ETL523 – Portable Magic

Category: ETL523

My GAI Worldview

On April 26, 2024

In Discussion post, ETL523, Reflection Post

Module 4.1

The methdology of Oddone et al. (2023) uses the CATWOE framework with particular emphasis on the concept of worldview. Oddone et al. explore the impact that worldview has on teacher librarians’ desire to engage with new technologies. Consider your own worldview and write a blog post reflecting on your perceptions of GAI and education. You may also like to conduct your own CATWOE analysis of your school to determine support for GAI within the school’s environment. Share your blog post via the Discussion Forum 4.1 activity.

Oddone and Gagen-Spriggs identify the two extremes of a teacher librarian’s response to generative AI (GAI): the one who sees the potential and embraces it, teaching students how to navigate it ethically and finding ways to incorporate it into teaching practices; and the one who avoids it and supports a ban (I’m paraphrasing and oversimplifying, of course!).

I fell naturally into the second camp – I say ‘naturally’ because it happened without any effort, it just aligned with my thinking on learning and the problematic nature of the world wide web etc. And my ongoing disappointment that no one teaches kids how to look up stuff in books anymore (it’s just so, so sad that that skill has vanished). I tend to see the problems, and I’m risk-averse by nature.

However, I’m also aware that technology isn’t going away, that I too use it and enjoy it (and I don’t like being a hypocrite), and that you can’t prevent students from using it – any of it. As with wanting to teach them how to research using books (not that I have an opportunity to do so), ETL523 has shown me that this is an important teaching area. So my worldview has shifted, cautiously so. It really does need to be taught, and teachers have a tendency to simply start using a technology (the internet/Google as a case in point) to replace an older technology (reference/non-fiction books) without actually teaching the ethics of it. And I think, in the context of my won school, that the TL is really the only person who is in the position to do anything about it. I can see the possibilities, and I might even be able to get the support of senior staff to offer sessions during Home Group. But I’m not sure there’s much enthusiasm for it, and I don’t know that I have the skills to make it fun/engaging/interesting.

But I do think an ethical approach to using GAI needs to be explicitly taught, so that our students have the skills to make better choices.

References

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

Understanding Digital Literacy

By Shannon Badcock

On March 13, 2024

In Discussion post, ETL523

Reflect on your understanding of digital literacy.

My understanding of digital literacy is clarifying somewhat, as I read my way through the modules in this course. Literacy and being literate is about making meaning, and communicating it, through signs and symbols – the semiotic system. Digital literacy seems to be all this, but in a digital realm – but this definition is also questioned, say Bacalja et al (2022, p. 254). The authors explain why digital literacy, and the teaching of it, is so complicated, especially because it changes so rapidly. I feel you.

Unlike other eras perhaps, we are in a self-conscious phase where we are already defining and labelling our times (rather than leaving that to a far-future generation). ‘Anthropocene’ has done the rounds, but also ‘information age’ and ‘digital age’. It depends on what people want to focus on, and use as the ‘defining’ quality of our time (hence why it’s usually left till much later!).

It seems like we will need more than one label, in the end, as everything is so much more, now. More information, more destruction, more extinctions, more mining, more consumerism, more technology. And yet also, we have stagnated: we seem to have flatlined in our understanding of what we do, including – especially – digital technologies.

I knew that the ‘digital native’ was a myth from my studies in an earlier unit, which aligned with my observations teaching students ages 16-18 for the last 10 years. Reading Fraillon’s (2019) round-up of the data was both vindicating and a bit depressing. But while Fraillon shared the stats for students performing at Level 1 or below, he didn’t say where the rest of students were sitting. For instance, in 2017, 3% of year 10 students were at Level 1 or below – which is actually pretty good, isn’t it? And an improvement on year 8 results. What are the other 97% achieving in year 10? Regardless, in my experience students are digitally comfortable – with scrolling apps.

It also didn’t surprise me to learn that the way we use technology in the classroom is pretty limited (PowerPoint presentations and Word documents, mostly!). What teacher has the time to a) learn a new technology and b) teach it to their students? I use Padlet sometimes in class, but that’s an easy one. I used Diigo with my Literature class last year, when they were researching for their Independent Study folio. Some of them liked it. I have tried, in past years, blogging – it’s all so much work and teachers are already overworked and stretched thin. So many digital technologies don’t actually make life easier, they actually complicate it.

There are some that I need to be more across, though, especially those digital tools that help students with learning needs like dyslexia, or vision impairment.

One of the things that stood out to me in the article by Bacalja et al (2022) is their acknowledgement that schools are being told to emphasise the teaching of a ‘narrow’ understanding of literacy, and to ‘get back to basics’ (p. 255). This results in a focus on what is assessable in a test, which in turn ‘deprofessionalises’ the teacher. I definitely feel this, and see it and hear in the media and political discourse. The more people focus on how ‘badly’ Australian students are ‘performing’ against other countries, the more they point at teachers and say ‘you’re not doing it right’. They simultaneously cram too much into the curriculum while insisting that we focus only on ‘core’ subjects.

Digital literacy is, of course, one of the first things to be squeezed out, along with learning how to touch type (I’m so saddened that this isn’t taught anymore! I type this with my eyes on the screen or on the paper, my fingers flying across the keyboard – such ease! I can keep up with my thoughts this way – what joy!). Yet of course we are also expected to somehow teach these things?

Digital citizenship or digital literacy isn’t covered in teacher training courses at university, of course.

References

Bacalja, A., Beavis, C., & O’brien, A. (2022). Correction to: Shifting landscapes of digital literacy. The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 45(3), 389-389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44020-022-00027-x

Fraillon, J. (2019, August 05). Digital literacy: Myths and realities [Paper presentation]. Research Conference 2019 – Preparing students for life in the 21st century: Identifying, developing and assessing what matters. https://research.acer.edu.au/research_conference/RC2019/5august/7

Common Sense Resources

By Shannon Badcock

On March 5, 2024

In Discussion post, ETL523

Register with Common Sense Media and explore their lessons. In a blog post, describe how you could apply one of the lessons to your own context. Share your blog post to Discussion Forum 2.1.

I narrowed my search to Years 11 & 12, and the Wellbeing tab caught my eye, as it’s an ongoing focus for Tasmanian government schools.

The lesson plan and resources for “Can Media be Addictive?” is designed to get students thinking about their phone ‘addiction’; the resources are really good and pitched well for senior secondary.

I could see a place for this lesson (and others) as an opt-in activity for Home Group (which is once a week, for an hour and a half). I would probably have to rewrite the instructions and tweak them a bit (but keep the attribution!) only because you can’t teach someone else’s lesson, you have to do the thinking yourself or it doesn’t work.

Digital Citizenship: Who’s responsible for teaching it?

By Shannon Badcock

On March 3, 2024

In Discussion post, ETL523

Credit: Steveriot1

It’s me, isn’t it.

No but seriously, digital citizenship must be embedded in our teaching, not just because it is one of the General Capabilities (ACARA, 2023).

In my role as a TL (though not yet qualified to call myself one!), I teach sessions on academic integrity
(which includes research and referencing) for other classes – today I did one with a Sport Science class; last week I taught an Accounting class. Part of my lesson is to stress the ‘integrity’ part, which is I believe key to being a digital citizen. Not plagiarising is part self-protection, part digital literacy and communication, and part self-respect and respect for others. My school is taking this even more seriously due to the increase in students who are submitting assignments that are completely or partly written by ChatGPT.

As more teachers are starting to take it seriously, so too I hope they consider integrating digital literacy and digital citizenship into their classes, throughout the year. Krueger (2022) states that digital citizenship needs to be integrated across all subject areas, all year, in order to be effective. Her suggestion regarding research projects, of teaching students how to curate sources, would work well in the senior secondary context I work in – the challenge is finding the time in a tightly-packed curriculum to do this.

Which brings me to the Smithsonian Museum’s Learning Lab, which has designed resources for teaching students to curate sources, respect copyright and correctly reference – I will park this link to Darren Milligan’s article here so I can find it again later!

In the video interview with Dr Mike Ribble (Learning Technology Center, 2023), he talked about a teacher who got her students to put the assignment into ChatGPT and then work out where its responses were lacking or wrong, and redo it. That’s an excellent way to develop strong literacy skills while also teaching them not to trust everything they read online. As Dr Ribble says, ChatGPT can make things up, including references. That I didn’t know; I had however heard that it can’t really tell the difference between information and misinformation. So part of my job is to teach students how to assess sources of information – all part of digital citizenship.

I am currently reading Man-Made: How the bias of the past is being built into the future by Tracey Spicer which adds another layer to Ribble’s point that you can’t actually trust AI. I might have had some suspicions, but I didn’t know. I didn’t realise the extent of the problem: that when technologies are designed and programmed by a select few, who are all mostly the same (Spicer identifies them as primarily white and Asian men, usually young), all sorts of gender and race biases are built into the technology. She mentions one early experiment, an AI ‘bot’ released on Twitter called ‘Tay’, that – through machine learning (otherwise known as artificial intelligence) – became an anti-feminist neo-Nazi in just 24 hours. That is, it learned this from other Twitter uses. You can read more about it here.

The other part of the video that I felt myself nodding along to, is the role of parents – the vast majority of parents in Australia give their young children mobile devices to play on and watch videos on, from a very young age. It’s become ‘normal’, it’s normalised, and as a parent I totally understand the motivation for it. But I think parents forget that they’ve just added another layer of teaching to their role, one they themselves might not be so knowledgeable in (we use devices all the time but that doesn’t mean we’re good digital citizens). I don’t know what the answer is there, but if we can teach out students to be digital citizens, throughout their schooling, then hopefully when they become parents themselves they’ll be able to impart some of that wisdom before their children even start school.

All of this aligns with Bombardelli’s (2021) point about life-long learning, active citizenship and discrimination – that our (very human) prejudices are being built into our technology (which we are encouraged to think of as ‘neutral’), and that this needs to be taken into consideration when promoting active online participation, as discussed by Bombardelli. It’s basically an extension of the idea that we can’t believe everything we read online. There are so many benefits, but if we (schools) aren’t teaching people from a young age not only how to be a responsible online citizen, but also teach them the tools they need to navigate this vast and tumultuous space, the problems of the present will only continue – and worsen.

References

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

Bombardelli, O. (2021). Digital Citizenship and Life Long Learning. In: Auer, M., May, D. (eds) Cross Reality and Data Science in Engineering. REV 2020. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 1231. Springer, Cham. https://doi-org/10.1007/978-3-030-52575-0_67

Learning Technology Center. (2023, November 28). A.I. and Digital Citizenship with Dr. Mike Ribble [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzTEwQr8T88

Krueger, N. (2022, September 27). 3 Ways To Weave Digital Citizenship Into Your Curriculum. ISTE. https://iste.org/blog/3-ways-to-weave-digital-citizenship-into-your-curriculum

The Smithsonian. (n.d.). Welcome to the Smithsonian’s Learning Lab. Smithsonian Learning Lab. https://learninglab.si.edu/

Spicer, T. (2023). Man-Made: How the bias of the past is being built into the future. Simon & Schuster.

Digital Citizenship: is this term still relevant?

By Shannon Badcock

On February 29, 2024

In Discussion post, ETL523

“In a world where the online and offline are increasingly blending, to what extend should we emphasise the role of the ‘digital’ in ‘digital citizenship’?” (Cortesi et al 2020, p. 4)

Write a blog post using the prompt: Is digital citizenship still the best terminology to use?

Two students sit together absorbed by their mobile phones.

Credit: Natureaddict

Before exploring the term ‘digital citizenship’, it is prudent to consider what we mean by citizenship and why it’s important.

To be a citizen is to bear certain rights and responsibilities – it is the ‘responsibilities’ – or boundaries (Öztürk, 2021, p. 32) – part that people tend to forget, or overlook, while focusing on their ‘rights’, or privileges, as citizens. These include “being respectful and polite, responsible and making positive contributions to the society” (Öztürk, 2021, p. 32). Öztürk points out that it is the community that is at the heart of citizenship, not the individual.

Kershaw (2004) points out that the concept of citizenship became a focus in the 1990s – which coincides with the home computer and the early mobile phones, then the ‘arrival’ of the world wide web – including Google, email, online chat forums and, later, Facebook. He refers to an “alleged decline” in “civic-spiritedness” (2004, p. 1) which aligns with Ribble’s ideas of digital citizenship: treating others “with empathy and understanding both on and offline” (2015, p. 13). I don’t mean to suggest that the advent of digital technology in the home and school caused a decline in being of good character, but that the decline in good character which Kershaw (2004) refers to was – and is – felt in the online sphere, too. However, it can easily be seen that digital technologies, and the apps and programs accessed with them, have exacerbated the problem.

Ribble (2004) argues for the need to teach ‘character’: that is, being a good person who treats others well, and kindly. Their ‘nine elements’ (pp. 15-17) go further than just being ‘good’ and ‘kind’: they embrace the full scope of what it means to be a citizen of a society, in this case an online one. For instance, Element 1: Digital Access, is about equity, which in our intensely capitalist world is sorely lacking. Reading the list of nine elements, I can see that each one is relevant and necessary.

We used to learn how to write a letter with ‘correct’ formatting, salutations, structure and form, to ensure smooth, open and respectful dialogue. Digital technologies are here to stay but somehow, in our increasingly crowded curriculum, the teaching of how to use it ethically, responsibly and with kindness, didn’t eventuate. It’s not the same as passively watching the telly; as Ribble (2004) points out, digital technologies allow us to be producers, as well as consumers, of information, and the ‘real’ world and the online one have become the same (p. 12).

The Covid-19 pandemic puts digital citizenship into a new, stark context: as Buchholz, Dehart & Moorman (2020) point out, the lockdowns both showed the importance of citizenry – acting with responsibility for a greater good – as well as the need for digital literacy – finding the authentic, accurate information in a sea of online misinformation. Digital citizenship is more than digital etiquette (as important as that is); it is also the ability to use technology wisely (Öztürk, 2021, p.34). The pandemic showed us many things, including the sad reality that we were unprepared technologically, and that we have issues of equitable access. As more and more Australians succumb to online shopping scams (okay so I will put my own hand up here, as embarrassing as that is!), it is clear that there are serious gaps in our knowledge and ability to use technology safely, as well as respectfully. As I read more in Module 1, I find myself surprised at how we are not even taking this seriously, as a society, in Australia – for adults as much as young people.

Like language, we’re not born knowing politeness, understanding or respect, but as with language, we are born with the capacity to learn it. Parents know they have to teach their children to be polite and respectful, and they have to model it – it is the same with digital technology. I don’t think the term is out-of-date at all. ‘Digital’ still encompasses a broad range of things, from the technological tools themselves – from the cloud to a tablet to a mobile phone, its camera and microphone – to the online platforms accessed with them. I wouldn’t be surprised if a new term emerges in the next 5-10 years, because language evolves, but ‘digital’ still seems to cast a wide-enough net.

References

Buchholz, B. A., Dehart, J., & Moorman, G. (2020). Digital citizenship During a global pandemic: Moving beyond digital literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 64(1), 11-17. https://primo.csu.edu.au/permalink/61CSU_INST/15aovd3/cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7405058

Cortesi, S., Hasse, A., Lombana-Bermudez, A., Kim, S., & Gasser, U. (2020). Youth and digital citizenship+ (plus): Understanding skills for a digital world. Youth and Media, Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3557518

Kershaw, P. (2004). Carefair: Rethinking the responsibilities and rights of citizenship. UBC Press. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csuau/reader.action?docID=3412035&ppg=1

Öztürk, G. (2021). Digital citizenship and its teaching: A literature review. Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning, 4(1), 31-45. https://primo.csu.edu.au/permalink/61CSU_INST/15aovd3/cdi_proquest_journals_2844067431

Ribble, M. (2015). A brief history of digital citizenship. In Digital citizenship in schools: Nine elements all students should know (3rd ed., pp. 9-14). International Society for Technology in Education. https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=1072357&site=ehost-live&ebv=EB&ppid=pp_17

Education 4.0?

By Shannon Badcock

On February 26, 2024

In ETL523, Reflection Post

Informal thoughts on Tomasz Huk’s article.

It is a good time to reflect on the rapid changes in technology and its impact on education. I consider myself to be Gen Y (scraping through by old parameters) which is now called ‘Millenial’ and the goal posts have changed, pushing me back into Gen X, which I don’t identify with (but I don’t identify with Millenial either – sounds too young for my 44-year-old bones!). As someone who was a child in the 80s, a tween-and-teenager in the 90s, and a uni student at the turn of the century, I’ve experienced education pre-technology and post-. I grew up with it slowly inching its way further into the classroom by small degrees, and it was always just an appliance. A computer was like a microwave – not in functionality, but in how people interacted with it: it was designed for a purpose, you used it for that purpose, and otherwise you left it alone. It didn’t do much else.

And then I was in a weird tech cocoon for three years, living in Japan where I had a ‘fancy’ flip phone – in colour! – but used technology only to email home occasionally. I was still watching films on VHS. I felt sheltered, isolated, from changes and advancements in digital technology, and I still feel those gaps today. Like waking from a coma to find several years had gone by and things don’t quite make sense.

But working as a teacher now, it’s clear just how much has changed. Technology is still a tool, but it’s used in a different way – and for many of our students, they are incapable of ‘leaving it alone’. Integrating digital technology into the classroom means you can do all sorts of fun little things, or get them to work in more interactive ways, but it can’t replace the core essence of what teachers do. In that sense, it’s still just a tool. What’s really good about it is as an aide for students (and staff) who have things like dyslexia, ADHD, dysphraxia etc.

There is a persistent idea, which is present in the article, that teachers merely ‘facilitate’ learning, and ‘monitor’ it, but don’t actually teach (or rather, that this is an ideal model). It makes me laugh. Such ideas are always presented by people who don’t actually teach. Huk talks about an interview with a principal during COVID about the benefits of online learning – having experienced it myself, I and my colleagues know it isn’t as effective. Our students struggled, with motivation but also in understanding. As a teacher, my job is to translate content, break it down, explain it, present it, discuss it etc. This theory reminds me of SOLE, and of Gonski 2.0 – the idea that anyone can teach themselves anything. There are very few people who can do that, and usually only in one or two select areas (with a great deal of persistence!). But what they can’t really teach themselves is critical thinking, and so we now have the reality of millions of people ‘teaching themselves’ (“doing their own research” without the skills) about things and creating a whole whack of misinformation online.

It’s okay to see teachers as ‘gatekeepers’ of knowledge. Things have changed, and teachers aren’t autocratic dictators prepping students to work in the factory – which brings me to Industry/Education 4.0. Australia’s universities have already shifted from education to training, prioritising courses that skill students for a specific job, and not ones that teach them to think or encourage ideas. This is of great concern, and also marks a shift away from ‘experts’ in their field (e.g. scientists, medical researchers and academics) to individuals with an online platform and a camera.

The Internet of Things (IoT) is a frightening, invasive and unethical dystopian vision!

“computer applications used at schools could allow for automatic substitution
for absent teachers and planning of education for each student.” (p. 44) Again, COVID taught us that you can’t replace real teachers.

References

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