Category: ETL523

The Power of Digital Learning Environments

noniharrison on

Digital literacy and digital citizenship describe the key skills and dispositions of 21st century citizens. It is essential students develop these capacities within the context of 21st century learning to live and work effectively in and beyond school. As shown in Figure 1, digital learning environments [DLEs] provide the structural support for 21st century pedagogy to build digital citizenship and other 21st century skills (Keane & Keane, 2013). Digital citizenship, including digital literacy, must be embedded across the curriculum for it to be contextualised and therefore relevant, authentic, and sustainable (Earp, 2018). Ultimately, schools need to create DLEs that support deep learning across the curriculum and prepare students for life and work.

Framework showing supportive DLEs as a structure to enhance three elements of 21st century skills; foundation literacies, competencies (4 Cs), and character qualities, which lead to enhance lifelong learning
Figure 1. Students require 16 skills for the 21st century. Adapted from “New Vision for Education: Unlocking the Potential of Technology”, by World Economic Forum, 2015, p.3

A challenge in developing DLEs is to ensure information and communication technologies [ICTs] are used in transformative ways. Two common problems I have seen with ICT integration are overuse and passive use. Overuse includes the tendency of ICT-integrated lessons to become what Gonzalez (2016) calls “Grecian Urns”. Such lessons focus on the product over educational value. In the context of ICTs, the technology becomes the focus and deep learning is lost. While some functional or operational gains may be made, opportunities to develop digital citizenship and deep learning related to the curriculum are lost. ICT is also commonly used as a passive substitute for paper, with similar effects – loss of deep learning opportunities. ICTs should be used to support knowledge construction and help students develop critical and creative thinking, communication, and collaboration skills. As seen in Figure 2, the American Department of Education (2017) refers to the issue of passive use as the “digital use divide”. It is important to leverage ICTs in transformative ways to allow for in-depth application of digital citizenship practices and deep learning (Keane & Keane, 2013). This also creates the opportunity to connect to students’ third space and build digital citizenship in more authentic and meaningful ways (Harrison, 2019a; Harrison 2019b).

 

Graphic showing the difference between passive and active use of technology.
Figure 2. Digital use divide. Reprinted from “Reimagining the Role of Technology in Education: 2017 National Education Technology Plan Update”, by Department of Education United States of America, 2017, p.21.

Over the course of ETL523, my thinking has been extended and challenged. I have always held a firm belief in the critical role of technology in supporting the 21st century needs of students; however, the way this has translated to my practice has evolved over time and will continue to evolve having now taken this subject. The concept of digital citizenship in all its guises sits very well with me. The ability for students to create and consume information in ways that enrich their experiences and the experiences of others is powerful. I have been inspired to consider how my use of ICTs in teaching can extend the learning beyond the classroom walls through local and global collaboration. I am challenging myself this year to connect with experts or other schools using Skype in the classroom and Microsoft Teams to extend the communication and collaboration portals of my classroom.

The role of TLs has always been inherently servant-based leadership but, as I have noted in several reflections in the past, it is more than that. TLs work as instructional leaders and transformational leaders to guide the entire school community in developing their skills and inspire the community to delve deeper into effective teaching and learning practices. Fullan (2013) explains the key drivers to change as capacity building, collaborative work, pedagogy, and systemness supported through professional learning communities. He says “people are motivated by good ideas tied to action” (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012, p.7). As a TL, I can use my position to lead from the middle to garner support for the prioritisation and ongoing development of our DLE. Already this term, the library team has developed an online professional learning space for teachers, with the intention to build communities of practice across the college. Once teachers see the power of the DLE in their own learning, this might transfer to their classrooms. As TLs are change leaders, we are well-positioned to support the school in developing effective policy and environments to support the whole school community and enhance student learning outcomes (Johnston, 2012).

 

References

Department of Education United States of America. (2017). Reimagining the role of technology in education: 2017 national education technology plan update. Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/files/2017/01/NETP17.pdf

Earp, J. (2018, November 21). Curriculum integration of digital citizenship. Retrieved from https://www.teachermagazine.com.au/articles/curriculum-integration-of-digital-citizenship

Fullan, M. (2013). Maximising leadership for change [Participant booklet]. Retrieved from https://michaelfullan.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/14_AU_Final-Workbook_web.pdf

Gonzalez, J. (2016, October 30). Is your lesson a Grecian urn? [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.cultofpedagogy.com/grecian-urn-lesson/

Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press.

Harrison, N. (2019a, March 13). Reflection: Module 1.0a. Digital learning environments [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/nharrison/2019/03/13/reflection-module-1-0/

Harrison, N. (2019b, March 24). Reflection: Module 2.2. Digital fluency and third space [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/nharrison/2019/03/24/reflection-module-2-2/

Johnston, M. P. (2012). School librarians as technology integration leaders: Enablers and barriers to leadership enactment. School Library Research, 15. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/

Keane, W. & Keane, T. (2013). Deep learning, ICT and 21st century skills: Leading for education quality [Conference paper]. Retrieved from https://researchbank.swinburne.edu.au/file/ae199457-ab1e-4787-ac72-9844c8a0214a/1/PDF%20%28Published%20version%29.pdf

World Economic Forum. (2015). New vision for education: Unlocking the potential of technology. Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEFUSA_NewVisionforEducation_Report2015.pdf

 

[Assessment 3 Part B Critical Reflection]

Collaborative Learning and Digital Literacy

noniharrison on

REFLECTION

As a High-Impact Teaching Strategy (State of Victoria, 2017), this collaborative project not only extended my understanding of the content, it importantly expanded my Personal Learning Network (PLN) and Personal Learning Environment (PLE) by working with new colleagues across a range of new platforms. Our group worked within a connectivist learning framework to adapt to challenges, grow our networks, and learn from our diversity.

The three intertwined elements of online collaborative learning [OCL] were certainly at play throughout this assessment piece; tasks, teams, and time [see image below] (Persico & Pozzi, 2011). The provided content scheme allowed flexibility with interpretation, execution and mode of output. Additionally, the autonomy in group formation enabled us to work with like-minded people with different skills and experiences. Our diversity (primary teacher, middle school teacher, and teacher librarians within Australia and in the United Arab Emirates) and ability to collaborate in a digital learning environment [DLE] afforded us the opportunity to share, teach, and learn from one another in a deep and unique way.

Task, team and time are intertwined dimensions of structuring online collaborative learning. This image show the three dimensions as connected nodes and an arrow indicates that each dimension can be emphasised at different times depending on the collaborative task.
The Three T’s. Note that the emphasis on dimension changes depending on the nature of the collaborative task.

Our modes of communication included Zoom and Microsoft Teams, which allowed synchronous and asynchronous interaction and removed the barriers of working within three different time-zones. Synchronous communication allowed real-time collaboration, while asynchronous communication allowed each group member extended think-time to develop deep reasoning (Aviv, 2000; Duderstadt, Atkins, & Van Houweling, 2002). We used Zoom meetings to prepare for the task and clarify our purpose and roles, while Teams’ Conversation and OneNote were used to discuss progress and share findings. This ensured our communication was transparent and reviewable. This was particularly helpful for me, as I was able to revisit our discussion to clarify my perceptions and it enabled group connection even as our level of synchronous communication dwindled.

While the group established set phases and schedule, our timing was flexible to allow each group member to work around their other commitments. This worked well for us; however we experienced some difficulties when unintentionally editing the Wix site simultaneously. Luckily, we used Teams’ Conversation to overcome this. We also used Tasks-in-a-Box to assign tasks and due dates. In future, I would use this more effectively by collaboratively breaking the assessment task up into more stages earlier in the planning process. This would enhance the clarity and consistency of our approach. Scheduling another Zoom meeting may have also helped us to realign with our initial goals in real-time to ensure clear perception.

  • Synchronous communication through Zoom. Zoom meetings were held twice to collaborate and clarify.

 

Reimann (2018) identifies three challenges of group work; unequal participation, lack of awareness, and stratified learning zones. While I believe our group avoided these through effective use of online communication and collaboration tools, these are common scenarios I experience with students in school learning environments. Unequal participation is the most common challenge among my students, as collaboration competes with their preference for individualistic reward (Dool, 2010). I believe a shared vision and group roles can be established through the OCL norm of “purpose” to motivate and empower learners. I will ensure the design of future OCL activities include a clear purpose and direct students to establish goals and roles before starting. Strengthening this area will build student capacity to work collaboratively in DLEs.

Having students co-create a digital product and collaborate online with others in their school and beyond, in a similar manner to this task, redefines the parameters of learning through transformative use of technology. This higher end of the SAMR spectrum strengthens connections to students’ third-space, which increases relevancy and learning. The ability of OCL projects to span curriculum areas, address multiple general capabilities, and provide real-world experiences highlights their value. To incorporate global OCL into my teaching, I will take advantage of Asia-Europe Foundation’s yearly school collaborations.

 

RESOURCES

This experience has enabled me to create a range of resources that will be useful independently and within the full learning module. I wanted to challenge myself and use a range of tools to produce a high-quality, interactive and participatory product. I used the following tools to create my artefact and embedded resources:

 

EMBEDDED RESOURCES

Below are the visual resources I created using Canva.

  • A poster showing the SCRAP test.
    The SCRAP test provides prompting questions to consider when evaluating sources of information.

 

The screencast tutorial I created to provide instruction on tagging and annotating in Diigo (as seen below) was made using A Powersoft Free Online Screen Recorder, Adobe After Effects and Adobe Premiere Pro, and music from BenSound. 

 

ARTEFACT

The above resources are all embedded in the artefact that I created for the online learning module using WireWax, (as seen below).

 

 

 

References

Asia-Europe Foundation. (2019). 2019 school collaborations. Retrieved from http://www.asef.org/index.php/projects/themes/education/4600-asef-classnet-online-collaborations-2019

Aviv, R. (2000). Educational Performance of ALN via Content Analysis. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 4(2). doi:10.24059/olj.v4i2.1901

Dool, R. (2010). Teaming across borders. In Ubell, R. (Ed.), Virtual teamwork: Mastering the art and practice of online learning and corporate collaboration (pp. 161-192). Retrieved from ProQuest Ebook Central

Duderstadt, J. J., Atkins, D. E., & Van Houweling, D. (2002). Higher education in the digital age: Technology issues and strategies for American colleges and universities. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.

General capabilities in Australian curriculum: Version 7.5. (2018). Retrieved from the Australian Curriculum and Assessment Authority website: https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/general-capabilities/

H.L. (2017, October 30). SAMR model: A practical guide for edtech integration [Blog post]. https://www.schoology.com/blog/samr-model-practical-guide-edtech-integration

Lindsay, J. (2015). Norms of online global collaboration [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from https://www.slideshare.net/julielindsay/norms-of-online-global-collaboration

Persico, D. & Pozzi, F. (2011). Tasks, teams and time: Three T’s to structure CSCL processes. In Pozzi, F., & Persico, D. (Eds), Techniques for fostering collaboration in online learning communities: Theoretical and practical perspectives (pp. 1-14). doi:10.4018/978-1-61692-898-8

Reimann, P. (2018). Making online group-work work: Scripts, group awareness and facilitation. Retrieved from https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1338&context=research_conference

State of Victoria. (2017). High Impact Teaching Strategies: Excellence in teaching and learning. Retrieved from http://www.education.vic.gov.au/Documents/school/teachers/support/highimpactteachstrat.docx

 

[Assessment 2 Part C Reflective Blog Post]

Bursting the Bubble

noniharrison on

When taking research literacy lessons, I have the students conduct a basic Google search using their inquiry question. Then, in a new tab, they use only the key words and watch what happens to the number of results. Next, they use a range of Boolean operators with their key words. We compare and discuss the change in the number of results (usually significantly less) and the power of effective search skills. I always point out that despite everyone in the room using the exact same words and operators, we get a different number of results. We speak about Google’s algorithms, it’s filtering of their results, and the power of going beyond page 1. This has always been a valuable discussion point, as some believe the filter bubble can dramatically increase confirmation bias. In a climate of divisive viewpoints, this is important to note. Not only in the personal and social world but also the world of academia. Students must have the opportunity to challenge their thinking to develop deeper understandings and develop their capacity for critical thinking.

In his 2011 TED Talk, Pariser highlighted the need for algorithms to be transparent and customisable to enhance companies’ ethics and “civic responsibility” in terms of how people connect and with what they are exposed to (TED2011, 2011). It seems Google responded. When recently searching in Google, I wanted to see if I could turn off certain algorithms or data collection – could I go back to square one to have a truly pure and uncorrupted search experience. It turns out, in 2018, Google released Your Data in Search which makes deleting your search history and controlling the ads you see much easier. You can also turn off Google’s personalisation. While some studies suggest Google’s attempt at reducing the filter bubble (searching in private mode and when signed out) does not greatly affect the disparity between users’ search results, it is perhaps a step in the right direction. It is worthwhile noting that Google disputes the claim that personalisation greatly effects search results.

The jury may still be out as key players are unsurprisingly at odds, however I have seen the difference in results first hand when working with classes of students. In the realm of their academic research, it may not be as big of an issue as say perpetuating political beliefs or other ideologies, however these algorithms are deciding what it deems most useful or important for these students. This can limit students’ search rather than assist, and popularised click bait can hinder their academic as well as social searching. An alternative search engine, which does not track or store your personal information, is DuckDuckGo. A search engine many librarians and educators have been promoting for some time. The next time I take a research literacy lesson, I will put it to the test and see how it stacks up against Google.

Business Models should DuckDuckGo does not use tracked advertising or affiliated marketing.
DuckDuckGos Business Model.
Cuofano, G. (n.d.). DuckDuckGos Business Model [Image]. Retrieved from https://fourweekmba.com/duckduckgo-business-model/
In terms of curation, Valenza (2012) suggests we be mindful of the filter bubble when evaluating the curations of others. Are viewpoints missing? Whose perspective is the curation from? On the other hand, effective human curation can alleviate the filter bubble. Human curators, particularly those participating in collective curation, have the ability to provide multiple perspectives within a curation. This gives users a more comprehensive pool of sources to select from and can expose users to a breadth of viewpoints. Even Apple is using human curation to counter the limitations of algorithmic curation. Apple intends to present a curation of quality-controlled news by leveraging the collective skills and expertise of a curation team. This is also a powerful exercise for students. Collective curating of resources for their research tasks can reduce work load, provide multiple and alternate perspectives and encourage collaborative processes and communication. Shirky (O’Reilly, 2008) highlights an instance in 2008 whereby a Toronto college student created a Facebook study group to mimic an IRL study group. In this group, membership was open and vast. He was quickly charged with cheating by Ryerson College. I personally don’t believe the creation of this group to be in violation of academic integrity. Even though students may be collaboratively curating (something I think should be encouraged), they, themselves as individuals, must still be discerning in their selection of sources and evidence, and must still demonstrate their ability to evaluate, analyse and sythensise. Collective curation provides opportunities for students to debate, widen the available perspectives, and support one another in their academic endeavours.

So, the next topic to explore is appropriate collective curation tools that support students inside and outside the school environment.

 

Reference 

TED2011. (2011, March). Eli Pariser: Beware online “filter bubbles” [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles?language=en#t-476026

O’Reilly. (2008, September 19). Web 2.0 Expo NY: Clay Shirky (shirky.com) It’s Not Information Overload. It’s Filter Failure [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LabqeJEOQyI

 

[Reflection: Module 2.5]

Digital Fluency and Third Space

noniharrison on

Digital literacy must be embedded across the curriculum to enhance student participation in learning and garner outcomes that will support their current and future learning endeavours. Embedded digital literacy, and to the next level digital fluency, encourages teachers to consider how technology will be used to enhance learning, and encourages students to apply their pre-existing digital knowledge to new and novel learning experiences (Hague & Payton, 2010). To effectively embed these practices, teachers can use a model such as Kuhlthau’s Guided Inquiry Design (Kuhlthau, Caspari, & Maniotes, 2015) or Stripling’s (2010) Model of Inquiry, which require students to practice core digital literacy skills while promoting third space interactions.

Tapping into available technologies and connecting to students’ third space enables constructivist learning that is holistic (cross-curricular), situated and authentic, and inquiry-based where students are active producers and evaluators. These experiences enable students to develop crucial 21st century skills that are required to effectively adapt to changing environments. This combination of declarative, procedural and critical skills enhances higher-order thinking and acquisition of deep understanding (Wheeler & Gerver, 2015). Embedded digital literacy practices through student-centred learning experiences are also likely to strengthen students’ digital fluency, as these experiences require students to use digital technologies strategically to communicate, connect, collaborate, consume, produce, share, evaluate, model and manage (Couros, 2012).

Venn diagram illustrating two overlapping circles to show students first space (home life) in the left circle connecting with students' second space (formal schooling and curriculum) in the right circle, which creates students' third space in the centre overlapping segment. This third space is useful in developing students' high-order understanding and constructivist learning.
Students’ third space is activated when strategies are put in place to connect students’ first and second spaces.

References

Couros, A. (2012, January 18). Towards digital fluency [Slideshow]. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/courosa/towards-digital-fluency.

Kuhlthau, C. C., Caspari, A. K., & Maniotes, L. K. (2015). Guided Inquiry: Learning in the 21st Century (2nd Ed.). Santa Barbara, California: Libraries Unlimited. Retrieved from EBSCOHost

Stripling, B. (2010). Teaching students to think in the digital environment: Digital literacy and digital inquiry. School Library Monthly, 26(8), 16-19. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au

Wheeler, S., & Gerver, R. (2015). Learning with ‘e’s: Educational theory and practice in the digital age. Retrieved from ProQuest Ebook Central.

 

[Reflection: Module 2.2]

Digital Fluency and Transliteracy

noniharrison on
  • How do you see yourself developing the knowledge and skills to address current and future information literacy and digital fluency needs?
  • What is the relevance and purpose of transliteracy in this overall discussion of digital citizenship and 21st Century teaching and learning?

I think the answer to the second question is relatively straight forward – students use a range of digital tools in their daily lives to explore, connect, and create, so it is fitting that our digital citizenship practices and 21st century teaching and learning experiences mirror this. However, while students may use a variety of tools in their everyday lives to create their own digital artefacts, Valenza (2010) highlights that they are not necessarily transliterate. Meaning, they may be able to use the tools but may not have the dispositions needed to exploit each tool and effectively create, organise, share and communicate for a particular purpose (Wheeler & Gerver, 2015). This use of transliteracy in schools explicitly connects to and activates the third space, which enhances the authenticity and meaningfulness of tasks.

In terms of information literacy and digital fluency needs, I see an ongoing need will be filtering. The ability to easily create and curate information has not necessarily eased information overload, or infowhelm, rather it has increased. Digital literacy can address this issue by upskilling users on effective filtering techniques. Even though it’s going on 11 years old, Clay Shirky’s key note on filter failure from 2008 is an interesting watch.

It is near impossible to keep up with the plethora of tools available. If anything, this highlights the necessity to be well-versed in filtering. We must be discerning in our choices so as not to overload or overwhelm ourselves. Each tool has a particular use and may be more or less useful depending on the context. Wheeler stresses that we should not adopt new technology then decide how it might be useful (IATED, 2015). The technology or tool should be identified in response to a problem; a way to solve a problem. This is something I need be mindful of when developing my knowledge and skills in these areas.

It would be helpful to identify particular uses, enablers and barriers to each tool and platform I am exploring, then curate a collection that would be most helpful to my college context and the needs of the college community. As suggested by O’Connell (2012), making use of my PLE and PLN to find and test tools are two avenues I have used and will continue to use to develop my knowledge and skills in addressing information literacy and digital fluency needs. Through Twitter and various blogs, I follow different organisations and individuals who work in the areas of technology, education and literacy, so I have a range of perspectives to choose from.

References

IATED. (2015, March 17). Steve Wheeler: Digital learning futures: Mind the gap! [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7EftCFQHVg&feature=youtu.be

O’Connell, J. (2012). Learning without frontiers: School libraries and meta-literacy in action. ACCESS, March, 4-7. Retrieved from https://researchoutput.csu.edu.au/ws/portalfiles/portal/8860780/44620postpub.pdf

Wheeler, S., & Gerver, R. (2015). Learning with ‘e’s: Educational theory and practice in the digital age. Retrieved from ProQuest Ebook Central.

Valenza, J. (2010, May 9). On transliteracy: Learning more [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://blogs.slj.com/neverendingsearch/2010/05/09/on-transliteracy-learning-more/

 

[Forum Reflection: Module 2.2]

Digital Citizenship: A First Glance

noniharrison on
  • What is your definition of digital citizenship?
  • What is your stance on digital citizenship?
  • What should an informed, publicly engaged digital citizen look like?
  • What direction are you (or your school) taking?

My initial definition of digital citizenship: As students participate in DEs, they require certain skills and attitudes (digital citizenship) to navigate, interact and create ethically in a way that leaves a positive digital footprint. Digital users need to be fluent, ethical, and effective digital citizens. In this way they exhibit citizenry skills that “uphold standards for legal, ethical, safe, responsible, and respectful uses of technology” (Greenhow, 2010, p. 25). As identified by Mike Ribble and Gerald Bailey, digital citizenship skills can be organised in three categories; respect, educate, protect (Ribble, 2011). At present, my library embeds digital citizenship skills into the research, assignment help, and IT help sessions. Topics including copyright and use of creative commons, digital footprint, and safe online behaviour are covered however, this just scratches the surface of what it means to be an effective digital citizen. We have recently added the concept of cognitive bias and lateral reading to our research sessions to develop students’ digital information literacy skills. Cognitive bias is of particular importance with the prevalence of fake news and clickbait bulletins. An understanding of cognitive bias encourages students to consider their approach to research, their selection of sources, and their assessment of validity. While the technique of lateral reading equips students with the skills to effectively and efficiently determine the validity of their sources similar to the approach used by fact checkers (Wineburg & McGrew, 2017). Lindsay and Davis (2012) describe digital citizenship approaches as a series of awarenesses. These areas of awareness – technical, individual, social, cultural, global – are combined with “rays of understanding” that determine the relevant behaviours required to respond to various situations. Lindsay and Davis (2012) present this interrelationship as enlightened digital citizenship as seen in Figure 1. Importantly, as with any skills-based program, these understandings and awarenesses should be developed through embedded practices that are contextualised and just-in-time (Marrs, 2016). At this point, we have more room to grow and must make space to explicitly cover these skills in more depth using an embedded methodology.

 

Enlightened digital citizenship demonstrating the areas of awareness and rays of digital citizenship
Figure 1: Enlightened digital citizenship

 

Reference

Greenhow, C. (2010). New concept of citizenship for the digital age. Learning & Leading with Technology, 37(6), 24-25. Retrieved from EBSCO Host.

Marrs, H. (2016). Don’t teach digital citizenship – embed it! Retrieved from https://www.iste.org/explore/In-the-classroom/Don

Wineburg, S. & McGrew, S. (2017). Lateral reading: Reading less and learning more when evaluating digital information [Report]. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3048994

 

[Reflection: Module 1.1]

Digital Learning Environments

noniharrison on

Below is a visual summary of Digital Learning Environments according to Veletsianos (2016). It was very interesting to read about the different perspectives of guided vs. unguided instruction thus, differing opinions on inquiry learning – those for and those against. I see the majority of technology, networks and communities present in schools are highly controlled and restrictive, due to privacy, legal, and ethical issues surrounding duty of care. Many schools shut down the use of social networking platforms such as Facebook to prevent student distraction during the school day. While a legitimate concern (considering the adverse effects of screen time for children and young people although, this in itself is contentious), it is limiting the ways that teachers can connect to students’ third-space and provide opportunities for valuable connectivist experiences. While hierarchical groups have their place in the school learning ecology, networks seem to have the ability to provide more authentic learning and connecting experiences. This highlights the need for digital citizenship to be embedded in teaching and learning activities to open up the digital learning environment while providing opportunities for students to effectively, efficiently, ethically and justly work within digital contexts in ways that transform the learning experience. As suggested by Brewer (2018), rather than banning smart technology and forcing unethical and unproductive digital behaviours underground, schools should be engaging with this technology and promoting digital citizenship in meaningful ways that connect to the third-space and promote positive digital behaviours.

Reference

Brewer, J. (2018). Don’t ban smartphones in Australian high schools: Here’s why (and what we can do instead). Retrieved from https://www.aare.edu.au/blog/?tag=digital-citizenship

Veletsianos, G. (2016). Digital Learning Environments. Retrieved from https://interact2.csu.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-2644087-dt-content-rid-3763889_1/courses/S-ETL523_201830_W_D/PDF%20files/digital_learninig_environments.pdf

 

[Reflection: Module 1.0a]

Mind the Gap

noniharrison on

Steve Wheeler’s keynote for the International Technology, Education and Development Conference covered many valuable idioms and concepts:

  • The have and have nots and the wills and the will nots
  • Disruptive technology: technology that redefines learning experiences
  • New cultural capital involves transliteracies
  • Rhizonomy – learning through social software
  • Crowdsourcing curriculum (IATED, 2015).

I see already, many connections between what he says and what was covered in my previous subject, ETL504 Teacher Librarian as Leader. I see the need for TLs to continue to support the whole school community in their digital learning endeavours. All the while remembering the seduction and bewilderment cycle of new technology. Wheeler posits that schools often buy into new technology without knowing what they want to do with them and we should instead start with the problem first, then move to how technology might solve it (IATED, 2015). While recognising and being prepared for the laggards – those individuals and groups who are averse to change. A fixed mindset, which stems from many and varying circumstances and justifications, prevents them from shifting focus, learning something new, and adopting change. In teaching in particular, change fatigue is real. We are experiencing this now with the implementation of the new senior syllabus and ATAR. Cognitive verbs, implementation of Moodle, new professional development register, new academic skills program, mentoring program, the list goes on. Teachers are overwhelmed. Laggardism is their ammunition.

How can Teacher Librarians support the community through this change? There are so many possibilities. Now is our time to shine. It was confirming to hear Wheeler speak of connectivism and its relationship with Web 3.0 and 4.0. These communities of learning can support learning experiences and inquiry across the curriculum by supporting learners through the information search process, specifically during what Kuhlthau posits as “the dip” (2016). I spoke about the TLs place in the dip here and here. In a similar way, web-based communities of learning can help learners through the affective pitfalls of uncertainty through socially constructed knowledge and understanding (O’Connell & Groom, 2010). Learning 3.0 toward learning 4.0, is connectivist and community driven, whether through learning modes, content or construct. Crowdsourcing education is possible and can enhance and redefine learning. TLs have extensive professional learning networks with which to draw from and ways to assist teachers and students in setting up their digital communities and participatory learning environments.

To thrive in these digital learning communities, students require digital wisdom; whether through mastery of the SCRAP test, enhancement of their digital reputation and digital legacy, or through other digital literacies. As Wheeler mentioned, literacies are the product of combining skills and competencies in new ways which are needed to develop mastery. TLs have a clear role to play in the support of students in these areas.

Wheeler’s reminder through his keynote was to be cognisant and considerate of the gap between those with knowledge, know-how, power, influence, potential and those without.

 

Reference

IATED. (2015, March 17). Steve Wheeler: Digital learning futures: Mind the gap! [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7EftCFQHVg&feature=youtu.be

Kuhlthau, C. C. (2016). Information search process. Retrieved from http://wp.comminfo.rutgers.edu/ckuhlthau/wp-content/uploads/sites/185/2016/01/ELIS-3E.pdf

O’Connell, J., & Groom, D. (2010). Connect, Communicate, Collaborate. Camberwell, Vic.: ACER, 2010.

 

[ETL523 Introduction]