14 DLE Digital Citizenship ‘Issues’ (ETL523 Module 2)

nzchrissy2 / Pixabay

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:

  1. 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).
  2. 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).
  3. 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!)
  4. 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).
  5. 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). 
  6. 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?)
  7. 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).
  8. 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!)
  9. 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 Literacy by 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).
  10. 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).
  11. 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).
  12. 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).
  13. 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).
  14. 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).
  15. 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.

Elkin, Susan. (2013, January 1). It’s vital we teach social networking skills in school. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/its-vital-we-teach-social-networking-skills-in-school-8434531.html

Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robison, A. J., & Weigel, M. (2006)Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21 st century. MacArthur Foundation Publication.

Murray, T. (2013, January 7). 10 steps technology directors can take to stay relevanthttp://smartblogs.com/education/2013/01/07/the-obsolete-technology-director-murray-thomas/.

Preble, L. (2013, September 14). Nancy Pearl explains transliteracy. http://youtu.be/pNBlzCMq994.

Schradie, J. (2013, April 26). 7 myths of the digital divide. http://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2013/04/26/7-myths-of-the-digital-divide/.

Stripling, B. (2010). Teaching students to think in the digital environment: Digital literacy and digital inquirySchool Library Monthly, 26(8), 16-19.

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.

 

Be Smart! Copy Right! & Creative Commons!

[Reflections of ETL503 Module 4 Legal and Ethical Issues of Collections]Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash.com

Thoughts that occurred to me while reading about Copyright laws, the SmartCopying assistance website and Creative Commons:

  1. The NSW Department of Education (DET) are said to ‘own’ the ‘intellectual property rights’ to my yearly teaching and learning program documents, which I have created either: at home or at school or at a training facility and either:  off my own back or because of training the DET have provided for me. We must also attribute or reference items that we get from our schools (or the DET) or items ‘created as part of your duties’ because this applies to the Crown Copyright laws. But does this mean that the ‘crown’ own the material and that we must therefore leave a copy of our programs at the schools in which we’re employed (by the crown)? In my LGA, schools have interpreted these laws to mean that they must collect a printed version of my yearly teaching and learning program and store it on sight, because – in the view of the executives of the LGA schools – the DET ‘own’ the rights to the contents of my program. Do they really? Did I sign something giving over my copyright protection when I joined the DET as an employee? Are the executives in my LGA misinterpreting the DET’s policy on Copyright and infringing on my rights as the author of the program? Where then does this impact on me when I do my program completely electronically on the cloud, e.g. do the executives have the right to force me to print it or share it permanently with them electronically, so that they can store a copy indefinitely? Doesn’t this bring into issue the rule that copies of resources in my program cannot be stored indefinitely? This is, on the whole, a problematic policy…to which, I simply reply: “no. “
  2. While copyright infringement is obviously hard to police in the classroom, it can be easily monitored by online applications that search things like library catalogues for ‘pirated’ material. So, it might not be a good idea for schools to hoard digital/cloud collections of teacher’s work or programs, which might have been pirated?
  3. Programming is also becoming very collaborative. Some teams of teachers even share their program freely to the public on the Internet or on social networking platforms such as the string of FaceBook groups: ‘On Butterfly Wings English’ / Mathematics / Science / Creative Arts / etc. I understand that the work must be co-referenced if it was created collaboratively. However, if work is shared to the greater teaching community for use educationally, how is this to be referenced or does it have to be referenced according to Copyright law? Is it even legal to share it so broadly given that the employer presumably ‘owns’ the rights to the work?
  4. Teachers are not meant to be profiting from the work that they’ve created while employed with the DET. This is meant to stop teachers from ‘selling’ their programs or resources that they’ve either created or obtained for profit, as they ‘belong’ to the DET. Is this because of the Statutory Text and Artistic Licence Permit that the DET holds as teachers selling possibly copyrighted materials would null the DET’s yearly permit?
  5. Regarding the music that schools in my LGA generally upload from iTunes or YouTube for end of year concerts…these events are open to the public and as a performance of the music to the public, should we make sure we have Copyright permission – or is this covered by the Statutory Licenses? When I checked the DET website, I am still unclear if the yearly licences for playing films, TV or radio for non-educational purposes are paid for by the DET or the schools themselves.
  6. Is the Australian Copyright law’s lack of a requirement to register copyright and lack of requirement to list the copyright on a piece of work, the reason why copyright infringement is rife in Australian society? Would it be more rife if the laws were more strict? Who has more copyright infringement, the USA or Australia? How would we ever be able to research this and really know when it is usually an underground / blackmarket issue?
  7. Is lack of transparency or knowledge regarding the special licenses granted to schools enabling schools to teach students (inadvertently) that they, by default, don’t have to worry about Copyright?
  8. If all websites need to be accessible by people who have disabilities, (Flynn 2016) shouldn’t alternate modes of communication be mandatory based on the needs of the people in every school context? What about ‘bridging the gap’ for ATSI communities? How effective is a school with an entirely digital form of communication, when the majority of the community are illiterate or too poverty stricken to afford access to a computer or internet facilities? I am keen for Australia to take the lead in website accessibility as a social justice issue rather than waiting for Americans to pull their fingers out and make a change. An American by birth myself, I am horrified that their greatest solution to the injustice is to teach their students with disabilities to be advocates for change for themselves. While I appreciate that students should be taught to self-advocate, this is a bit of a ‘flick pass’ on behalf of educators who should be advocates for their students as well (IFLA 2012).
  9. This is a great PowerPoint for schools to use to help educate students (and teachers) on the use of Creative Commons: Creative Commons in the the classroom.
  10. Some important links that all TL need to keep bookmarked from SmartCopying.com (National Copyright Unit n.d.): 

Fair Use Infographic from Smartcopying

References

Coates, J. (2013). Creative Commons in the the classroom. [slideshare]. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/Jessicacoates/creative-commons-in-the-classroom-2013

Flynn, N. (2016, December 16). Australian web accessibility laws and policies. cielo 24. Retrieved from https://cielo24.com/2016/12/australian-web-accessibility-laws-and-policies/

Gibbs, J. (2014, January 26). 1. How copyright works [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/WWIV8ZmFhvM

International Federation of Library Associations. (2012). IFLA code of ethics for librarians and other information workers. Retrieved from http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/faife/publications/IFLA%20Code%20of%20Ethics%20-%20Long_0.pdf

Palmer, Z. B., & Palmer, R. H. (2018). Legal and ethical implications of website accessibility. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly81(4), 399-420. Retrieved from https://journals-sagepub-com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/doi/pdf/10.1177/2329490618802418

National Copyright Unit. (n.d.). Smartcopying. Retrieved from http://www.smartcopying.edu.au/

Step 1 of 2
Please sign in first
You are on your way to create a site.