teacher quality in recent times, there is no official one way to measure the quality of DLE Digital citizenship lessons or teacher / teacher librarian quality (Cooke, 2012). (NOTE: In fact, 21st century learning skills are themselves very difficult to assess and measure in students. We need to find or design one agreed way of measuring quality teaching!)
Varied degrees of self-regulation, motivation, & overwhelmed, or distracted students: DLE education is often asynchronous or self directed (Cooke, 2012) relying on a student’s ability to self-regulate and motivate. This is sometimes problematic, not only because of individual student ability levels but also because the DLE can be overwhelming, or a place of distraction or ambiguity (see #14).
Lack of a fluid community of practice or PLNs: Wenger (p.2, 1998, in Cooke 2012) specifies 3 dimensions of a community of practice: 1. they are joint enterprises, created and maintained by their members, 2. they feature mutual engagement with all members joining to form a social entity, and 3. members have a shared store of resources and sensibilities that have been communally developed. However, Wenger (p.6, 1998, in Cooke 2012) does caution that communities of practice should take care not to become insular, rather they should attempt to remain ‘dynamic and fluid.’ (NOTE: I have discussed the concept of a community of practice at length in other blog posts: 1 or 2– see tags also).
Content at the cost of engagement and application: Stagnant, repetitive, standardised education, subjects and content are still taught in isolation from each other. Memorising facts and clerical tasks are still, despite being the 21st century, generally considered more important than engaging lessons that link to or apply to real life situations – students should be learning by doing rather than by being told (Wheeler, 2015). (NOTE: Would you rather be treated by a ‘doctor’ who learned medicine by reading about it or would you rather be treated by a doctor who has actual experience treating patients?)
Critical thought is not taught or supported: Inquiry learning and learning through questioning is still not the preferred method of teaching, ill-preparing students for their ‘why’ and ‘how to’ (rather than ‘what’) futures (Wheeler, 2015). “Critical thinking, flexibility, working collaboratively, and creative problem solving are all key components for success in changing environments. But ‘knowing that’ and ‘knowing how’ will not be enough. Students also need to know why” (Wheeler, 2015, Ch.6, p.9).
Educators have all the say: According to Wheeler (2015), instead of taking a ‘flipped classroom’ approach where learning is student led, the majority of educators are still deciding the curriculum and delivery of the content, delivering lessons with one way dialogue and lack of conversation. This means that students can become disengaged, disconnected and disempowered from their own learning (Wheeler, 2015). It is crucial that we design engaging lessons and topics and use varied learning approaches in order to promote the ability in students to generate their own ideas and voices (rather than copying the voices of others) (Williamson & McGregor 2011). (NOTE: How many of us consider ourselves facilitators of student learning? I myself have it in my teaching and learning philosophy…Time to put this into action!)
Lack of digital literacy: as per my previous blog post on Information Literacy and Inquiry Based Teaching: ‘According to the ALA, (2016) we must help our students become information literate individuals who can: “determine the extent of information needed; access the needed information effectively and efficiently; evaluate information and its sources critically; incorporate selected information into one’s knowledge base; use information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose; and understand the economic, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of information, and access and use information ethically and legally” (ALA 2016). This is expanded into Digital Literacyby Stripling (2010) who writes: “Digital literacy, itself, is not enough preparation, however, for our students to thrive in today’s global, information-driven world. Students must also acquire the skills of digital inquiry: connecting ideas to personal interests and a desire to know, asking questions that probe beyond simple fact gathering, investigating answers from multiple perspectives, constructing new understandings, expressing the new ideas through a variety of formats, and reflecting on both the process and product of learning” (p16).
Constantly evolving trans-literacy (multi-literate) expectations: educators must be able to prepare students to evaluate, access and effectively, ethically and legally utilise a variety of resources and tools across a variety of platforms (Preble, 2013; Wheeler, 2015, p.175).
The digital divide (as discussed in my previous blog post): the digital divide is closely related to Socio-Economic Status and is not just a lack of access to technological devices or internet, but it is also a lack of the ability to utilise technology, inability to produce content, and/or the lack of the ability to apply digital information and skills to real life applications (Jenkins, Clinton, Purushotma, Robison & Weigel, 2006; & Schradie, 2013). (NOTE: this is something imperative for educators to be reflecting upon NOW during this COVID-19 crisis: the digital divide is real and it has an impact on our students whether they are in lockdown or not! Schools MUST CREATE A PLAN for access to and for digital literacy for all students).
Confusion, panic and lack of policy regarding intellectual property, copyright, fair use and Creative Commons: Educators must create a policy for intellectual property, copyright, fair use and Creative Commons. Thus, we must create guidelines at whole-school level that promote intellectual honesty and respect for the work of others as an ingrained community value (Williamson & McGregor 2011, p17). Educators must then model and teach deeper digital citizenship knowledge and understanding of what can be used, re-used, and shared in items produced electronically, based on an age appropriate teaching sequence (such as teaching students how to locate key words and write bulleted notes before paraphrasing quotes, as suggested by Williamson & McGregor, 2011).
Safety in the DLE: The DLE requires educators to help students be aware of safety issues such as cyberbullying, creating a work/life balance, age-inappropriate online communications (eg adult images, videos, ads or ‘chats’). (NOTE: The Australian Government have an e-safety page that is particularly relevant and offers resources to educators). However, we must also teach students how to use social media platforms responsibly (Elkin, 2013; Murray, 2013).
Lack of content curation, aka overwhelmed due to ‘filter failure’ or narrowed view due to ‘filter bubbles’: We must consider how we curate information within our personal learning networks (see #5), and model and teach students how to evaluate the methods for curation so that they aren’t either overwhelmed due to filter failure or creating a narrow world view due to over-stringent filters that act as ‘filter bubbles.’ (Crowdspoke. (2011, June 7).“good curation tools are those that allow you to: Aggregate and gather web pages specific to the topic; Filter content allows the curator to select the best material; Publish to your collection with ease; Share, syndicate and distribute to your audience and the wider community; Allow the curator to edit and add comments as well as providing a comment stream for the audience to nurture discussion around the article; Analytics so you can track the usage of the site; An export facility or a way to back up the curated work” (Adapted from De Rossi, L.C. and Good, R. 2010).
11 further ideas on what to think about from lecturer, Julie Lindsay (in ETL523):
Have we clearly identified our context (eg k-12 NSW Public School in x suburb…)?
Do we have a shared vision?
How can we create personalised learning spaces linked to learning needs?
Have we considered: Hardware / software / networking access?
Have we considered: Understanding / experience access?
Do we know our students’ and teachers’ individual digital profiles?
Are the tools in our ‘digital tool kit’ age appropriate?
What evidence are we using to determine best practice for online, topical, or connected learning?
Do all stakeholders have shared understandings, policies or guidelines?
Is there a PD program or plan to continually evaluate and support the changing environment (eg. do teachers model the digital citizenship behaviours they expect or teach)?
How will this be shared and networked within a global professional network(s) and local context(s)?
References:
ALA (2016). Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher education. Retrieved from: https://alair.ala.org/handle/11213/7668
Cooke, N. A. (2012). Professional development 2.0 for librarians: developing an online personal learning network (PLN). Library Hi Tech News, 29(3), 1-9.
Crowdspoke. (2011, June 7). Understand collective curation in under 90 seconds. http://youtu.be/eW775HIlVMg.
Wheeler, S. (2015). Learning with ‘e’s: Educational theory and practice in the digital age. Crown House Pub Ltd. (Chapter 6: A 21st Century Curriculum). Retrieved from ProQuest
Williamson, K., & McGregor, J. (2011). Generating knowledge and avoiding plagiarism: Smart information use by high school students. School Library Media Research, 14.
21st Century learning and COVID-19 – catalysts for change:
With the COVID-19 lockdown, the Digital Learning Environment (DLE) issues are relevant like never before. Teachers who have been allowed to stick to their paper programs, regurgitating content from previous classes that they’ve taught or from purchased sources and shying away from digital tools and applications, must now think on their feet to create online programs to suit their classes and individual students.
The Digital Education Advisory Group, approximately 8 years ago, wrote: “What is now required is a catalyst intervention to bring into recognisable focus the change that the whole community will recognise and welcome as transformation that shapes our future” …”We need to harness the transformative potential of digital technology to support new approaches to innovative learning centred around the development of 21st Century Learning skills. These include creativity and innovation; critical thinking, problem solving, decision making; life-long learning; collaboration and communication; ICT literacy; consciousness of being a local and global citizen; and personal and social responsibility” (Digital Education Advisory Group – DEAG, no date).
“Assuming a world in which the welfare of the young people and the economic health of a society and the political health of a democracy are the true goals of education, I believe modern societies need to assess and evaluate what works and what doesn’t in terms of engaging students in learning. If we want to do this, if we want to discover how we can engage students as well as ourselves in the 21st century, we must move beyond skills and technologies. We must explore also the interconnected social media literacies of attention, participation, cooperation, network awareness, and critical consumption” (Rheingold, 2010 p.24; emphasis added).
“Schools need not only to prepare students to be responsible citizens, but also to prepare them with the technological and communicative skills necessary to engage civic responsibility in a digital age” (Richards, 2010, p.520).
Teacher ability:
It takes a village: I wholeheartedly subscribe to the notion presented by Hollandsworth, Dowdy, & Donovan, (2011) that educators have a duty of care for student safety and security, educational enhancement, ethical and legal behaviours and becoming an effective member of communities, in both the physical and digital environment through policy, leadership and practice.
It does, indeed, ‘take a village to raise a child’ to be a good global and digital citizen, and this process should include all stakeholders: parents, teachers, teacher librarians, administrators, academics, technology professionals and, none the least of which, students. This means that educators must be proactive in effective digital citizenship DLE (including risk awareness et al), as well as in fostering student peer mentor programs, effective student role models, and quality educational faculty/staff DLE ability.
PLC, PLN, PLE, DLE: Furthermore, we as educators need to foster professional learning communities (PLC) through culture of personal learning networks (PLN) and personal learning environments (PLE), including networks within the Digital Learning Environment (DLE) according to ‘Steve Wheeler on future learning environments: professional, powerful and personal’ (YouTube / 2:09 mins) | https://youtu.be/db9PXLqoduQ
Creation of content:
There are some great resources for creating content, as recommended by ETL523 Module 1, including:
Just as most schools have created a school ‘code of conduct’, so too should they proactively (rather than reactively) teach a DLE ‘code of conduct’ (Hollandsworth, et al, 2011). And just as we review and evaluate the quality of our lesson content and physical curriculum, so too should educators have a structured means in which to create, deliver and then evaluate their online DLE digital citizenship curriculum. (I like the ‘writing on the bathroom wall’ analogy, which links toilet graffiti to the banter and issues that sometimes arise in social media platforms or chats-we should have a plan for how to help students handle these situations in both environments as neither are able to be fully policed or ‘filtered’ by adults). A great source of raising awareness in students are the Pause and Think by Commonsense Education.
Furthermore, we need to reconsider the curriculum and how we have created and delivered content in the past: “For educators and the schools in which they teach, the challenges of this moment are significant. Our ability to learn whatever we want, whenever we want, from whomever we want is rendering the linear, age-grouped, teacher-guided curriculum less and less relevant.” (Richardson, 2008, Emphasis added).
Brown, Dehoney and Milichap (2015) surmise that the core dimensions of Next Generation Digital Learning Environment (NGDLE) are:
Interoperability and integration
Personalisation
Analytics, advising and learning assessment
Collaboration
Accessibility and universal design
Lindsay & Davis’ (2012) ‘enlightened digital citizenship model’ recommends we consider digital citizenship in terms of four areas of content:
Safety and privacy
Etiquette and respect
Learning habits – workflow
Literacy and fluency
Social media / Digital footprints (safety / privacy / brand):
We all have a digital footprint and we must model and teach an awareness of this to students. I agree with Richards (2010) who points out that we either teach students how to engage in social media responsibly, or risk them attempting it on their own, which is very much in line with research on sexual reproduction education. Wheeler equates learning about the internet to learning how to cross the road safely – what better place to teach these concepts than in school? (Wheeler, 2015, p.176).
I think it is imperative that this education begins prior to students having a substantial digital footprint, adhering to guidelines like ‘no facebook until you are 13’ – because teaching them to be mindful of what they display digitally after they have already begun displaying themselves, is like trying to teach someone who has just voted in a political election, how to vote. We must teach them early on how our digital footprint or identity is now our (online) personal ‘brand.’
We are identified at home in one way, at work or school in one way, and online or digitally in one way and our identities change through the passage of time. People can forget or not know anything about your identity in the real world, but in the digital environment, your identity is more permanent. Furthermore, the 21st century boundaries between these contexts are now blurred. We need to ask our students and them how to recognise ‘what is your identity?’across these three platforms and throughout time.
We must therefore consider that students (and teachers) need to be literate in (aka be able to have understanding access) social media, which requires: attention, participation (civil or otherwise), collaboration, network awareness and critical thought (or critical ‘consumption’) as according to Rheingold, H. (2010).
Something else to consider is that we have an expectation that students will be capable of digital citizenship, when their understanding of citizenship overall is still developing, particularly at the K-6 level. We must be aware of the way that we have learnt citizenship in the face to face world and how 21st Century learners have not had the same face to face opportunities and foundations that we’ve had. They must learn citizenship face to face and digitally simultaneously…like learning two different languages at the same time! Furthermore, social networks and social media have played a significant part in changing citizenship and previous boundaries and accepted expectations for social behaviour. Some face to face social constructs (such as body language) are not relevant in the digital social environment and as a result, effective use of emoticons or gifs or memes have been created to fill the void.
Delivery of content:
In order to deliver the content or curriculum, the devices and tools chosen must be convenient, consistent, and allow for frequent accessto digital devices (Mann, 1999; Kelley & Ringstaff, 2002; NCES, 1999; and Statham & Torrell, 1999, in Kemker, 2005).
Having access to physical technology (primarily due to SES) is not the only issue. As pointed out by Jenkins, Clinton, Purushotma, Robinson & Weigel (2006), teachers who wish to obtain full involvement of their students by creating a ‘participatory culture,’ must also make adjustments to their pedagogy based on:
Individual student ability to participate in the DLE given their varied accessto opportunities, experiences, skills and knowledge,
The varied degrees of understanding mediatransparency (or lack thereof) around how media shape world views, or how to apply filters for the large number of ‘hits’ or ‘tweets’ or emails that one receives so as to not become overwhelmed,
and the varied degrees of understanding, training or socialisation of digital citizenship or ethical expectations for global DLE success.
(Note to self: The issue of access to the internet, devices, applications and digital or social media tools in terms of Socio Economic Status and individual choice was covered in ETL401 and ETL503 and in my blog posts for those courses).
Furthermore, we must plan whether our delivery will be synchronous or asynchronous (or a mixture of the two): “Synchronous discussion is real-time or live communication that takes place on platforms such as instant messengers, audio chat, or video chat. Asynchronous discussion is non-live communication that takes place over time and includes platforms such as e-mail, discussion forums, blogs, and wikis” (Richards, 2010, p.516).
Richards, R. (2010). Table 1. Examples of Web 2.0 Communication Tools. p 517.
Evaluation & quality control:
Digital learning spaces need to be created in conjunction with digital citizenship awareness and incorporating essential attitudes and skills needed to be a productive (digital) learner . However, this means that digital citizenship is not just about recognising online copyright laws, or keeping students safe online. (See my previous post What is digital citizenship?).
Quality tools, lessons (either face to face or digitally) should enable students to be engaged in authentic tasks, connected to the real world, involving all partners of the learning community such as teachers, students, parents, business partners, and higher education experts (Kemeker, 2005). But, what can we use to measure student engagement and connectedness to ensure they are fully active, creative and ethical DLE participants?
Jenkins, et. al. (2006) have a comprehensive list of skills and competencies:
Jenkins, et al., (2006). p56 Core Social Skills and Cultural Competencies [Screen Shot]. Retrieved from https://www.macfound.org/media/article_pdfs/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDFSimilarly, schools can use standards created by the International Society for Technology (ITSE) for assessing student outcomes, assessing teacher quality and assessing leadership quality. In addition, we could use the resources created by BattelleforKids. However, I am not familiar with these and am hesitant to use them in my daily practice when other means are utilised by my employer.
Prior to the DLE, quality standards, each with a scale of 1-5, were created by Newmann and Wehlage (1993) to help teachers assess the “authenticity” of classroom tasks and experiences, Newmann and Wehlage (1993): 1. Higher order thinking, 2. Depth of knowledge, 3. Connectedness to the world beyond the classroom, 4. Substantive conversation, and 5. Social support for student achievement – which is closely linked to the more expanded and also individually scaled from 1-5 Quality Teaching Framework (Gore, 2018):
Dimensions and Elements of the Quality Teaching Model (Gore, 2018)Bitmoji Do It!
I think it is important to consider quality teaching and leadership standards within the context of the DLE, as well as the skills and competencies from Jenkins et al (2006) and possibly the 21st Century Learning skills identified from various sources (see previous blogs via tags).
Gore, J. (2018). Dimensions and Elements of the Quality Teaching Model. [Image]. Australian Council for Educational Research – Research Conference 2018. Retrieved from https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1336&context=research_conference
Kemker, K. (2005). The digital learning environment: What the research tells us. Apple White Paper. Retrieved from (see link).
Lindsay, J., & Davis, V. (2012). Flattening classrooms, engaging minds: Move to global collaboration one step at a time. Allyn and Bacon. Chapter 5: Citizenship. (available on CSU DOMS as a downloadable PDF)
Rheingold, H. (2010). Attention and other 21st century social media literacies. Educause Review 45(5). Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/attention-and-other-21st-century-social-media-literacies
Nielsen, L. (2011, August 19).Discover what your digital footprint says about you. Retrieved from http://theinnovativeeducator.blogspot.com/2011/08/discover-what-your-digital-footprint.html
Richards, R. (2010). Digital citizenship and Web 2.0 tools. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 516-522. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7740/fb40e7030935d7b00d5bd07a19ba83c496ff.pdf
Wheeler, S. (2015). Learning with ‘e’s: Educational theory and practice in the digital age. Crown House Pub Ltd. Chapter 12: Literacy in a connected world.
The funnel of professional learning transference (Cole, 2012 p.6). (Permission to use image granted by Education Services Australia as the legal entity for the Education Council).
I was just saying to my husband the other day about how different this degree is to the training we receive as teachers. Even things that we are interested in, often get attended, our enthusiasm is strong as we walk through the doors of our school and then, mysteriously, we never seem to implement what we’ve learnt with any real vigour, or if we do it soon peters out, lost in the quagmire or superseded by the next training course we attend.
My husband is a Positive Behaviour for Learning (PB4L) Assistant Principal External Coach and the PB4L team in NSW are focussing on this exact phenomenon and implementing strategies demonstrated by Cole (2012), who explains very clearly why this occurs in the image (above) ‘The funnel of professional learning transference’ – Used here with permission from AITSL).
Most of us never make it to reflecting and/or seeking feedback to improve mastery, much less adding the practice to our repertoire and very very rarely helping others to adopt the practice.
This is where PB4L and QTR are both so beneficial! Out of all of the lessons I’ve modified based on training I’ve received, only one has stood out as something that I would fight vehemently to keep in my practice and that is the L3 shared reading lesson that I did in QTR. Following the successful lesson (where I received helpful feedback from three peers who had not attended the L3 training), all three wanted to learn how to implement the lesson (or series of lessons as it were).
Bitmoji Do It!
I can see how this will help my assignment and help me create a community of practice in my library and at my future school(s)! I am totally capable of reflecting, helping others reflect, adding skills to my practice and helping others add them to theirs…Now to get it into my discussion paper somehow…
A blank page start & roses for Carolyn; Photo by Lumitar on Unsplash
In 2010, I was teaching part time job share on a stage 1 class at a South West Sydney primary school and had the honour of being led by my husband (acting assistant principal for stage 1) and Carolyn (Draper) Mozayani, Deputy Principal.
Working with my husband as my supervisor (something that had already been successfully attempted by another married couple at the school) was an interesting challenge of professionalism. He also supervised my job-share partner and it was very difficult not to come home and vent my frustrations to him. He helped me see how to better communicate with her via a communication journal and to make sure that the communication between my colleague and myself was being correctly encoded and decoded.
Working with Carolyn was an absolute dream. She was the most kind and patient and positive person with whom I have ever worked. She unfortunately passed away with cancer in 2015 after getting married and having a child (her biggest life goals). But the memories of her and the professional development she offered, remain. Her main mantra was for students to always witness calm, patience and kindness in words and actions. She also helped introduce several whole school initiatives, including a ‘building a community of practice’ how does it look, sound and feel (unpublished) document (image below):
Carolyn Draper Mozayani’s (2010) Building a Community of Practice
In this document, it is interesting to note that data collection is the first item on the list, yet I felt no stress or pressure regarding its implementation (unlike my stress during other whole school data collection initiatives at different schools in the last three years).
I want to honour her memory and leadership by trying to build a community of practice myself. But before we try to build one, what exactly does a ‘community of practice’ actually mean? More on this in Assessment 2!
In terms of networking and collaboration, being on the social club / committee is key for the TL! Why would people want to collaborate with you if you hide in the library and fail to socialise? “Get out there gorgeous!” as Carolyn would say.
I suppose I will have to keep reading the modules to develop more ideas on building a community of practice, like how to write a vision / mission statement and how to write a strategic plan…fingers crossed it all comes together!
If we want ‘customer-driven, socially rich, and collaborative model of service and content delivery’ (module 2) then we must stop asking ‘why’ or ‘when’ and start asking ‘how.’
While reading Adner & Kapoor (2016) it occurred to me that, like all change processes, there will be roadblocks. This includes access to technology (either because of infrastructure, financial or intellectual constraints), as well as resistance to change from staff or families who are either change fatigued or stuck in the web1.0 mentalities. Perhaps there are issues around work-life balance, either for adults (addicted to screens and social media or overwhelmed by the need to take work home or have work cross over into the social sphere) or children (similarly addicted to screen time). These will all need to be considered in the 4 phases of creating a group digital presence or organisation’s digital learning environment (discussed at length in previous blog posts).
With the COVID-19 lockdown, the Digital Learning Environment (DLE) issues are relevant like never before. Teachers who have been allowed to stick to their paper programs, regurgitating content from previous classes that they’ve taught or from purchased sources and shying away from digital tools and applications, must now think on their feet to create online programs to suit their classes and individual students.
