Category: ELT523

The management of digital technologies is complex and multi-faceted, as iterated by Younie (2006, p. 386). It is often difficult to ascertain if policy is, difficult to implement, especially as has been witnessed anecdotally, the frequency of robust policy and planning for technology integration is inconsistent across all levels of education.  Younie  (2006) addresses four key recurring issues regarding technology integration in education environments – obsolete technology, teacher training, school policy development, and curriculum application of digital technology (p. 386). These four points mirror the issues that are evident within my institute. Pre-covid literature reflects many credible insights into the need in vocational education for the rapid integration of technology, digital skill development and pedagogical development to meet the needs of fast-changing work landscape (Jones, 2018; Joyce, 2018; Seet, Jones, Spoehr, & Hordacre, 2018). It is anticipated that in our Covid and post-covid environments, this need for addressing and implementing technological change is undergoing unanticipated levels of acceleration. 

Younie (2006), highlights there is a need for coordinated leadership to liaise and develop cohesive plans for the integration of ICT (p. 389). It is also highlighted that senior leaders often do not possess a satisfactory proficiency with digital technology, which in turn impacts decision making and planning (Younie, 2006, p. 390). Petersen, (2014) also acknowledges the important role of leadership to understand and effectively organise the learning environment and providing opportunities for professional development (P. 302). I agree that for the successful integration of digital technologies requires a multidimensional, yet cohesive approach to understanding technology requirements, relationships, infrastructure, teacher training, and professional development, and the assessment and learning outcomes. The notions addressin in this blog post will be analysed in-depth in my environmental scan.

References

Jones, M., & McLean, K. (2018). ICT for Learning: Technology and Pedagogy. In Personalising Learning in Teacher Education (pp. 41-55). Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7930-6_4

Joyce, S. (2019). Strengthening Skills. Expert Review of Australia’s Vocational Education and Training System. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. © Commonwealth of Australia . https://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv:82483

Petersen, A.-L. (2014). Teachers’ perceptions of principles ICT leadership. Contemporary Educational Technology, 5(4), 302-315. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/6132

Seet, P.-S., Jones, J., Spoehr, J., & Hordacre, A.-L. (2018). The Fourth Industrial Revolution: the implications of technological disruption for Australian VET. Adelaide: NVCER. https://www.ncver.edu.au

Younie, S. (2006). Implementing government policy on ICT in education: Lessons learnt. Educ Inf Technol, 11, 385 – 400. DOI 10.1007/s10639-006-9017-1

Professional learning networks

Learning networks are fundamental to achieving effective educational improvement, with evidence supporting the use of PLNs in assisting school improvement. Traditional top-down professional development models have historically embraced synchronous, face-to-face activities that require dedicated time and sometimes physical travel (Trust, Carpenter, & Krutka, 2018, p. 137). In contrast, a Professional Learning Networks (PLNs) as a professional development model is a group who engage in collaborative learning with others outside of their everyday community of practice to improve teaching and learning in their school and/or the school system more widely The long-term collaboration typically seen in PLN’s enables group members to share and utilize the expertise of others to develop new approaches to teaching and learning. (Brown & Flood, 2019, p. 4). Importantly, those who participate generally tend to be increasingly motivated, enthusiastic and passionate due to PLN activities being voluntary (Trust, Carpenter, & Krutka, 2018, p. 138).

Social Media and the PLN

Social media has been posited as an effective learning tool, and the utilization the various platforms for learning enhance our professional learning networks. Social media encompasses a large and dynamic array of tools with Facebook, twitter and LinkedIn featuring prominently. Twitter has featured throughout literature as an effective platform for micro-blogging, facilitating the exchanging of ideas, sharing of resources and delivering news synchronously and asynchronously across geographically dispersed networks (Colwell & Hutchison, 2018, p. 6; Swan & Keating, 2014; Gonzales, 2017).

References

Brown, C., & Flood, J. (2019). The Emergence of Professional Learning Networks. In Formalise, Prioritise and Mobilise: How School Leaders Secure the Benefits of Professional Learning Networks (pp. 1-14). Emerald Publishing Limited.

Colwell, J., & Hutchison, A. (2018). Considering a Twitter-Based Professional Learning Network in Literacy Education. Literacy Research and Instruction, 57(1), 5-25. https://doi.org/10.1080.19388071.2017.1370749

Gonzales, L. (2017). Top 10 for PLNs. www.techlearning.com

Swan, M., & Keating, G. (2014). Using Social Media to Enable Lifelong Learning. www.aitd.com.au

Trust, T., Carpenter, J., & Krutka, D. (2018). Leading by learning: exploring the professional learning networks of instructional leaders. Educational Media International, 55(2), 137-152. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2018.1484041

Who is the 21^st Century Learner and what are the skills they require?

A 21st-century learner is a communicator, collaborator, and creator as well as an observational digital citizen (Qatar Academy, 2009). Teaching and learning in the twenty-first century must prepare learners for engaging in a complex and dynamic community heavily influenced by globalisation and acceleration of digital technology (Strawser & Kaufmann, 2019, p. 41; OECD, 2018, p. 2; Brown, et al., 2020; Jones, 2018; Joyce, 2019; Seet, et al., 2018, p. 11; Gekara, et al., 2019, p. 21). The heterogeneous student population of the twenty-first century are expected to rise to the challenge of thriving in this competitive world (Wong, 2020, p. 186; Placklé, et al., 2018, p. 29; Charteris, et al., 2018, p. 20). Understanding the implications of digital technology on the 21st-century learner is imperative to the development of skills, attitudes, and actions to be a successful participant in the digital economy (Qatar Academy, 2009, p. 3). Inevitably, the education and training that sustains some traditional skills will be rendered obsolete, however, demand for digital skills and capabilities is rising sharply, requiring vocational education and training providers to rapidly adjust to meet this change (Seet, et al., 2018, p. 8).

Foundation for Young Australians (2017) identify that learners need a set of transferable skills, the necessary skills with the highest increase in demand over the past three years in Australian internet job postings were digital literacy (up by 212%), critical thinking (up by 158%) and creativity (up by 65%) (Foundation for Young Australians, 2018, p. 10; Payton & Knight, 2018, p. 6). Additionally, (Qatar Academy, 2009) have identified that the development of skills such as creativity, innovation, problem-solving, collaboration, leadership and communication is necessary. Seet et al. (2018) suggest that in consideration of technological advancements, digital skills are clearly a fundamental skill, and their demand is expected to rise. However, Gekara et al. (2019) note that not every worker will require the same level of digital skills or expertise in the use of technologies, but most will need the skills to work with technology (Reeson et al. 2016). Based on this, Gekara et al. (2019) detailed the four levels of workforce digital skills required:

Level 1: having a basic understanding of digital devices and their operation, enabling data and information to be searched, captured, retrieved and transmitted

Level 2: understanding and applying digital knowledge to the management and application of digital systems to process, analyse and manage data and information in order to facilitate efficient organisational operations

Level 3: innovatively using digital technologies to create and enhance organisational systems and capabilities

Level 4: having a broad and general digital culture and mindset to operate confidently, comfortably and safely within an entrenched digital environment (p.12).

References

Continue reading “Who is the 21st Century Learner and what are the skills they require?” →

What is digital citizenship?

Literature, whilst extensive, fails to pinpoint a singular definition of Digital Citizenship. Whilst all suggest similar themes, the definitions vary. Below provides a synopsis of a number of definitions and themes central to Digital Citizenship.

Lindsay & Davis (2013) suggest that Digital Citizenship encompasses the many aspects of life with technology, however, asserts that it is not simply limited to the ‘computer’ (p. 99). The human is a central imperative to Digital Citizenship, with access to the technology required for an individual to be able to become a digital citizen (Lindsay & Davis, 2013, p. 99). To be deemed a good digital citizen, Lindsay & Davis (2013) suggest that awareness must be heightened around the following five areas of awareness;

1. Technical awareness – do you know how to use the technology
2. Individual awareness – how will you behave in the digital environment
3. Social awareness – Are you able to interpret social situations, and the inherent norms and behaviours?
4. Cultural awareness – Are you aware of cultural norms of others? Can you identify the differences?
5. Global awareness – Are you aware of global events and significant social and cultural events? (p. 101)

Lindsay & Davis (2013) suggests that further to the five areas of awareness, making good decisions in the digital environment is reliant upon knowledge of the four key rays of understanding;

1. Safety, Privacy, Copyright and Legal
2. Etiquette and Respect
3. Habits of Learning
4. Literacy and Fluency (p. 101)

It is suggested that these key understandings/behaviours can be taught and it is the responsibility of the educators to provide positive experiences and education through online learning (Lindsay & Davis, 2013, p. 102).

Digital citizenship is a concept that provides guidelines for appropriate digital behaviour, and Copeland (2020) suggests that a good digital citizen is someone who understands the rights and responsibilities that come with being online and someone who uses technology in a positive way (p. 48). Copeland (2020) focuses on various important themes of digital citizenship and highlights the 9 key p’s of digital citizenship that ensure protection and reinforce appropriate behaviours

1. Passwords
2. Private Information
3. Personal information
4. Photographs
5. Property
6. Permission
7. Protection
8. Professionalism
9. Personal Brand (p. 50)

Copeland (2020) also highlights the definition by Kristen Cole, that suggests that digital citizenship is how we should act when we are using digital tools, interactive with others online, and what should be taught to help the next generation be better stewards of this technology’ (p. 53).

Fingal (2020) suggests in the article for ISTE ‘The 5 competencies of digital citizenship’, a contemporary interpretation of Digital Citizenship, that focuses on the skills that an individual requires to thrive in a contemporary digital environment. Whilst I see the relevance with the awareness and understanding approach of Lindsay & Davis (2013) and those highlighted by Copeland (2020), I feel the positive and pragmatic competencies suggested by Fingal (2020) provides a simplified approach to both integrating and teaching these competencies. The five competencies of digital citizenship are as follows:

1. Inclusive
2. Informed
3. Engaged
4. Balanced
5. Alert

Overall, my own approach to digital citizenship skills and knowledge development and awareness in my learners is through a pragmatic demonstrative approach that allows them to become participatory digital citizens.

References

Copeland, J. (2020). The Challenges of Digital Citizenship. In S. Huffman, S. Loyless, S. Albritton, & C. Green, Leveraging Technology to Improve School Safety and Student Wellbeing (pp. 47-64). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-1766-6

Fingal, J. (2020). The 5 competencies of digital citizenship. https://www.iste.org

Lindsay, J., & Davis, V. (2013). Citizenship. In Flattening classrooms, engaging minds: move to global collaboration one step at a time (pp. 97-125). Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon Publishers.