TOWARDS A CARIBBEAN DIGITAL LITERACY FRAMEWORK; IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS

by Dr. Denise J Charles. January 2022

The impact of the digital revolution on life in small island developing states has caused concern for many. The sense in which it is perhaps perceived that smaller, more dependent nations could be easily subsumed by a dominant global culture through today’s pervasive knowledge economy is not without some merit. The United Nations has sought to address this issue of cultural preservation, through its focus on intangible cultural heritage or ICH. ICH refers to the “traditions or living expressions inherited from our ancestors and passed on to our descendants” (UNESCO, 2011). While we easily identify with dominant cultural expressions in the form of tangible artifacts and experiential creative expressions, as seen in the creative and performing arts, the fragility of ICH is perhaps best understood within the context of the unseeable. These practices, traditions and even cultural attitudes that are transgenerational must still be preserved even, as the world forges ahead with its technological development. Today’s globalization and digital revolution are both intractable; they cannot and will not be pulled back by our nostalgic leanings towards the past. The emergence of the Metaverse is a testament to the dynamic and ever-changing nature of technology and as SIDS we must find ways of defining and redefining who we are and can be even within the context of ongoing technological change.

While this technological intractability may be true, it is critical for the preservation of our cultural heritage and identity, that we, therefore, seek to carve out our own frameworks and models for digital development. A Caribbean digital sensibility must allow us to take from the world’s thriving knowledge economy, the best that is needed to secure our competitiveness on the global stage, while simultaneously building an awareness of how our culture and heritage can shape how we experience and influence the digital age. Technological advancement must not be viewed as a potential enemy poised to take our culture from us or as a force that leaves us culturally vulnerable but it should be viewed as a form of social and economic development upon which we as Caribbean citizens can act, in order to leverage and improve our own way of life.

In a qualitative study that investigated the digital literacy practices and perspectives of Higher Education leaders at a Teachers’ Training institution in Barbados, several themes emerged which suggested that Caribbean variables did impact the participants’ experiences with digital development at their institution (Charles, 2019). The study’s conceptual framework was built on the Bennett (2014) model for Digital literacy which focuses on digital access, skills, practices, and attributes and on the more detailed JISC (2015) model which details the types of practices and behaviours which reflect digital competencies. A comparison of the components of these two frameworks can be viewed below.

Bennet (2014) & JISC (2015) DL Models

A deeper analysis of the emergent themes in this study, confirmed the presence of Caribbean variables; variables that could be described as unique to nations which had previously been colonized which could impact how people viewed or experienced digital development. While it may be argued that these variables might have been skewed by age, (participants were educational leaders) by a lack of digital experiences, and by prior perceptions, there are also intergenerational implications in these responses. These could be based on the transmission of attitudes which emerged out of a socio-cultural experience of disenfranchisement via the route of colonialism and its residual effects on the Caribbean psyche. Participants perceived that these attitudes or beliefs about the Caribbean self impacted not only how students were taught but what students themselves believed about their own ability to create and innovate. The table below reflects participant narratives that fueled a unique interrogation of digital literacy development within the context of a Caribbean socio-cultural experience.

Caribbean Identity Effects

Perceptions of challenges with innovation and creativity, the concept of a damaged self-image and identity, a tradition of rote learning and convergence to the status quo or “sponging” and perceptions of technological underdevelopment, all form a part of the unique “effects” that could influence how Caribbean citizens interface with the digital revolution. These factors could of course be further influenced by the issues of economic development and equitable access to technology which directly impact how SIDS can benefit from a rise in digital technology use.

If Prensky’s initial idea of digital natives and digital immigrants held true, (Prensky, 2001) then we would assume that these concerns referenced here, reflected the fears and trepidation inherent only in a dying breed of digital immigrants; those born prior to the digital age. The reality of COVID 19 and the need to pivot in emergency mode to online school, however, taught us differently. Educators were confronted with students who though appearing to be experts on Instagram and Tik Tok, could not upload assignments via the Google Classroom, navigate emails nor stay focused in collaborative online groups. The challenges with respect to navigating digital spaces appear, therefore, to be not only multigenerational, but multi-layered and complex. This means that the issues of digital access which lie at the foundation of most DL frameworks can be understood in terms of both socio-economic and psycho-social variables.

Both teachers and students, for a variety of reasons, across a range of countries, appear psychologically overwhelmed and out of their element in virtual learning environments, where students report issues with staying engaged or speak of the inadequacies of technologies, tools and approaches used by teachers (The Three Amigos, 2020).  Gandhi (2020) also outlines issues like social disconnection, lack of eye-contact, device issues, lack of technical knowledge, peer disturbance, pandemic anxiety and teacher failure in managing the digital environment as key reasons why students dislike the online classroom. What then are the implications for digital literacy development when the thoughts, feelings and attitudes about the virtual world seem negative in an educational context and how does this influence the application of a Caribbean framework?

While digital literacy is not only necessary for virtual teaching and learning, the new normal of online, blended and or hybrid learning approaches, emphasizes its relevance and utility as a means by which virtual learning can indeed be more effective. Outside the context of school and formal learning, the very texture of life, work and leisure in the 21^st Century is demanding the development of digital literacy skills at both personal and institutional levels. Differences in how we experience the digital world with leisure and social activities versus how we experience it in formal activities like online school or work, also present another valid area for future investigation.

While we acknowledge the challenges in navigating digital environments for the purposes of teaching and learning which are experienced across the globe, we in the Caribbean must also consider how our unique socio-cultural experiences must be catered to within any DL framework. Charles (2019) has therefore built on an existing framework by Bennett (2014) to suggest the inclusion of thoughts and beliefs about the digital world and the awareness of how Caribbean socialization and identity can impact navigation of the digital world (Charles, 2021).

Caribbean Digital Literacy Framework (Charles 2021)

How should Caribbean socialization, culture and self-concept be acknowledged, catered to and leveraged in digital environments? What are the specific practices and competencies best suited for the needs of Caribbean development in the 21st Century? These questions suggest the need to utilize strategic approaches in the context of a Caribbean framework to ensure the addressing of Caribbean needs and peculiarities with respect to digital development. The role that Governments, Ministries of Education or Ministries of Technology and Innovation in the Caribbean should play in leading this charge cannot be trivialized. While not exhaustive, the following list of recommendations can be important considerations in any ongoing digital development thrust, especially within the context of education:  

• Address fears of digital engagement through adequate training for both teachers and students
• Provide adequate professional support to teachers to see increased use of digital environments and solutions for teaching and learning (equipment, training in use of online tools and applications, on-site technical support, pedagogical support)
• Leverage Caribbean social networks and online platforms (where they exist) to provide a space for Caribbean teachers and Caribbean students to connect in meaningful ways
• Create Caribbean Social Networks or Network groups and or Professional Learning Communities, which focus on local/regional challenges and solutions
• Incentivize digital creation or creative ideas among students at all levels through prizes/awards, recognition and development support for digital solutions to real world problems encountered through various subject discipline scenarios
• Promote Caribbean stories, images and design features in online platforms
• Encourage teachers and students to utilize Caribbean images/photos, characters, socio-cultural representations and examples in assignments (where applicable)
• Encourage digital creation through the telling and posting of Caribbean life experiences/ stories through blogs/vlogs (personal/school-level) utilizing the lens of Caribbean experiences
• Reference Caribbean values and cultural practices in discussing issues of netiquette and digital well-being
• Create new content for new knowledge generation on Caribbean life, Caribbean languages as well as on Caribbean figures/icons, (arts, literatures, sports, science/agriculture, tourism, business/finance, architecture and design)
• Encourage Caribbean perspectives on global issues and challenges and leverage on digital platforms
• Utilize digital tools and applications to promote Caribbean culture and heritage for educational and entertainment purposes; this could include the creation and sharing of Caribbean art styles (music, visual arts/photography/film, theatre, dance, culinary) and skills in wealth generation through the cultural and creative industries
• Utilize local expertise to solve/address challenges in digital development in education (e.g. app creation to facilitate local, identified educational needs)
• Build teacher digital efficacy in digital environments by providing vicarious mastery experiences through formal and informal mentorship, team teaching, exposure to local/Caribbean “experts” in the field
• Commission locally designed tools/apps for management of processes in education and in a range of sectors
• Create opportunities for the democratization of access to digital education, digital development and digital economic opportunities for Caribbean citizens
• Expose students to the opportunities for monetizing and wealth creation through digital skills development

REFERENCES

Bennett, L. (2014). Learning from the early adopters: Developing the digital practitioner. Research in Learning Technology, 22:21453. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v22.2145

Charles, D. J. (2019). Exploring the digital literacy practices and perspectives of higher education leaders and the implications for digital leadership: A phenomenological study. Doctoral thesis.

Charles. D. J. (2021). Towards the emergence of digital literacy and digital leadership frameworks for Caribbean higher education institutions; lessons learned from a doctoral study.ACHEA Symposium 2021. Retrieved fromhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/356283551_

Gandhi, P. (2020). 11 Reasons Why Students Hate Online Classes During Corona Lockdown. Retrieved from https://www.parveengandhi.com/blog/11-reasons-why-students-hate-online-classes-during-corona-lockdown.php

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9 (5).

Retrieved from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-

%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf

Prensky, M. (2009) H. Sapiens digital: From digital immigrants and digital

natives to digital wisdom, Innovate: Journal of Online Education: 5 (3)

Article 1. Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/innovate/vol5/iss3/1

The Three Amigos (2020). 65% of students dislike virtual learning environments necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Retrieved from https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/65-of-students-dislike-virtual-learning-environments-necessitated-by-the-covid-19-pandemic-301104861.html

UNESCO (2021). What is intangible cultural heritage? Retrieved from https://ich.unesco.org/en/what-is-intangible-heritage-00003

The Leadership Cult: Resetting Our Focus

I have noticed an overwhelming obsession with leadership in recent times. Don’t get me wrong. I too am a student of leadership with a Doctoral degree in leadership studies. I do understand its importance; at least I think I do. But as I reflect more and more especially on the major underlying themes on sites like LinkedIn which focus on professional networking and leadership development, I have noticed the slavish fascination with leadership and its tagged corollary, “success” almost to the exclusion of other vital roles in personal and organizational life.

Everyone it would seem wants to lead or to be an expert on leadership. We have seemingly made leaders and leadership a religion where we believe that leading “right” always brings with it ultimate success, personal aggrandizement and great reward at both the personal and institutional domains. Now, these leadership theories and expert insights may all have some element of truth but like any “cult”, focussing on any one aspect of truth to the exclusion of all others, is just not enough! The current obsession with leadership ignores the bigger picture and instead focuses on what is popular and in keeping with the self-focus of the 21st century digital, social media age, where one’s brand (not necessarily one’s reality) can be cleverly crafted with a few choice posts and well-chosen images.

We have made idols of well-known “successful” leaders and have de-emphasized the need to find one’s individual path, which very well may have nothing to do with leadership or anything like it. One’s individual leadership path may also be far from ideal and may be a lesson in pure drudgery or survival. Leadership’s complexity, I notice, is often being ignored or trivialised, as leadership is reduced to a few choice quotes or to a series of five, seven or ten steps as touted by today’s gurus. Refocusing leadership as influence, while valuable, also carries some danger as all influence is not necessarily a good thing. Leaders may bring a type of “influence” to organizations or to scenarios that may sometimes be to the detriment of those involved. For example, leaders on an ego trip or self-serving, narcissistic leaders may use their influence to steer an organization down the wrong path. In other words, leaders are imperfect, fallible human beings who make loads of mistakes and whose actions are not always motivated by the greater good.

Who wants to hear the real truth about leadership minus the lights, cameras and action? Who wants to hear that leadership is a tough place; a lonely space, a place of personal conflict and self-doubt, of unpopularity and rejection, a place of non-appreciation, a place where one runs the risk of being misunderstood or of even being nailed to a literal or figurative cross of condemnation and shame, no matter how good one’s intentions were- remember Jesus Christ?

I agree wholeheartedly with CIO.com’s position (2006) that the idea of a leader’s unfailing optimism can lead to a “disconnection with reality when things get bad” which in turn can produce a “deep cynicism among employees.” This trend of thought maintains that “relentless optimism is akin to manipulating your employees like they were children or criminals, not to be trusted with the truth”. This pseudo optimism which is being touted as a core trait of 21st Century leadership, never sat well with me because it is built on a fake narrative of what it means to truly lead people. It caters to the idea that to experience “success” one must always be in a state of either near euphoria or of personal mastery.

At the other end of this leadership spectrum, is a vital question. If everyone leads every time who will follow? What happens in organizations where people feel forced or pressured into following the path of leadership because of current organizational or even popular culture? Who will acquiesce and support from the sidelines? Who will serve without the entitlement of promotion or recognition lurking in the background of their motivation? Leadership dominates current business discourse and is so much an assumed corollary of personal success that everyone is encouraged to jump on board!

The human need to be better, to self-actualize, to grow, develop, change and achieve is to be encouraged. I think these needs are critical to what makes us transcendent human beings. I, however, think we have made a serious mistake in contextualizing these needs mainly within a construct of leadership and the trappings of external success. This is why everyone talks about leadership because we have mistakenly made life and upward mobility almost exclusively about leadership and influence. Our worship or mythologizing of leadership as referenced by some, places on leaders a larger-than-life expectation and subsumes the leader with a superhuman aura of strength and know-how, which is often unrealistic and fallacious.

Our worship or mythologizing of leadership . . . places on leaders a larger-than-life expectation and subsumes the leader with a superhuman aura of strength and know-how which is often unrealistic and fallacious

Dr. Denise J Charles

Leaders themselves suffer because they are pressured into maintaining this image of success (arms folded, chests puffed up, wide smiles for the camera) instead of admitting their own deficits, shortcomings, or need of support, and even need of direction from others. I am amazed at the similarities emerging in so many leadership stories, as if leaders feel pressured into borrowing each others’ narratives. Which leader has the guts to own up to his/her truth, especially when it is unpopular or departs from the well worn narrative of thriving as a leader?

Uncannily, an imbalanced focus on leadership can also disempower an organization at the macro level as individuals can fail to see the power of their own agency and ability to influence company policy or plans from where they are currently placed. So within this paradigm, nothing gets done as employees adopt a wait and see approach until the real, duly appointed leader shows up.

There is no denying the power of great leadership but it should not be the be-all and end all of experience. lt is but one element of the personal journey and but one facet of the organizational, development paradigm. If we develop the courage to dethrone leadership, then perhaps we may see the real power of the collective emerge.

The Digital Literacy Deficit: A Call to Action in Caribbean Education

© Dr. Denise J Charles 2021

            Can you imagine at the height of 20th Century Education, teachers being considered relevant if they were not masters of the core elements or the 3R’s – Reading, Writing and ‘Rithmetic? Our embracing of literacy and numeracy as critical components of a sound education in the 20^th Century was borne out in the attention paid to training teachers in mastering the teaching of reading, writing, comprehension, and numeric competency. Of course, the addition of other core content areas like Science and Social Studies, particularly in the Caribbean, still required literacy as an entry level component for understanding and interpreting knowledge in those domains.

            Fast forward to the 21^st Century and we have a global, digital environment, which is steadily dictating and redefining the pace and very texture of our lives in every sector (business, finance, dating, worship, shopping, travel, social engagement) yet in the Caribbean, there seems to be no comparable embracing of this new core 21^st Century literacy. As traditional literacy formed the core of what teachers knew and did previously, the demands of the 21^st Century, now require that Digital Literacy (DL) redefines what teachers know, how teachers are trained and what they do and are able to transfer to their students to equip them for life and work in the 21^st Century (Forutanian, 2021). Add to this, the necessity of various permutations of online learning since the COVID-19 pandemic and we have an even greater reason to get it right with respect to DL development.

            As 21^st Century educators in the Caribbean, we must, therefore, ask ourselves three critical questions:

1. What is digital literacy and why does it matter?
2. Why have we downplayed the critical importance of digital literacy development in education?
3. How can we fix the digital deficit to build relevance in our 21^st Century educational systems at all levels?

What is Digital Literacy and Why Does it Matter?

              Digital literacy remains for many, a nebulous construct based on a wide range of definitions and applications found in the literature. Despite this seeming complexity, however, we can appreciate that as a construct, it provides “new and extended perspectives on traditional literacy and positions and redefines these ideas within a digital context” (Charles, 2019).  While there remains the perception today that our 21^st Century students as digital natives connect easily in digital environments (Prensky, 2001, 2009) there are also acknowledged challenges with students defining and evaluating such information (Claro et al, 2018). In other words, DL is more than a basic familiarity with the use of technology but represents a set of defined competencies in a range of areas which, nonetheless, work together to render the individual “digitally literate”.

             DL is defined as “The ability to use information and communication technologies to find, evaluate, create, and communicate information, requiring both cognitive and technical skills” (ALA Digital Literacy Taskforce, 2011 para, 1). It represents much more than the skill-based capacity to use ICT tools but is the utilization of social and sense-making competencies, required for effective communication and collaboration in the digital age (Lemos and Nascembini, 2016). According to Eshet-Alkalai (2004) Digital Literacy includes “a large variety of complex, cognitive, motor, sociological and emotional skills which users need in order to function effectively in digital environments” (p.93).

            This type of literacy matters because we live in a world of expanded knowledge generation and of rapid digitization. The knowledge economy has exploded because of internet technology and consequently, 21^st Century citizens must be equipped with the tools to judge information veracity, instead of being slavish consumers of whatever is found online. So while digital access is as much a core need of the 21^st Century as access to books was in the 20^th Century, DL moves beyond mere access, to require that individuals are also equipped “to use digital technology and communication tools appropriately” to “manage, integrate, analyze and evaluate information, construct new knowledge, and create and communicate with others.” (BC’s Digital Literacy Framework, n.d. p.1).

            This new literacy matters because it equips individuals with the skills to understand their role in a digital world. This is from the levels of appropriate information use to skill development in communication, collaboration, innovation and creation. This new role includes understanding the ethics to guide digital use, and the need to preserve a sense of balance and digital well-being in an age which seems consumed by more and more technological demands. DL in summary, does begin with access but extends to higher order socio-cognitive skills and competencies, which lead to digital creation, collaborative enterprise and a redefining of values to emerge a 21^st Century digital citizen.

Why is Digital Literacy still Downplayed as the New Literacy?

                Technology integration in education is by no means new, yet in many respects, it has for many years been treated like the proverbial stepchild. While early reform initiatives in Barbados in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s championed the inclusion of computer technology including the basic training of teachers in the technical skills related to technology use (Ministry of Education, Youth Affairs and Culture, 2000) it remained for many years an optional addition to the education paradigm. Those teachers with an affinity for the technology would obviously lean towards using it, while for others it may have been viewed as an unnecessary burden which was not required for them to get the job done.

                With an absence of empirical evidence to assess teacher attitudes in Barbados towards technology integration, however, it may be instructive to make reference to some of the known challenges to the use of technology in education and the related stunting of DL development in the 21^st Century. While technology integration and DL are not terms which should be used interchangeably, it should be understood that the digitally literate teacher is more likely to integrate technology (Falloon, 2020). Having said that, it is perhaps unfair to lay the blame for a down-play of digital literacy solely at the feet of individual teachers. Educators have for years been exposed to components of technology use and integration in education, without knowledge of the over-arching multi-layered construct of DL (JISC, 2015).  

                As a new 21^st Century literacy DL demands system wide attention and planning at both the macro levels (Ministries of Education) and at the institutional or school level. In contrast to an ad-hoc approach to technology use or one which merely focusses on technical skills development, DL is all encompassing and speaks to the wide array of competencies needed by both students and teachers, as well as to the digital practices of leaders, if their institutions are to thrive and increase relevance in the 21^st Century.

                As a new literacy, DL comes with costs which will require both financial and human resource investment and support. Attention must be paid to pertinent issues like re-training of teacher trainers, the re-training of teachers, the re-calibration of leadership paradigms, the need to access and leverage technical resources (Charles, 2019) and ultimately the need to re-organize the curriculum so that it is oriented towards promoting this new literacy. This is no easy feat and will require a re-calibration and integration of several layers in education, inclusive of policy and planning at the macro levels, the role of teacher-training, as well as Principal and teacher buy-in, at the institutional level.

How can we fix the digital deficit to build relevance in our educational systems at all levels?

Fixing the digital deficit can hopefully begin with consideration for implementing these series of steps:

• Educational authorities should examine the current research and seek to understand how the current digital revolution and the related digital disruption, are impacting all sectors. This is necessary as such an investigation can cause a prioritizing of digital competencies to meet national development goals which should speak to how our educational system will respond to national needs and deficits in the area of DL and technology
• At the macro level, a DL framework should be developed to establish objectives, benchmarks for success and to guide system wide application and evaluation. This is also relevant as pertains to online, blended and hybrid approaches to student engagement.
• DL competencies and digital skills development should be linked or mapped to critical national industries like finance, the arts and creative sector, sports, science, tourism, education and the wide range of technical and vocational areas, so that the economic and development value of DL competencies/skills, can be evaluated
• Educational authorities should plan for the integration of Digital skills development and the promotion of DL in all teacher training programmes, inclusive of the requisite re-training for all teacher trainers and Education Officers who must interface with Curriculum Development
• Planning for sustainability of digital access and development should be encouraged through built private sector partnerships between Educational authorities and Digital Innovation Companies, particularly those which specialize in educational solutions
• DL competencies and skills should be integrated across all curriculum areas (Primary to Secondary) which speaks to required training for all Principals and Curriculum leaders (HOD’s), as implementation and evaluation at the institutional level will also be necessary
• New paradigms for leadership of schools which focus on DL development and the openness of leadership towards digital innovation, (Digital Leadership) should be encouraged and incentivized at the institutional level

References

ALA Digital Literacy Taskforce, (2011). What is digital literacy? Retrieved from http://www.dla101.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/what-is-digilit-2.pdf

BC’s Digital Literacy framework., (n. d.). Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/kindergarten-to-grade-12/teach/teaching-tools/digital-literacy-framework.pdf

Charles, D. J. (2019). Exploring the digital literacy practices and perspectives of higher education leaders and the implications for digital leadership: A phenomenological study. Doctoral thesis.

Claro, M., Salinas, A., Cabello-Hutt, T., San Martin, E., Preiss, D., Valenzuela, S. and Jara, I. (2018).  Teaching in a Digital Environment (TIDE): Defining and measuring teachers’ capacity to develop students’ digital information and communication skills. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.001

Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2004). Digital literacy: A conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital era. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13 (1), 93-106

JISC, (2015). Digital capabilities. The 6 elements defined. Retrieved from https://digitalcapability.jiscinvolve.org/wp/files/2015/06/1.-Digitalcapabilities-6-elements.pdf

Falloon, G, (2020). From digital literacy to digital competence: the teacher digital competency (TDC) framework. Springerlink. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11423-020-09767-4

Forutanian, S. (2021). Digital literacy, competence, identity and intelligence: The four teachers essential skills in 21st Century. International Journal of English Language Studies (IJELS) DOI: 10.32996/ijels. Retrieved from https://al-kindipublisher.com/index.php/ijels

Lemos, G. & Nascembini, F. (Eds.). (2016). ELINET Position paper on digital literacy. Retrieved from http://www.elinet.eu/fileadmin/ELINET/Redaktion/Amsterdam_conference/ELINET_Position_Paper_on_Digital_Literacy.pdf

Ministry of Education, Youth Affairs and Culture, (2000). Curriculum 2000: Rationale and guidelines for curriculum reform in Barbados. Ministry of Education, Youth Affairs and Culture, Barbados.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9 (5). Retrieved from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf

Prensky, M. (2009) H. Sapiens digital: From digital immigrants and digital natives to digital wisdom, Innovate: Journal of Online Education: 5 (3) Article 1. Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/innovate/vol5/iss3/

Teaching in the Online Environment

FREE DOWNLOAD

The realities of COVID-19 and the recalibration of our educational delivery has left many teachers at all levels seeking guidance and solutions for more adequately facilitating learning in blended and online environments. With an understanding of this need in mind, I have prepared a brief for Educators entitled Teaching In the Online Environment and it is available here free for download. Just click the download button below.

Please enjoy and be sure to share with your colleagues. I hope you find it helpful.

Teaching in the Online Environment. Free Download!

teaching-in-the-online-environment-by-dr-denise-j-charles-1Download

Digital Literacy Development in Education: Are We Ready for the Future?

“As some astute teachers pointed out, being able to log on to social media, as most of us can do, does not spell computer literacy nor competence in the use of digital technology”

Faith Marshall-Harris; Child Rights Activist

The dismantling of normal via COVID 19 has left many of us floundering and unstable with regards the intersection of unpredictability and our lives. In many respects our confidence has been shaken and we are not so sure that we can simply draw automatically on prior experiences to answer many of the seemingly unanswerable questions in an uncertain world. Now transfer this uncertainty to the education sector. We assumed that our children (Millenials and Gen Z’ers) who spend an abundance of time in virtual spaces would almost automatically know how to be students in online environments. We assumed that parents who use Social Media daily as both downtime and uptime activity would somehow “get it” (that is, embrace their new roles as parent/teacher supervisors); aren’t they after all familiar with “the technology”? We most definitely believed that teachers as life-long learners and educational specialists would be falling over themselves with enthusiasm to embrace their new roles as digital practitioners. Were we wrong and who exactly is this we I am referencing?

I am speaking about educational administrators, leaders, policy developers, planners, academics, technocrats and all of those not actively on the frontline of the day-to-day grind of teaching but who make many of the decisions which inform educational change. Did we develop our COVID 19 response mechanisms on a set of untried assumptions? The answer to this question is most likely to be yes since the emergency nature of our responses meant that there may not have been enough time to lay the required foundations for online learning or even blended learning to succeed. What should such a foundation look like and why is it even necessary for 21^st Century education?

Digital literacy represents the idea of a new type of literacy or literacies which articulate the levels of skills or competencies needed to live and thrive in digital environments. To 21^st Century civilization, Digital Literacy represents a slew of core competencies at a similar level of significance and necessity as was applied to traditional literacy in the 2oth Century. The three Rs; reading, writing and arithmetic in many respects still populate our understanding of what learning and school must expose our children to at a very basic level in terms of traditional literacy and numeracy skills. While these core requirements of formal education have not changed, our world has and this global shift, is demanding a response in education which can match the demands of an expanding digital agenda.

Digital Literacy is, therefore, described as the new literacy which represents “the interest, attitude and ability of individuals to use digital technology and communication tools appropriately to access, manage, integrate, analyze and evaluate information, construct new knowledge, and create and communicate with others.” (BC’s Digital Literacy Framework, n.d. p.1). Digital literacy constitutes a multi-leveled set of competencies which are not only defined by technical skills like word processing and Internet browsing but which involve the ability to make sense of a digital world. At the base level digital literacy speaks to technology access and the development of what traditionally has been viewed as “computer skills”, which may span from the very basic to the more advanced. The following capabilities, however, as represented in the literature (Eshet-Alkalai 2004, ALA Digital Literacy Taskforce 2011, Lemos and Nascembini 2016) constitute an expanded understanding of what it means to be digitally literate in the 21^st Century:

• the application of cognitive skills in gathering, assessing and judging the relevance of digital content,
• the utilization of socio-emotional competencies to manage relationships in digital spaces by employing good netiquette,
• the application of ethics and integrity to guide digital use,
• understanding the notion of a digital footprint and the importance of managing one’s digital identity,
• the promotion of digital well-being and wisdom through bringing appropriate balance to digital use
• the knowledge to use a range of digital tools for communication, collaboration and ultimately to function not only as a digital consumer but as a creator and innovator.

This slew of capabilities involved in the understanding of digital literacy is quite a tall order to bring to any educational paradigm which caters to students at different ages and ability levels especially when there are variances in terms of access. The challenge for educational leaders and technocrats will be to emerge a general framework or a range of frameworks with adjusted benchmarks of competency across nursery, primary, secondary and tertiary education which can guide the emergence of digital literacy as the new core competency of 21^st Century education.

This framework or group of frameworks should be guided by the following interrogatives: What will we want our students across these various levels to know and what do we expect of them in digital environments? How will we guide their interfacing with technology? How will we distinguish between what they know and what they practice? What national goals will these skills and competencies be linked to? Any framework utilized for education that is worth its salt should not exist in a vacuum simply because everyone else is doing it. It must be linked strategically to national development goals as these are then articulated through a national curriculum that is connected to the current development of a global digital economy. What we want our students to know as 21^st Century digital citizens and how we expect them to function should, therefore, be critical within the context of relevance and applicability. This is particularly true in Caribbean societies where our digital needs will be influenced by and linked to our wider development needs and benchmarks.

Bennett’s (2014) framework as influenced by Sharpe and Beetham’s (2010) model, maps digital development in a linear way through the four critical areas of access, skills, practice and state of being and leads to four basic questions as developed by Charles (2019):

1. What technological devices, tools or systems should we have access to?
2. What digital skills should we have?
3. What digital practices should we engage in as a result of those skills?
4. What attributes should we possess or what behaviours should we demonstrate as digital citizens/how do we self-care in digital environments?

This understanding of digital literacy as a necessary 21^st Century core competency and as hinged on the answers to these core questions, can also be applied to teachers/facilitators in terms of what institutional leaders will expect of them since their competencies will obviously be linked to what they are required to facilitate in their own classrooms.

A more detailed approach to framework building is seen in the JISC (2015) Six Elements Model, which departs from the notion of a hierarchy of competencies as espoused by Bennett (2014) and shows how various elements must intersect to emerge a digitally literate individual whether student, faculty member or leader. These six elements include ICT proficiency (the core), Digital learning and development, Information, data and media literacy, Digital creation problem solving and innovation, Digital communication, collaboration and participation and Digital Identity and well-being. Most significantly, the latter element of identity and well-being. is overarching and embraces all others. This rightfully places the individual needs and state of mind of the digital practitioner, over the use of digital tools and skills and suggests that identity and well-being will influence practice. (See JISC 2015 Model Below)

While these models can influence or guide the building out of a national policy for digital literacy development in education, such policies must also be far reaching in terms of addressing teacher training and professional development needs inclusive of leadership training, In addition, they should outline the roles which various stakeholders like parents or the corporate sector, should play in facilitating digital development.

Digital frameworks are critical because they leverage strategy which advance purposive approaches to digital development. Frameworks can pose the right questions which should lead to answers and the required action. Such strategic approaches must also include catering to the needs of those who are most vulnerable or marginalized in our school communities, particularly as this relates to the existence of a digital divide. Local educational authorities or Ministries of Education should, therefore, empower school leaders through advanced training, so that they are better able to tweak any national framework to more adequately meet their individual institutional needs.

The need to build a resilient and responsive education system is undeniably one valuable derivative of the current COVID 19 crisis. We have seen the need to build out a system which is dynamic and capable of including online and blended approaches for the facilitation of learning in a time where education may require an extended or even permanent re-configuration. Allowing our approaches to be guided by a detailed digital framework which is linked to both a national and an institutional agenda particularly within the context of a Caribbean reality,  is an excellent place to start.

References

ALA Digital Literacy Taskforce, (2011). What is digital literacy? Retrieved from http://www.dla101.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/07/what-is-digilit-2.pdf

BC’s Digital Literacy framework., (n. d.). Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/kindergarten-to-grade12/teach/teaching-tools/digital-literacy-framework.pdf

Bennett, L. (2014). Learning from the early adopters: Developing the digital practitioner. Research in Learning Technology, 22:21453. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v22.2145

Charles, D. J. (2019). Exploring the digital literacy practices and perspectives of higher education leaders and the implications for digital leadership: A phenomenological study. Doctoral thesis.

Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2004). Digital literacy: A conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital era. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13 (1), 93-106

JISC, (2015c). Digital capabilities. The 6 elements defined. Retrieved from https://digitalcapability.jiscinvolve.org/wp/files/2015/06/

Lemos, G. & Nascembini, F. (Eds.). (2016). ELINET Position paper on digital literacy. Retrieved from http://www.elinet.eu/fileadmin/ELINET/Redaktion/Amsterdam_conference/ELINET_Position_Paper_on_Digital_Literacy.pdf

Sharpe, R. & Beetham, H. (2010). Understanding students’ uses of technology for learning: Towards creative appropriation. In: Rethinking learning for a digital age: How learners are shaping their own experiences, Routledge. pp. 85-99. Retrieved from: https://radar.brookes.ac.uk/radar/items/4887c90b-adc6-db4f-397f- ea61e53739e0/1/

Caribbean Digital Identity

As Caribbean citizens who are living and working in a digital world and age, we must consider those critical elements which must be examined, before we can describe ourselves as active digital citizens. This framework which I developed from my doctoral research is influenced by Bennet’s (2014) model but is extended by our Caribbean experiences and identity.

Six critical areas as I have outlined in this framework, should inform how we interrogate the notion of what I have termed, a Caribbean Digital Citizen and the related thrust for digital skills development in the Caribbean.

1. What digital devices, tools, built infrastructure, and support do I currently have access to? (Personal and or institutional)
2. What do I do with my access or what digital skills have I developed? (Low, moderate or high level)
3. What are my thoughts or beliefs about the digital world/ digital change or digitization? (Thoughts will influence digital behaviours/ actions)
4. How does my Caribbean socialization and identity factor in to the way I engage with the digital world? Do I bring my Caribbean values, beliefs and heritage to the digital space?
5. What do I actually do with the digital competencies I possess or what are my digital practices? What do I create?
6. Who am I as a digital citizen (ethics, integrity, wisdom, identity) and how do I self-care in digital environments?

This framework (Charles 2019, 2021) is valuable as a pathway for a consideration of digital literacy and digital skills development at both the personal and institutional levels.

The Components of a Digital Age Learning Ecosystem

I love the idea of assessment for learning in the new digital ecosystem where there must be a shift in teacher-directedness and dominance. Another pertinent consideration would be how this digital ecosystem has again shifted and is being experienced as a consequence of the dominance in online learning today. How would issues of access and student and teacher digital competencies impact the functioning of this ecosystem?

BYOT Network

An ecosystem is a system formed by the interaction of a community of living organisms with each other and their environment. (Dictionary.com, 2014)

When I visit a digital age classroom where students are actively using technology tools for inquiry and creating new products to show their learning, I see a similarity to an ecosystem. The students and teacher interact within the classroom environment in an organic way to construct learning experiences. What are the components of this digital age learning ecosystem? What facilitates a sustainable learning environment that endures over time and through adversity? After reading my suggested attributes of a digital age learning ecosystem, post a reply with your own suggestions that I may have overlooked and should consider for future reflection.

A Sense of Community
Teachers intentionally nurture a community in the digital age learning ecosystem. They know the interests, strengths, and challenges of their students, and they are…

View original post 810 more words

Digital vs Digitized Learning

This is an excellent illustration of the core differences between digital and digitized learning strategies/solutions. Another layer to this discussion is the extent to which teacher training in digital pedagogy and school digital culture would impact the approaches taken by teachers along this continuum.

BYOT Network

As teachers begin to shift toward greater personalized learning experiences for students, their initial steps build upon what they already know from face-to-face instruction. Districts usually provide teachers with easy to use Learning Management Systems (LMS) that can facilitate new learning opportunities with technology. However, the greatest potential of learning with technology tools is that teachers and students can transform the traditional learning environment, processes, and products. Just providing teachers with an organizational tool, such as an LMS, will not lead to transformative practices. Teachers need on-going support if they are to truly transform their classrooms into ecosystems for digital age learning.

A Model for Redefining Learning

The SAMR Modeldeveloped by Dr. Ruben Puentedura provides a guideline for explaining the digital transformation. The four levels within this model are Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition. At the Substitution level, teachers merely replace the traditional methods of instruction with digital tools, so instead of…

View original post 533 more words

“Sir, I Don’t Want to Leave”: Psycho-Emotional Needs and the Digital Classroom

An aspect of my current professional mandate includes visiting classrooms in the online environment in order to gather anecdotal data as well as to provide pedagogical and or resource support. While I enjoy observing the dynamics of teaching and learning both in face-to-face and in digital spaces, this time of COVID 19 presents a unique opportunity for us to re-weight and re-assign value to the components which make up good teaching and learning based on our professional assessment of student needs. Every good teacher/educator knows about the value of having clear objectives or deliverables at the start of the lesson, which should guide delivery and student academic achievement. What impressed me about one of the classes I visited to date, was the positive emotional energy I sensed in the class both among students and between teacher and students. Was it a perfect class with perfect activities all suited to the online environment? Not necessarily. What this class demonstrated, nonetheless, was a positive, soothing, embracing environment, where children were comfortable being children (albeit a tad cheekily) while the teacher displayed a strong mastery of the psycho-social domain.

The assumption that all teachers are specially called individuals with a larger than life mastery of complex situations and diverse personalities is perhaps a myth which we need to put to rest. Individuals enter teaching from a plethora of backgrounds and life experiences and possess a range of expectations and competencies based on training, prior experiences, mentorship experiences and personality traits. The construct of teacher-efficacy as espoused by Woolfolk and Hoy (1990) speaks of teachers’ belief in their own capabilities to get the job done. As originally outlined by Bandura (1997) one’s sense of efficacy is enabled through vicarious experiences, mastery experiences, social persuasion and emotional states. This suggests that teachers’ confidence as a derivative of efficacy is bolstered by what they normally practice, what they witness others practice, how they are supported and encouraged and by the level of excitement or enthusiasm they may experience in using tried and tested strategies (Gavora, 2010).

The COVID 19 global pandemic and the disruption it brought, has effectively placed teachers in a different “efficacious” space, causing many of them to question their own expertise or sense of professional certainty.  This is an “exposing” space for many; a place of great professional vulnerability which has toggled with the notion of teacher dominance and mastery of the teaching-learning paradigm. Relatedly, there are significant implications for how these new unplanned for and dynamic or fluid teacher experiences, may influence their negotiation of digital spaces and their sense of competency or efficacy. Many teachers are willingly walking alone and are afraid to open their virtual classrooms to the scrutiny that can provide much needed support and encouragement. It is tough call which I understand, and which is perhaps magnified by a traditional lack of trust between teachers and educational authorities.

This brings me right back to that classroom, where more than one student said longingly: “Sir, I don’t want to leave”. Is it possible that the fluidity and uncertainty of this crisis moment in education is demanding that our teachers leverage a whole new set of competencies which tended to be in the background, largely overshadowed by a focus on teaching objectives and paper pencil tests? Is it perhaps expedient for educational authorities to focus more on the development of these competencies both at the levels of educational leaders and those who work on the educational frontlines; teachers? Creating a safe psycho-emotional space for students where they are free to explore what is troubling them or where they are free to raise difficult questions, is proving to be very critical in our new learning environment and demands the mastery of specific skill-sets.

I witnessed this first-hand in another class where students were anxious to discuss the expected challenges of returning to school with face masks. This could have been an excellent teachable moment but this became lost in the execution of a lesson plan. This left me questioning whether this focus on the plan was on account of my virtual presence or simply because the teacher did not feel competent enough to handle student discomfort.  The extent to which teachers can become adept at creating healthy psycho-emotional spaces in an environment where they themselves may feel less efficacious, is perhaps worth interrogating and addressing.

Concomitantly, I think it is a tough ask, to expect teachers to master student discomfort while they themselves are either not being given the space to express such or are not seizing the opportunity to articulate or negotiate their own discomfort and loss of professional certainty. This may be attributed to the suddenness with which teachers were expected to master teaching and learning in digital spaces, especially since there was minimal training and few opportunities for mentorship or modelling  (Bandura’s vicarious experiences).

In my first anecdotal reference, I mentioned a self-effacing teacher who admitted to his vulnerability and sense of uncertainty. Perhaps his personality allowed him to do so and the children connected readily with this and felt safe in that space. Admittedly we have all types of personalities in the profession and some understandably will feel angry, pressured, anxious, tensed, inept or even fearful. Some may even grieve the absence of what they once knew and were so good at. Fortunately, a few will also feel masterful and will thrive in this time of learning and experimentation. Regardless of where teachers as professionals may find themselves, developing sensitive approaches to students psyhco-emotional health in digital spaces will require that teachers become engaged with their own vulnerabilities and insecurities.

This speaks to the need for building meaningful inter-departmental relationships through both formal and informal meetings, designed to strengthen teacher competencies while also allowing for social-emotional sharing and encouragement. Scheduling team teaching in online spaces (and I witnessed a commendable example of this) is an excellent strategy for developing teacher confidence and for providing vicarious experiences for less experienced professionals.  In this instance, “less experienced” may not have to do so much with time spent in teaching, as it may have to do with teacher-comfort in the digital environment. Investigating teacher skill sets and pairing/grouping them accordingly is, therefore, advised. Allowing for regular debriefings and open, non-judgemental sharing may also prove valuable.

Most will perhaps agree that students will continue to need psycho-social/emotional support to do well in digital environments, especially where socio-economic factors contribute to a digital divide. Similarly, it is imperative that school authorities and leaders organize for teacher development of their own psycho-emotional competencies by creating a healthy professional climate. This is one where there is an absence of unrealistic demands and timelines; where teachers are free to share their concerns and challenges without feeling threatened; where there is a team approach to teaching and to professional development and where there is a clear balance between expectations, professional support, and teacher accountability. The creation of professional learning communities which target specified areas of inquiry and professional development can also serve to bolster teachers’ sense of efficacy, in all environments. All teacher skills maximised in these crisis moments, become invaluable tools that are transferable across settings.

References

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W H Freeman/Times Books/ Henry Holt & Co.

Gavora, P. (2010).  Slovak pre-service teacher self-efficacy: Theoretical and research considerations. The New Educational Review. Vol. 21, No. 2 pp. 17-30. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f284/be870680436674ae2c02038c595e43fded01.pdf

Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers’ sense of efficacy and beliefs about control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.81

© Dr. Denise J Charles

Intuitive Teaching and the Digital Environment

One of the most influential books on the development of my teaching persona and on my philosophy as an educator has been Atkinson and Claxton’s The Intuitive Practitioner: On the value of not always knowing what one is doing (2001). I was drawn to purchasing this publication around the time of completion of my Master’s degree because I so readily identified with its perspectives on teaching and learning. I still treasure it today as one of the most valuable educational books in my personal library. While it acknowledges the popular notion that teaching is akin to a performance art where teachers as performers get to practice all the nuances of their profession, it also challenges this perspective.

Traditionally, teaching nurtures and values routines; somewhat like the learning of lines for a dramatic play. How many of us in the Caribbean remember with detail and sometimes amusement, the many routines of our early school days? These included prayers and songs recited at assembly, good morning mams and good morning sirs at the start and end of each class, times tables repeated after lunch, uniform inspection and the like. While some of these routines may have changed with time, many have remained, and new ones formulated as integral components of the teaching-learning experience.

The idea of the intuitive practitioner, however, seeks to challenge these notions of performance and predictability as inherent components of good teaching. This is not so much to disrupt the practice of providing our students with solid routines and daily courtesies, as it is a challenge to the reality of becoming stuck in one’s routinised teaching/professional practices and often to the detriment of the learner.  I thought of revisiting this perspective particularly at this time, since the COVID 19 Pandemic has shown itself to be a great de-stabilizer and disruptor in every facet of human existence, including education. What lessons can we learn about the notion of being an intuitive practitioner, particularly as we are currently grappling with the realities of one of the most anomalous and unpredictable times in our recent human history.

Admittedly, schools and higher education institutions with blended approaches, digital frameworks or complete online platforms would have found themselves ahead of the game in a manner of speaking during this time of global disruption. Professor Luz Longsworth, Pro Vice Chancellor and Principal of the University of the West Indies Open Campus, (the UWI’s online campus) in describing her institution’s response to the COVID 19 pandemic, described the Open Campus as the “campus for the times” (University of the West Indies Open Campus, 2020). This description was likely hinged on the campus’ digital infrastructure inclusive of training of faculty, for the navigation of teaching and learning in the online environment and all that that entails.

But this is to be expected of an institution whose inherent focus and design is the online environment. What about regular, traditional institutions, which must now embrace Emergency Remote Teaching (ERT) (Hodges et al, 2020) as a temporary response to an unexpected crisis situation? How can such institutions maximise on teaching and learning in a structure that is so different from what they have known and practised? What will the educational future hold after a figurative bout of ERT? Can we realistically return to our previous inadequate structures having witnessed firsthand the tremendous potential inherent in digital education?

Understanding the principles of intuitive practice could be a first step in a professional re-calibration for many educators who may currently feel out of their depth.  Intuitive practitioners acknowledge and embrace the messy complexity which often constitutes everyday human experiences (Atkinson and Claxton, 2001). Intuitive practice is reflective and is comfortable with discomfort.  For intuits in education, life is nothing like the tidy neat rows of desks in our schools where approaches to teaching mirror an expectation of identical understanding and learning. Educational intuits recognize that learning and its environments, like life, can be messy and disruptive. Intuitive practice, therefore, acknowledges the presence of uncertainties which cannot be readily answered by text-book, routinised approaches but rather require nuanced judgements, deep ruminations and personal interpretations to ensure that the needs of our educational clients or students are met.  In my estimation, intuitive practice then seems directly linked to the higher-order socio-emotional competencies needed for competent and effective digital use (Eshet-Alkali, 2004). This is by no means a co-incidence and represents a perfect marriage of suitable approaches to teaching in the digital environment, at this time of global uncertainty.

This understanding of complexity and need to cater to individual circumstances requires a keen understanding of the digital divide in terms of the socio-economic and psycho-social factors which can complicate student access to online learning. It also includes empathetic approaches by principals and local educational authorities in terms of understanding the personal challenges which teachers themselves may face in adjusting to a context where there is uncertainty, anxiety and a sense of a loss or re-alignment of notions of professional control. The demonstration of understanding, empathy and integrity in digital environments is an important corollary of the digital wisdom which must undergird the professional practice of both leaders and teacher practitioners in 21^st Century educational institutions (Prensky 2009; Charles 2019). In this respect, there is a perfect marriage between an intuitive, reflective approach to teaching and the socio-emotional competencies which define the digitally literate practitioner (Lankshear & Knobel, 2008; Eshet, 2012).

How then can the intuitive practitioner approach, assist us in navigating the unchartered waters of Emergency Remote Teaching or of online education in a vulnerable, digital environment? For educators, toggling with our deeply ingrained beliefs about what constitutes good teaching and learning may be our greatest hurdle yet. Quality teaching and learning in the digital age cannot, however, be represented by the wholesale lifting of structures and routines from the face-to-face environment (like seasoned performances of well-rehearsed lines) to an online platform.

The digital revolution represents not just a revolution in terms of technical tools, gizmos, gadgets and strategies. It is at its core, a deep philosophical shift of ideas on knowledge ownership and what learning facilitation looks like. It is people-oriented and client-focussed as we have noticed how the ideas of digital marketing, digital branding and digital story-telling have leveraged the importance of the consumer or client in the online environment. In the educational context, the student is now that all-important client. This signals a movement away from the idea that the service of teaching revolves around the needs of the producers of education (teachers) as opposed to around the needs of its consumers/clients (Atkinson and Claxton, 2001).

For the most part, the traditional classroom environment has been heavily teacher-centred and has relied on expert driven performances by teachers as professional owners of bodies of knowledge located outside the reach of ordinary people (Atkinson and Claxton, 2001). The digital learning environment has the potential to effectively re-calibrate this as students now have access to available repositories of knowledge for their own self-paced learning. In this setting, the re-positioned teacher is forced to either re-evaluate and re-define herself/himself as the much touted guide by the side or else persist in holding on to the chalk-and-talk, text-book driven, one-size-fits-all modality of the industrial age classroom. The latter choice will only serve to concretize teacher irrelevance.

What then are some of the best practices of the intuitive practitioner which could prove useful in a digital environment at this juncture of the COVID 19 pandemic or for any other burgeoning national or global crisis? Whether at the level of leadership or classroom practitioner, modelling intuitive practices in a digital environment should include the following:

• The acceptance and embracing of personal limitations as starting points for new knowledge engagement and for the required professional development to increase 21^st Century relevance through effective digital practices
• The cultivation of both expertise-based and experiential learning and the balancing of these two facets of the teaching-learning paradigm, in order to add needed value to student-teacher interaction
• Leveraging student individual experiences as critical to the classroom learning environment and allowing such experiences to guide teaching and learning
• Opening the self to different ways of knowing including trusting one’s gut instincts in catering to students’ learning and or socio-emotional needs
• Asserting the value of teachable moments over rigid objectives and plans and allowing for deviation if students’ psycho-social needs are being addressed in the moment
• The demonstration of sensitivity towards student individual psycho-social needs which may be independent of COVID 19 or magnified because of it; this includes issues related to tension, anxiety, grief, fear, displacement, disengagement and even apathy
• The demonstration of sensitivity towards students’ socio-economic needs (sharing of devices, absence of devices, lack of food, lack of parental support, crowded living conditions, abusive environments) which may impact learning quality and which speak to the digital divide
• Advocacy for vulnerable students through individualizing learning approaches and programme development; this should include lobbying with school leadership and educational authorities for fairness and equity
• The reframing or reconceptualization of crises as tools for personal, student and organizational growth and development. This should include developing organizational, teacher centred and departmental strategies for better home-school engagement, the diversifying of instruction and of assessment, to meet a range of needs and learning styles. This should also see the building of meaningful teacher-to-teacher, departmental and organizational relationships in a move to create a more cohesive institutional community.

© Dr. Denise J Charles (2020)

References

Atkinson, T. & Claxton, G. (2001). The intuitive practitioner: On the value of not always        knowing what one is doing. Buckingham, Open University Press.

Charles, D. J. (2019). Exploring the digital literacy practices and perspectives of higher      education leaders and the implications for digital leadership: A phenomenological     study. Doctoral thesis

Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2004). Digital literacy: A conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital era. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13 (1), 93-106

Eshet, Y. (2012). Thinking in the digital era: A revised model for digital literacy. Issues in   Informing Science and Information Technology. Retrieved from            http://iisit.org/Vol9/IISITv9p267-276Eshet021.pdf

Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T. & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between      emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review. Retrieved from             https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency- remote-teaching-and-online-learning

Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2008). Digital literacies: Concepts, policies and practices. New  York, Peter Lang. Retrieved from

Prensky, M. (2009) H. Sapiens digital: From digital immigrants and digital natives to digital  wisdom, Innovate: Journal of Online Education: 5 (3) Article 1. Retrieved from          http://nsuworks.nova.edu/innovate/vol5/iss3/1

University of the West Indies Open Campus. (Producer). (2020). Online Delivery: The       lifeblood of education in the COVID 19 pandemic. Retrieved from             https://www.facebook.com/UWITV/videos/4164280626930409/