Category: Reflections

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 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]