Reflections on the Digital Dimension Block: Holistically Seeking the Connections

            The digital dimension block within the Pedagogical Issues and Perspectives in Higher Education unit of the Master’s in Open and Networked Higher Education, has taken me on a journey through a number of valid issues related to digitally mediated education.  These issues have foregrounded the need to integrate technological competences with subject content, to create a holistic education that seeks to go beyond simplified dichotomous perspectives and to also develop such perspectives about online education that are holistic in themselves.

Photo by Jeremy Bishop on Unsplash

In my blog post titled ‘For the Love of Education: Of People and Machines’, the notions of pedagogy and digital technologies were explored and seen to feed into each other, without one gaining supremacy over the other; rather, a digitally-mediated educational context such as that pertaining to open and networked education, would call for discourse/s that is/are not deterministic in nature and one/s which does/do not ignore context (Fawns, 2022; Oliver, 2011).  In brief, neither technologies nor pedagogies are inherently good or bad unless one considers the context and values informing their use.  Utilising digital platforms such as Teams or Zoom or collaborative pedagogies does not automatically entail better student engagement or educational success (Oliver, 2011), nor are the physical classroom or transmissive pedagogies by default outdated educational experiences.  Education is a complex reality and as such, a holistic outlook would favour this complex reality by throwing light on all the factors that make it up and multiple perspectives that may inform it.  “Technology, users and social context all matter, and all partially determine activity.” (Winner, 1980, as cited in Fawns, 2022, p. 713) 

In this sense, explorations of the digital dimension in this learning journey have highlighted how this dimension, in and of itself, does not come in a vacuum.  Digital technologies embed pedagogies or are embedded by pedagogies, both are entangled, both are paramount in the educational journey, both gain momentum in the relationality involved, not least in the way they are played out by the human factor, that is educators and learners alike.  Critical thought is again foregrounded by breaking up any assumptions that may become normative and fixed.  I echo here Houlden and Veletsianos’s claim that “scholars’ understanding of flexibility in online learning has been hampered by an implicit assumption that all online learners participate in and experience education in similar ways” (2019, p. 1005).  Case in point was a particular synchronous session in research methods, which informed by a transmissive pedagogy via a teleconferencing platform, proved to me as a learner with regards to a specific learning activity more useful in gaining insight into the particular subject content than my attempts at self-directed learning.  Rapanta et al. (2021, p. 734) refer to a kind of flexibility that utilises “a greater variety of courses, in different modalities and implementing different methods”.  There can be such a vast array of idiosyncrasies in the educational journey, whether in terms of learning activities, tools used and no less in the humans populating the context, that no hard and fast rule can, or should, apply. 

A second vital subject area explored in the digital dimension block was that related to cybercime and cybersecurity, reflections on which were provided in the blog post titled ‘Playing with Fire or Playing it Safe: Insights into Cybercrime and Higher Education’.  A deeper understanding has been gained about what crime in the digital realm constitutes and the real repercussions entailed in the physical world.  As simultaneously learner and educator, here I engaged in issues which significantly struck a chord, such as those related to privacy and surveillance.  On reflection, we are oftentimes unknowingly providing a significant amount of information, whether it is personal data or a log of activities via the virtual learning environment (VLE).  Two important issues arise with regards to this.  Firstly, all stakeholders involved in higher educational institutions (HEIs) should have the common aim of promoting increased awareness, knowledge and skills in the prevention of cyberthreats (Bandara et al., 2014, p. 732) – an informed workforce can only make the educational journey a more holistic one.  Secondly, improving on these skills can empower educators to be better educators overall.  As per Dron’s idea, “[e]ducation is always enacted through technology, and teachers cannot avoid learning to use it” (2021, as cited in Fawns, 2022, p. 715).  Having a behind-the-scenes knowledge of that same technology, becomes part and parcel of the educator’s occupation and can lead the way for exemplary digital citizenship on the part of students, especially since leading by example is always the best option.  As an educator, it has become increasingly important on a personal as well as professional level that I become aware of any issues related to the digital realm, and I take these with me along with the subject content that I actually teach. 

In the third blog post navigating the digital dimension, titled ‘A Moral Compass: Considerations on Ethics in Higher Education’, explorations ranged from issues of appropriate online behaviour and netiquette to an online education that ethically strives for equity and equality.  This is an ulterior layer in the development of a holistic education that combines the use of technology with subject content.  Educators and learners involved in open and networked education cannot do so unless with an awareness of the permanency of online content (McQuade III, 2007) and therefore an understanding of the need for caution in posting publicly in online forums.  On another level, to what extent is online education ethical in its inclusivity and accessibility?  As described by Guardia, in designing learning activities that “place the students at the centre of the learning process asking them to combine self-regulation, autonomy, creativity, collaboration, communication and other generic skills” (Rapanta et al., 2021, p. 731), to all good intents and purposes, there are suggested expectations of a kind of learner that can actually engage in an online context.  This may be excluding other learners (Bayne et al., 2020, p. 92; Oliver, 2015), who may not possess such “personal preconditions” (Otto and Kerres, 2022, p. 59), not to mention the expectation of having other digital and literacy skills or the financial means to access online education, including owning the necessary digital devices (Bayne et al., 2020, p. 91), or the required internet quality (Kahu et al., 2014, p. 536).    For these and other reasons, ethical considerations as posed by the digital dimension, gain added significance in pursuing a more holistic educational journey.  This recalls Gravett et al.’s considerations of education provision that is morally right, by putting forward their idea of “pedagogies of mattering [that] can foster more caring and ethical ways of working with students by encouraging us to notice our institutions and learning spaces anew” (2021, p. 13).  This would entail that even novel spaces such as those afforded by online education, should be ongoingly reconsidered.

            In conclusion, the digital dimension block, with its focus on digital issues, has taken forward the relationality of these aspects to other factors constituting education.  This seems to attempt at the cognition of education as more of a whole than its separate parts, much in the same way that Koehler et al. (2013), convey the Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework, wherein “[d]ifferent kinds of knowledge are considered in combination rather than individually” (as cited in Fawns, 2022, p. 720). As an educator, I believe that a holistic approach to education can help me reach a whole new level. An increased awareness and understanding of the digital dimension in online education can propel us into seeking the connections and bridging the gaps.

References:

Bandara, I., Ioras, F., & Maher, K. (2014). Cyber Security Concerns In E-Learning Education. ICERI2014 Conference, 728–734.

Bayne, S., Evans, P., Ewins, R., Knox, J., Lamb, J., Macleod, H., O’Shea, C., Ross, J., Sheail, P. & Sinclair, C. (2020). The Manifesto for Teaching Online. The MIT Press.

Fawns, T. (2022). An Entangled Pedagogy: Looking Beyond the Pedagogy-Technology Dichotomy. Postdigital Science and Education, 2022(4), 711-728. An Entangled Pedagogy: Looking Beyond the Pedagogy—Technology Dichotomy | SpringerLink

Gravett, K., Taylor C. A. and Fairchild, N. (2021). Pedagogies of mattering: re-conceptualising relational pedagogies in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education. DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2021.1989580.

Houlden, S. and Veletsianos, G. (2019).  A posthumanist critique of flexible online learning and its “anytime anyplace” claims.  British Journal of Educational Technology, 50 (3), 1005–1018.  DOI:10.1111/bjet.12779

Kahu, E. R., Stephens, C., Zepke, N. and Leach, L. (2014). Space and time to engage: mature-aged distance students learn to fit study into their lives. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 33 (4), 523-540. DOI:10.1080/02601370.2014.884177

McQuade III, S. C. (2007, January 5). We Must Educate Young People About Cybercrime Before They Start College. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/we-must-educate-young-people-about-cybercrime-before-they-start-college/#annotations:6cJTcsXTEe2xScdn6ciIGg

Oliver, M. (2011). Technological determinism in educational technology research: some alternative ways of thinking about the relationship between learning and technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 2011(27), 373-384. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00406.x

Oliver, M. (2015). From openness to permeability: reframing open education in terms of positive liberty in the enactment of academic practices. Learning, Media and Technology, 40(3), 365-384. DOI: 10.1080/17439884.2015.1029940

Otto, D., & Kerres, M. (2022). Deconstructing the virtues of openness and its contribution to Bildung in the digital age. In: D. Kergel, J. Garsdahl, M. Paulsen, & B. Heidkamp-Kergel (Eds.), Bildung in the Digital Age (pp. 47-63): Routledge.

Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., Goodyear, P., Guardia, L. and Koole, M. (2021). Balancing Technology, Pedagogy and the New Normal: Post-pandemic Challenges for Higher Education. Postdigital Science and Education, 2021(3), 715-742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-021-00249-1

 

 

A Moral Compass: Considerations on Ethics in Higher Education

The ubiquitous use of digital media has pervaded our lives with a gamut of public opinion coming from everywhere and anywhere, especially thanks to the increasing use of social media platforms and forums of all kinds.  Our thoughts and ideas, no longer confined within the human mind nor within a limited physical space, gain rapid and easy exposure in a virtual setting.  Consider the myriad daily posts on facebook walls, the tweets on twitter, the reviews and comments made on endless sites, or the reply-to-all emails sent.  Humanity has created for itself, alongside its bodily movements, a trailing digital footprint. 

Photo by krakenimages on Unsplash

Scerri (2013, as cited in Gloor et al., 2020, p. 254) describes emailing activity “as a virtual extension of the users’ workplace” and McQuade III (2007) makes mention of “the permanency of content posted on the Internet".  Shea (1994) aptly reminds us about our online communications that “chances are they're stored somewhere where you have no control over them. In other words, there's a good chance they can come back to haunt you”.  With these two key factors in mind, it becomes evident, that people’s behaviour online needs to be guided by adequate ethical principles and values, no less and in parallel to what would be expected in real life, perhaps even more so, given the permanent nature of online content.  Going forward, this would be paramount in educational contexts, such as in open and networked higher education, wherein it is key that the journey is truly educational not only in the subject matter chosen, but also in the behaviour of all stakeholders involved virtually.

If we take the definition of networked learning to be that of an education “involv[ing] processes of collaborative, co-operative and collective inquiry, knowledge-creation and knowledgeable action, underpinned by trusting relationships, motivated by a sense of shared challenge and enabled by convivial technologies” (NLEC, 2020, p. 319), netiquette and ethical considerations become vital in guiding users’ online activity.   Netiquette, a word coined out of internet and etiquette, is described by Berkley’s Information Security Office (n.d.) as “informal standards of conduct” that are to be observed by internet users, avoiding inadequate behaviour ranging from flaming to chain mail or spamming, the latter described by Dennis (2023) as “one of the most significant forms of cybercrime”.  Ethical considerations are paramount at every level, from the micro to the macro levels of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs).  HEIs need to have rules and guidelines in place that are clear for all, covering such issues as “anonymity, privacy and confidentiality of the information shared, legal issues…[so as] for people to be treated not only fairly and objectively, but also respectfully” (Paris et al., 2013, p. 302). If the use of digital technologies in education is meant to provide a truly convivial space, it is only ethical that all the people involved strive against the “potential adverse effects and risks such as privacy, bullying, addiction, misinformation and others” (Romero-Hall, 2021, p. 2268) that may be entailed by such digital technologies.  After all, Shea’s (1994) number one rule reminds us to metaphorically look beyond the physical screen and remember that it is with other humans that we are liaising in our online connections.

Following considerations on the ethical behaviour informing our networked connections, it must be mentioned that ethical considerations go beyond these expectations and should also take up issues that effect in practice education that is mediated by digital technologies.  Ethical considerations are brought forth by such realities as for instance those perpetrated by the digital divide.  Rogers (2001, p. 98) defines the latter as the worldwide yet uneven spread of the internet, whereby “the considerable benefits of the internet only accrue to certain, already advantaged individuals, leaving other individuals relatively more disadvantaged”.  Ding (2020, as cited in Romero-Hall, p. 2274) goes beyond access issues to include digital divide aspects such as “affordability, usage, social resources and skills, infrastructure, and literacy skills”.  In a previous blog post (Keepingan Open Mind – Opening up Open Education) I had already considered the multiple facets of open and networked education, which albeit striving for equity, may create barriers such as those of access and skills.  Educators who had never done online teaching before the Covid years, experienced this first hand in Emergency Remote Teaching (ERT) as “it sharply revealed socioeconomic gaps, prejudicing all those students who lacked sufficient bandwidth, whose families lacked enough devices for everyone to use [and] who were unable to find appropriate study spaces at home” (Rapanta et al., 2021, p. 721).  Gainous et al. (2016) make an additional interesting point in mentioning internet filtering policies such as those utilised by certain countries in Latin America, “in which state-authored regulations have been used to control access, limit what citizens can share, or encourage self-censorship” (as cited in Romero-Hall, 2021, p. 2275).  There must additionally be considerations of access with regards to certain disabilities.  For instance, Paris et al. (2013), in their case study relating to government services provided via social media, mention “the accessibility guidelines for all videos and podcasts, ensuring for example that they all had a transcript associated with them” (p. 310).  These become key ethical considerations in promoting education mediated by digital technologies if equity is one of its objectives.

In conclusion, this blog explores an additional layer in the exploration of open and networked higher education – the ethical side of things.  Apart from promoting ethical behaviour in users’ online communications, there should be ethical considerations with regards to equity issues that may arise due to such realities as the digital divide or internet filtering policies in certain countries.  As an educator, I will continue to believe in the importance of education, not only for learners but also concurrently for all stakeholders involved, and most especially for educators themselves.  This, I believe, enables instructors to “educate learners on issues that could arise when engaging in activities using these [digital] platforms” (Krutka et al., 2019, as cited in Romero-Hall, 2021, p. 2276).  Ethical considerations call for further ICT knowledge and skills integration of various genres and at all levels in HEIs, so that HE can set the example for the community at large in the way forward to being digital citizens. 

References:

Berkeley Information Security Office. (n.d.). Netiquette and Ethics. UC Berkeley. Netiquette and Ethics | Information Security Office (berkeley.edu)

Dennis, M. A. (2023, March 6). cybercrime. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/cybercrime

Gloor, P., Fronzetti Colladon, A., & Grippa, F. (2020). The digital footprint of innovators: Using email to detect the most creative people in your organization. Journal of Business Research, 114(2020), 254-264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.04.025

McQuade III, S. C. (2007, January 5). We Must Educate Young People About Cybercrime Before They Start College. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/we-must-educate-young-people-about-cybercrime-before-they-start-college/#annotations:6cJTcsXTEe2xScdn6ciIGg

Networked Learning Editorial Collective (NLEC). (2020). Networked Learning: Inviting Redefinition. Postdigital Science and Education 3, 312–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00167-8

Paris, C., Colineau, N., Nepal, S., Bista, S. K., and Beschorner, G. (2013). Ethical considerations in an online community: the balancing act. Ethics and Information Technology (2013) 15:301–316. DOI 10.1007/s10676-013-9315-4.

Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., Goodyear, P., Guàrdia, L., & Koole, M. (2021). Balancing Technology, Pedagogy and the New Normal: Post-pandemic Challenges for Higher Education. Postdigital Science and Education, 3(3), 715-742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-021-00249-1.

Rogers, E. (2001). The Digital Divide. Convergence (London, England), 7(4), 96-111.

Romero-Hall, E. (2021). Current initiatives, barriers, and opportunities for networked learning in Latin America. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(4), 2267-2283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-09965-8

Shea, V. (1994). Netiquette. Albion Books. Educom Review (educause.edu)