Digital Pedagogy: The Use of Digital Technologies in Contemporary Education 9819904439, 9789819904433

Table of contents :
Preface
Contents
Abbreviations
1 What Is Digital Pedagogy?
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Digital Transformation in Education
1.3 What Does Digital Pedagogy Entail?
1.4 Critical Digital Pedagogy
1.5 Open and Distance Education
1.6 Conclusion
References
2 Why Do We Need Digital Pedagogy?
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Societal Expectations
2.3 Educational Authority Expectations
2.4 Pedagogical Expectations
2.5 ODE Expectations
2.6 Parental Expectations
2.7 Student Expectations
2.8 Conclusion
References
3 The Role of Digital Pedagogy in Fostering Digital Literacy in Students
3.1 Introduction
3.2 What is Digital Literacy?
3.3 The Importance of Digital Literacy
3.4 Teaching Digital Literacy
3.5 Cultivating Digital Citizenship
3.6 Conclusion
References
4 Digital Competence of Teachers and Students
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Defining Digital Competence
4.3 Developing Digital Competence in Teachers: Resources and Opportunities
4.4 Fostering Digital Competence in Students
4.5 Conclusion
References
5 Fostering Digital Competence in Teachers: A Review of Existing Frameworks
5.1 Introduction
5.2 The Urgency of Enhancing Teachers’ Digital Competence
5.3 The European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators (DigCompEdu)
5.4 The UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers (ICT CFT)
5.5 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)
5.6 The SAMR Framework for Technology Integration
5.7 Conclusion
References
6 The Use of Open Educational Resources (OER) in Digital Pedagogy
6.1 Introduction
6.2 What is OER?
6.3 The Benefits of Using OER
6.4 Impediments to OER Adoption
6.5 How to Use OER
6.6 Conclusion
References
7 Privacy and Personal Data Protection in Digital Pedagogy
7.1 Introduction
7.2 What is GDPR?
7.3 GDPR and School Administration
7.4 GDPR and Teachers’ Practices
7.5 GDPR and Students
7.6 GDPR and Parents/Guardians
7.7 Conclusion
References
8 Fostering Student Engagement in Implementing Digital Pedagogy
8.1 Introduction
8.2 What is Student Engagement in Digital Pedagogy
8.3 Behavioral Engagement
8.4 Affective Engagement
8.5 Cognitive Engagement
8.6 Conclusion
References
9 Fostering Multicultural Education Through Digital Pedagogy
9.1 Introduction
9.2 The Use of Digital Technology to Facilitate Multicultural Education
9.3 Online Collaborative Learning as a Facilitator of Multicultural Experience
9.4 Conclusion
References
10 Challenges and Barriers for Effective Integration of Technologies into Teaching and Learning
10.1 Introduction
10.2 Reasons Why Teachers May Struggle to Use Technology in the Classroom
10.3 Lack of Access to Technology as a Barrier to Successful Technology Integration into Education
10.4 Teachers’ Professional Development as Prerequisite for Effective Technology Integration
10.5 Misusing Technology
10.6 Conclusion
References
Index

Citation preview

SpringerBriefs in Education Open and Distance Education Senad Bećirović

Digital Pedagogy The Use of Digital Technologies in Contemporary Education

SpringerBriefs in Education

Open and Distance Education Series Editors Olaf Zawacki-Richter, University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Niedersachsen, Germany Junhong Xiao, Shantou Radio & Television University, Shantou, Guangdong, China Editorial Board Trisha Craig, Yale-NUS College, Singapore, Singapore Ursula Glunk, University College Freiburg, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Baden-Württemberg, Germany You Guo Jiang, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA Rui Yang, Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong Akiyoshi Yonezawa, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan

Developing human capital through education and training is crucial to social and economic progress. However despite efforts to achieve equity and learning opportunities for all, resource constraints and lack of knowledge and skills can overwhelm the capability of government and non-government agencies, institutions and teachers to provide the required levels of education and training by conventional means. More and more providers are recognising that open, distance and online means of delivery have an important role to play both in providing formal schooling and tertiary education and informal and nonformal education and training for the countless millions wishing to upgrade their skills, knowledge and competences at anytime, anywhere at their own pace, and thus making the lifelong learning for all agenda a reality. This book series examines ways in which open and distance education can empower and enable individuals, groups and even entire communities to develop the knowledge and skills necessary for life and work in the 21st century, help to reduce poverty and inequality, achieve independent and sustainable development and meet the demands of the 21st century knowledge economies and open societies. The books in this series are designed for all policy-makers, planners, managers, teachers and trainers, researchers, and students who are involved in or interested in applying open, distance and e-learning methods and technologies in informal and nonformal lifelong learning; schooling; technical and vocational education and training; higher education; workplace training and professional development; community development and international aid programmes; and serving the needs of minority groups, the disabled and other disadvantaged persons. They combine an up-to-date overview of theories, issues, core concepts and/or key literature in a particular field with case studies and practical advice in ways that will meet the needs of busy practitioners and researchers. They address such issues as access and equity, distance teaching and learning, learner support and guidance, costing, technology, assessment and learning analytics, quality assurance and evaluating outputs, outcomes and impacts, cultural factors, learning pathways and credit banking, accreditation, leadership, management, policy-making, and professional development for organisational renewal and change. Researchers interested in authoring or editing a book for this series are invited to contact the Series Publishing Editor: [email protected] All proposals will be sent out for external double-blind review. Review reports will be shared with proposers and their revisions will be further taken into consideration. The completed manuscript will be reviewed by the Series Editors and editorial advisors to ensure the quality of the book and also seek external review in order to ensure quality before formal publication. Abstracted/Indexed in: Scopus

Senad Be´cirovi´c

Digital Pedagogy The Use of Digital Technologies in Contemporary Education

Senad Be´cirovi´c International Burch University Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

ISSN 2211-1921 ISSN 2211-193X (electronic) SpringerBriefs in Education ISSN 2509-4335 ISSN 2509-4343 (electronic) SpringerBriefs in Open and Distance Education ISBN 978-981-99-0443-3 ISBN 978-981-99-0444-0 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-0444-0 © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

Preface

The last few decades have been characterized by the rapid development of digital technologies that significantly facilitate, improve, and optimize many processes. Competition to find creative technological solutions in various fields is constant and intense. Digitalization of various systems such as those dealing with economy, culture, health, hospitality, and education has long been a necessity and proceeds at different paces and different efficiency levels, significantly affecting the productivity and quality of services. The high-quality, fast, and efficient digitalization of education is of inestimable importance for both students as individuals, and for society as a whole. Educational institutions should train young people for full, active, and effective participation in social processes. Furthermore, educational institutions are expected to prepare students for the labor market. Educational institutions must follow modern technological trends. This inevitably includes the development of digital literacy and digital competencies that are essential for effective student social participation in the digital age. Digitalization and digital transformation of education is a very complex and timeconsuming process. It faces many challenges and depends on many factors, such as financial support; attitudes, values, and knowledge; instructors’ experience in using digital technologies in the teaching process effectively; administrative and technical support; cultural and social factors; and class size. The coronavirus pandemic has significantly accelerated and even forced the digitalization of education systems in many countries. Although some education systems have adapted relatively easily to the digital learning environment caused by the coronavirus pandemic, most education systems have encountered and still face severe difficulties. The key challenge to the quality integration of digital technologies into the teaching process is represented by teachers’ attitudes, values, knowledge, experience, and competencies to effectively accomplish integration. Since digital pedagogy is a relatively new field, not many published works have approached this topic systematically. The book Digital Pedagogy: The Use of Digital Technologies in Contemporary Education is intended primarily for teachers and students, education policymakers, v

vi

Preface

educational leaders, and others whose professional engagement is related to education in modern society. The book comprises ten chapters. The first chapter, What Is Digital Pedagogy, deals with various approaches to defining digital and critical digital pedagogy. This chapter also discusses what digital pedagogy involves and its main characteristics and significance for the future of education. The second chapter, Why Do We Need Digital Pedagogy, presents the results of analyzing society, educational authorities, ODE, teachers, students, and parents’ expectations of digital pedagogy. The third chapter, entitled The Role of Digital Pedagogy in Fostering Digital Literacy in Students, deals with defining digital literacy, importance, and teaching. This chapter describes in detail what digital literacy encompasses, how it should be used, as well as discussing safety challenges in the digital environment. Finally, it elaborates on the concept of digital citizenship. The fourth chapter, Digital Competence of Teachers and Students, delineates approaches to defining digital competencies, as well as their importance and development, and deals with resources as a fundamental factor for teachers. Fostering Digital Competence in Teachers: A Review of Existing Frameworks is the fifth chapter. It includes an overview and analysis of frameworks for the development of digital competencies of teachers, such as DigCompEdu, TPACK, ICT CFT, and SAMR. The sixth chapter, entitled The Use of Open Educational Resources (OER) in Digital Pedagogy, defines OER and elaborates on its advantages and disadvantages. It also provides strategies for overcoming barriers to OER adoption and its effective development and use by instructors, learners, and researchers. The seventh chapter, Privacy and Personal Data Protection in Digital Pedagogy, discusses how privacy and personal data in the digital educational context may be protected. Considering that GDPR is the most widely used document on privacy and personal data protection, this chapter provides a brief description of it and then discusses how digital pedagogy can integrate it into educational processes, beginning with school administration and continuing with strategies for instructors, students, and parents. Fostering Student Engagement in Implementing Digital Pedagogy is the title of the eighth chapter, which discusses behavioral, cognitive, and effective student engagement in the digital environment. This chapter also addresses the challenges of disengagement and ways to increase student engagement. Chapter nine, Fostering Multicultural Education through Digital Pedagogy, addresses topics such as the use of digital technologies to facilitate multicultural education and collaborative learning in the digital learning environment as a tool for fostering multicultural education. The tenth and final chapter, Challenges and Barriers for Effective Integration of Technologies into Teaching and Learning, discusses why teachers struggle with using technology in the classroom. It also examines why access to technology is a barrier to successful integration, why teachers’ professional development is a prerequisite for effective technology integration into the classroom, and the ways in which technology is often misused.

Preface

vii

Before delving into the broader subject of digital pedagogy, it is important to discuss the ways in which the terms “digitalization,” “digitization,” and “digital transformation” are most commonly used. At the fundamental level, digitization, sometimes used interchangeably with digitalization, implies the transfer of data from a physical to a digital format. Thus, on a practical level, digitization may refer to the ability to transfer processes and data used in education from non-digital to digital formats. Digitalization, however, goes beyond this, to connote the process of leveraging and executing digitization. Thus, on a higher level, the digitalization of educational institutions modernizes and improves various operations, making them faster, more efficient, productive, and of higher quality. Put another way, the digitalization of education enhances and improves academic and administrative processes via the use of digital technology. The digitalization of education contributes to the development of a digital culture within the educational environment itself. This is vital to ensure effective and productive educational systems. Digital transformation can be defined as completely transforming an institution’s operations, processes, products, and models to capitalize on the roles and potential of digital technology. This book aims to aid educators, administrators, and students in their efforts to bring about such transformation in educational systems, and to ensure that these are commensurate with the needs and demands of our digital age. Recent theoretical analyses and empirical research have focused on technologymediated teaching and learning while considering the rapid growth of digital technologies and the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on changes in educational systems. When it comes to integrating digital technologies into the classroom, after certain technological conditions have been established, the greatest need teachers have is technological and pedagogical skills and competencies. Appropriate preservice and in-service training can enable them to effectively integrate digital tools into teaching and apply appropriate pedagogical approaches. Yet the pandemic has frequently forced teachers to use digital teaching tools without regard to their attitudes, knowledge, or experience. The material presented in this book can help education policymakers adopt effective strategies for the digital transformation of educational institutions. This includes providing institutions with modern technologies and teacher training tailored to differentiated needs. This book can also help experts develop and improve modern curricula which accommodate and address the challenges and needs of students and society, as well as science. Pre-service and in-service teachers may find this work to be a helpful guide in developing the appropriate awareness, attitudes, values, culture, motivation, knowledge, and competencies for the effective integration of digital technologies into the teaching process. The contents of this book can also help to improve Open and Distance Education (ODE) implementation, which is, due to the influence of rapid technology development, growing in terms of both the number of enrolled students and the number of

viii

Preface

providers. The growth of ODE necessitates development of new pedagogical strategies that are expected to provide an efficient response to the challenges that ODE faces. This book can aid instructors in planning, designing, and implementing ODE. Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Senad Be´cirovi´c

Contents

1

What Is Digital Pedagogy? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Digital Transformation in Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 What Does Digital Pedagogy Entail? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Critical Digital Pedagogy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 Open and Distance Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 1 2 4 6 8 9 10

2

Why Do We Need Digital Pedagogy? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Societal Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Educational Authority Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Pedagogical Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 ODE Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 Parental Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 Student Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15 15 16 18 19 20 21 21 22 23

3

The Role of Digital Pedagogy in Fostering Digital Literacy in Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 What is Digital Literacy? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 The Importance of Digital Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Teaching Digital Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Cultivating Digital Citizenship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25 25 26 27 29 32 35 36

ix

x

4

5

Contents

Digital Competence of Teachers and Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Defining Digital Competence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Developing Digital Competence in Teachers: Resources and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Fostering Digital Competence in Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fostering Digital Competence in Teachers: A Review of Existing Frameworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 The Urgency of Enhancing Teachers’ Digital Competence . . . . . . 5.3 The European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators (DigCompEdu) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 The UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers (ICT CFT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) . . . . . . 5.6 The SAMR Framework for Technology Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

39 39 40 42 45 47 48 51 51 52 54 56 59 62 64 65

6

The Use of Open Educational Resources (OER) in Digital Pedagogy 6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 What is OER? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 The Benefits of Using OER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 Impediments to OER Adoption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 How to Use OER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

69 69 70 72 74 77 79 80

7

Privacy and Personal Data Protection in Digital Pedagogy . . . . . . . . 7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 What is GDPR? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 GDPR and School Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 GDPR and Teachers’ Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 GDPR and Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6 GDPR and Parents/Guardians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

83 83 84 85 88 90 92 94 95

8

Fostering Student Engagement in Implementing Digital Pedagogy . 97 8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 8.2 What is Student Engagement in Digital Pedagogy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 8.3 Behavioral Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 8.4 Affective Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 8.5 Cognitive Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

Contents

xi

8.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 9

Fostering Multicultural Education Through Digital Pedagogy . . . . . 9.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2 The Use of Digital Technology to Facilitate Multicultural Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3 Online Collaborative Learning as a Facilitator of Multicultural Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10 Challenges and Barriers for Effective Integration of Technologies into Teaching and Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2 Reasons Why Teachers May Struggle to Use Technology in the Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3 Lack of Access to Technology as a Barrier to Successful Technology Integration into Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4 Teachers’ Professional Development as Prerequisite for Effective Technology Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5 Misusing Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

113 113 115 118 120 121 123 123 124 126 127 130 131 132

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Abbreviations

BYOD DC DCE DigComp DigCompEdu DPA DPO DT EEA EU GDPR HEI ICT ICT CFT IITE IPR LMS MIT MOOC OCW ODDE ODE ODL OECD OEP OER SAMR SNT TAM TDC TE

Bring Your Own Device Digital Competence Digital Citizenship Education Digital Competence Model European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators Data Protection Act Data Protection Officer Digital Technology European Economic Area Europe Union General Data Protection Regulation Higher Education Institution Information and Communication Technologies UNESCO ICT Competence Framework for Teachers Institute for Information Technologies in Education Intellectual Property Rights Learning Management System Massachusetts Institute of Technology Massively Open Online Courses Open Course Ware Open, Distance, and Digital Education Open and Distance Education Open and Distance Learning The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Open Education Practice Open Educational Resources Model for Technology Integration Social Networking Tools Technology Acceptance Model Teacher Digital Competence Teacher Education xiii

xiv

TICA TPACK UNESCO

Abbreviations

Teaching Internet Comprehension to Adolescents Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization

Chapter 1

What Is Digital Pedagogy?

1.1 Introduction Over the past few decades, a number of fundamental digital technologies have been integrated in education practice. These technologies help instructors introduce learning content in an adept way, and enable students to progress along the path of acquiring and mastering specific skills and competencies. In the digital age, information technologies are perceived to be essential for educational reforms (Howard & Mozejko, 2015); integrating them into teaching and learning significantly influences overall educational approaches. Parry (2009) claims that digitalization is the future of education, and maintains that not using digital technology in teaching is an irresponsible teaching methodology. What is more, digital technologies are transforming interpersonal relationships among students and instructors; this in turn shapes the way teaching and learning resources are utilized (Guðmundsdóttir & Hatlevik, 2020). Integrating digital technologies into the education process is thus essential, and requires new pedagogical approaches that help instructors and students use these new technologies successfully. Digital pedagogy is concerned with new pedagogical approaches which use digital tools and resources to provide instructors with the necessary knowledge and competencies to teach. Despite its status as a relatively young discipline, there are various definitions of digital pedagogy, several of which are quite similar. Howell (2012) defines digital pedagogy as a discipline that uses digital technologies to teach, while Croxall (2012), on the other hand, describes digital pedagogy as the employment of electronic elements to enhance or change the educational experience. According to Hunter et al. (2012), the “digital” in “digital humanities” and “digital pedagogy” “refers less to tech and more to the communities the tech engenders and facilitates” (Digital Humanities vs. Digital Pedagogy, para. 2). The Digital Pedagogy Lab defines digital pedagogy as follows: Digital Pedagogy is precisely not about using digital technologies for teaching and, rather, about approaching those tools from a critical pedagogical perspective. So, it is as much about © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. Be´cirovi´c, Digital Pedagogy, SpringerBriefs in Open and Distance Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-0444-0_1

1

2

1 What Is Digital Pedagogy? using digital tools thoughtfully as it is about deciding when not to use digital tools, and about paying attention to the impact of digital tools on learning. (Rousseau, 2022, para. 2 )

Although the definitions above have made an important contribution to the emerging field of digital pedagogy, the rapid advancement of digital technologies, and their effects on education, require further elaboration and development of the concept: digital pedagogy is the academic discipline concerned with methods of using digital technology in the educational process so as to expose students to relevant learning experiences that allow them to acquire the requisite knowledge, skills, and competencies. While “online pedagogy” and “e-learning” are often used synonymously with digital pedagogy, the terms cannot be directly equated because the concept of digital pedagogy is broader (Tapscott, 2009). Digital pedagogy is not narrowly focused on online education alone; instead, it supports any type of technology-mediated education, whether hybrid, online, or face-to-face. Digital pedagogy represents a somewhat novel field among the disciplines dealing with teaching and learning. It offers a response to the teacher’s need to teach successfully with the help of digital technology. It entails the thoughtful utilization of contemporary digital technologies in the educational process to expose students to pertinent learning experiences, and to achieve the designated learning objectives, whose aims are expected to correspond to the skills and competencies required by the labor market in the digital era. Digital pedagogy deals with a wide range of variables related to teaching and learning in technology-mediated educational processes, such as attitudes and motivation to adopt and use advanced technologies; digital literacy and digital competencies of instructors and students; Open Educational Resources (OER); student engagement; multicultural education; privacy and personal data protection; barriers to successful technology use; and a variety of teaching and learning strategies. There is a strong link between digital pedagogy and Open and Distance Education (ODE), particularly since the 1990s, with the introduction of digital technologies in ODE implementation. Digital pedagogy comprises various strategies for the efficient and productive use of advanced technologies, which have become fundamental tools for the successful implementation of ODE. Digital pedagogy is thus concerned with helping instructors implement ODE at all levels, from K-12 to higher education, and improve its quality and efficiency. This chapter includes discussion of approaches to designating digital pedagogy, what digital pedagogy entails, its relationship with ODE, the importance of digital transformation in education, and critical digital pedagogy.

1.2 Digital Transformation in Education Institutions that want to be change agents in society and compete in their fields must embrace digital transformation (Benavides et al., 2020). Likewise, the development of information culture is one of the most important tasks of today’s educational

1.2 Digital Transformation in Education

3

systems (Bilyalova et al., 2020). They must undergo extensive digital transformation to meet the needs of today’s students, and prepare them for the digital world they will face in the future (Iivari et al., 2020). Furthermore, the digital transformation of higher education institutions is critical to their future success (Šereš et al., 2018) and can contribute to attracting and retaining students. A merely partial or superficial digital transformation will not enable educational institutions to respond properly to the challenges they face in the digital age. Government policies and institutional development strategies deeply influence the digitalization of higher education worldwide (Xiao, 2019). Accordingly, to ensure successful digital transformation, it is necessary to develop an appropriate policy that includes digital transformation of institutional management, administration, curricula, teaching, and learning processes. Hence, digital transformation requires a complete change of the institutional model (García-Peñalvo, 2021). Digitalization improves the efficiency of educational management and administration. Staff should be assisted in adopting professional digital tools to carry out their duties. Similarly, digitalization is essential for attracting students, improving teaching materials, mentoring, and the entire teaching process; digital technologies need to be integrated into all school operations, and all processes need to be transformed (Abad-Segura et al., 2020). Cultivating the digital competencies of teachers, school managers, and administrators is key to enabling the successful digital transformation, and pre-service and in-service training are critical factors in success. Digital pedagogy offers the novel and innovative pedagogical approaches needed to encourage and enable the positive digital transformation of education. It facilitates this process in a variety of areas: thorough curricula, digital literacy and competencies of teachers and students, technology integration into education, teaching and learning strategies, and more. Furthermore, successful digital transformation is critical for ODE, which since the advent of the Internet has transitioned from correspondence (occasionally mediated by radio and television), to technology-mediated teaching and learning. Digital transformation contributes to the modernization of curricula, including its congruence with the needs of students and society in the digital age. Likewise, curricula must incorporate the development of positive attitudes and digital competencies required for the effective use of digital technologies in the education process. Because digital competencies are core competencies in the digital age, curricula should include teaching strategies for developing these competencies in students in order to prepare them for their digitalized future. The digital transformation includes “a broad range of technologies such as cloud systems, big data, predictive analytics, and integrative platform technologies that have created both opportunities and challenges in today’s organizations” (Jackson, 2019, p. 2). Hence, digital tools and resources facilitate the design of high quality, interesting, and engaging teaching materials, enable efficient teaching and learning processes, facilitate the establishment and maintenance of networking and cooperation, and contribute to developing digital competencies, skills, and literacy. As digital technologies create new opportunities, they allow students to learn at any time and place that suits them. They provide access to databases whose resources

4

1 What Is Digital Pedagogy?

can be used for learning, research, and for performing other school tasks. Moreover, young generations need to be empowered and encouraged to be more proactive in creating and modifying digital technologies, and generally shaping their own digital futures (Iivari et al., 2020, p. 2). Teachers use a variety of platforms to communicate with students (Maši´c et al., 2020) in both synchronous and asynchronous ways. These platforms offer the flexibility to use various teaching methods and pedagogical approaches, and enable fast content sharing, all of which can certainly improve the efficiency of teaching and learning. Moreover, digital technologies are important for establishing cooperation between teachers and students, and students with their peers. They also make mentorship easier, especially when a mentor from a specific field is geographically distant (Be´cirovi´c & Polz, 2021). The use of digital technology in educational settings is not limited to facilitating teaching, learning, and communication. Administrative tasks are also greatly aided by digital transformation. Many of these tasks are automated, resulting in a significant reduction in staff workload and performance improvement. Creating databases (which may include data on students, teachers, and other employees) simplifies processes and enables the more efficient performance of administrative tasks. However, one barrier to successful digital transformation is the digital divide, which may have a significant and negative impact on the ways in which digital technologies can be used. Among many other disadvantages, the digital divide prevents students from developing digital literacy and the core competencies required for the digital transformation of education systems.

1.3 What Does Digital Pedagogy Entail? Three “ages” characterize the integration of technology into teaching: the pre-digital, the personal computer, and the Internet (Howard & Mozejko, 2015). Different geographical areas experience different effects on education of the above-mentioned eras, depending on socio-economic status, cultural background, literacy rates, and other variables. Despite the long tradition of digital technology integration in education, only in the past 10–15 years has there been debate on the utilization of digital technology, and in the following forms: 1. The emergence of journals featuring content pertaining to the field of digital pedagogy, such as Hybrid Pedagogy and Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy; 2. Organization of specialized THATCamps or “unconferences” on the humanities and technology, and a corresponding THATCamp Hybrid Pedagogy; 3. Growing interests by professional associations such as the MLA; 4. Conferences, workshops, and roundtables on digital pedagogy. (Croxall, 2012) Stating that “the future is digital, love it or hate it” and that the process of digitalization is subject to debate, Parry (2009) emphasizes that educating or attempting to

1.3 What Does Digital Pedagogy Entail?

5

educate students without increasing their digital literacy will leave them unprepared for their futures. However, the integration of digital technologies in the educational process and implementation of digital pedagogy is characterized by certain difficulties and challenges. Thus, despite Parry’s (2009) suggestion that the future is digital, it is worth noting that digitalization is feared and opposed by those who claim that computers will replace instructors. This perspective has occasionally provoked critical reactions to the integration of digital technologies into the teaching process (Howell, 2012). Hence, the barriers to the quality utilization of digital technologies and educational reform can be attributed to the challenges of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation of teachers to integrate new technologies into the educational process (Blundell et al., 2016). Howard and Mozejko (2015) have claimed that the integration of digital technologies has not yet resulted in the anticipated and revolutionary reform of education, but the year 2022 provided clear evidence that the utilization of digital technologies has in fact drastically influenced the process of teaching and learning. The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the extensive integration of digital technologies into the teaching process, from primary to tertiary level, and on a global scale. Instructors have been compelled to demonstrate prompt pedagogic readiness, conduct online lectures with a scarcity of resources, offer support to students, and evaluate their performance (Anderson, 2020). Had there been no pandemic, the digitalization of educational systems would have certainly been delayed, yet secondary and tertiary education will never resemble what they were before the COVID-19 pandemic. The use of digital technologies enriches the educational process; digital pedagogy entails immersion in the fundamentals of teaching art, and the digital tools employed to improve it (Kivunja, 2013, p. 131). Digital pedagogy views the new learning landscape as mysterious and worthy of exploration (Sean, 2013). Whereas teachers have traditionally drawn on their own authority and expertise to teach, the digital pedagogue commences with research; this represents the rationale behind the importance and complexity of digital pedagogy (Sean, 2013). Given that teaching with technology is a tough, unstructured task, teachers must develop new methods of perceiving and accepting this complexity to comprehend successful technology integration strategies. Integrating digital tools in the teaching process can significantly assist instructors and students in achieving their goals and objectives (Cabero-Almenara et al., 2020; Krismiyati, 2013). Digital pedagogy may enhance all types of education processes, whether online, hybrid, or face-to-face. However, effective methodology requires knowledge of how to use digital communication tools, whereas successful digital pedagogy necessitates knowledge of the dynamics and mechanisms of digital media, communication platforms, tools, and applications (Sz˝uts, 2019). Digital pedagogy attempts to transform teaching and learning in a variety of ways. This may involve any standardized digitalization, from the simple use of PowerPoint in the classroom, to the Khan Academy’s exhortation to “flip the classroom” and the growth of Massively Open Online Courses (MOOCs) such as Udacity and Coursera, offering free online education to the general public (Croxall, 2012). Moreover, according to Steele et al. (2019), digital pedagogy encompasses any virtual

6

1 What Is Digital Pedagogy?

strategy that enhances the learning experience, including teaching strategies, use of technologies, and transfer of teaching content. Examples of digital pedagogy in the classroom include using social media, Moodle, LMS, various conferencing tools, and many other applications and digital resources that enhance teaching and learning. Considering that the definitions of digital pedagogy are broad in nature and usually focus on the benefits of digitally transformed teaching, some experts emphasize that simply utilizing digital technologies in teaching is not an indication of digital pedagogy practices (Croxall, 2012). It thus follows that digital technologies should not be perceived as mere tools for teaching and learning. The functionality and meaningful use of digital tools and resources in the education process must be considered with particular attention. Simply throwing computers into a classroom does not result in constructive learning, because the act of digital transformation of a classroom requires instructors to have an understanding of efficient technology use, knowledge of teaching and learning theories, and an ability to select appropriate technologies for achieving the desired educational objectives (Howell, 2012, p. 5). Digital pedagogy requires instructors to evaluate the resources available to them and their students, assess their students’ digital literacy and competencies, their knowledge and experience, and to connect instructional material with other school content and real-world challenges outside school walls.

1.4 Critical Digital Pedagogy Digital pedagogy is not just a method used to teach and utilize technology in the instructional process. Instead, it is a novel discipline that has experienced exponential growth in recent years. In future epochs it will remain the focus of both extensive debate and research, primarily because it will be the foundation of future education. Within the larger framework of critical pedagogy, it is important to briefly elaborate on the concept of critical digital pedagogy and its role in ODE. A synthesis of existing approaches to critical digital pedagogy might describe it as an educational, social, and—to a certain extent, political—approach that prioritizes social justice and equal power distribution. It assists students in understanding how education works, and how they fit into the larger social context. Rorabaugh (2012) posits that, despite varying definitions, critical pedagogy is a central matter in discussions about the transformation of learning in the twenty-first century because the primary focus of digital pedagogy is an equal distribution of power. Critical digital pedagogy is the intersection of critical cultural pedagogy, culturally responsive pedagogy, and digital pedagogy (Bontly et al., 2017). Zawacki-Richter et al. (2020) accentuate the link between open education and critical pedagogy and point out that “the core of open education is its openness” (p. 321). In his brief description, Stommel (2014) notes that critical digital pedagogy:

1.4 Critical Digital Pedagogy

7

● Centers its practice on community and collaboration; ● Must remain open to diverse, international voices, and thus requires invention to reimagine the ways that communication and collaboration happen across cultural and political boundaries; ● Will not, cannot, be defined by a single voice but must gather together a cacophony of voices; ● Must have use and application outside traditional institutions of education. (What Is Critical Digital Pedagogy?, para. 8) Critical digital pedagogy plays a crucial role in the digital transformation of education in the twenty-first century. It facilitates evaluating, deconstructing, or reconstructing educational power relationships, institutions, and information technology. Critical digital pedagogy encourages students to consider how they have been taught through technology-assisted instruction and how they are prepared for life outside the classroom. Further, critical digital pedagogy assists students in reading their world and preparing them to participate actively in their virtual and physical communities. Morris and Stommel (2018) note that critical digital pedagogy may raise more questions than it answers: ● How can digital technologies and cultures interrogate and/or deconstruct the roles of student and teacher; ● What is the role of interactivity, engagement, and critical contribution in the digital or digitally-enhanced classroom; ● How do we make our classrooms sites of intrinsic motivation, networked learning, and critical practice; and ● What is a digital agency. (What Is Critical Digital Pedagogy?, para. 9) To be effective, teachers must evaluate and assess the potential impact of the myriad digital resources at their disposal on their student’s personal and academic growth. In addition, digital pedagogues are expected to assist students in developing the skills they will need to properly evaluate, select, and use online resources in their coursework. The informed and critical evaluation of these resources on the part of both students and instructors is essential to the process. When learners are exposed to, and educated in, a digitally transformed environment, they must receive instruction in how to enhance their own potential in this digital sphere and to capitalize on opportunities for interpersonal growth (Rorabaugh, 2012). To this end, critical digital pedagogy addresses issues like invisible barriers to student engagement, quality of interactions, intrinsic motivation, cooperative learning, and cultural diversity. It may facilitate the development and improvement of positive relationships between instructors and students, as well as among students. These issues are especially germane to ODE, which seldom takes place face-to-face, and often includes culturally diverse participants.

8

1 What Is Digital Pedagogy?

1.5 Open and Distance Education The ODE approach to teaching and learning has undergone several historical phases. Its early origins were correspondence education, in which students and educational institutions communicated primarily via postal mail. In the early 1800s, several universities in Europe, Australia, and the United States began offering correspondence courses and programs (Shah & Dafauti, 2013). ODE was enhanced and augmented with the introduction of television and radio in 1934 (Jung, 2019). A global expansion of ODE took place between 1960 and 1980 as experience in the field accumulated, and in response to societal demands; its growth was made visible primarily through the establishment of numerous open universities around the world. These include the UK Open University (founded in 1969); the National University of Distance Education in Spain (1972); the FernUniversität in Hagen, Germany (1974); National Open University in Korea (1972); Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University in Thailand (1978); and Anadolu University in Turkey (1982) (Jung, 2019). ODE was revolutionized with the advent of the Internet in the 1990s, as the development of numerous digital tools made distance education significantly more qualitative, engaging, and effective. The result has been a steady increase in the number of online education programs. The increasingly widespread acceptance of ODE is emphasized through the fact that in many countries (including the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada), diplomas do not expressly indicate that a degree was obtained through distance education. Yet the digital divide remains one of the most significant challenges for ODE. Even though ODE is frequently associated with MOOCs and OER (Zawacki-Richter et al., 2020), some countries (such as India, and South Africa) still rely on traditional correspondence augmented by radio and television broadcasting. This is due to inadequate Internet infrastructure and/or access to digital technologies. In contrast, other countries (South Korea, Australia, Canada, and the United States) are abandoning correspondence education altogether as they rapidly expanding the online educational sphere (Qayyum & Zawacki-Richter, 2019). The terms “open learning,” “distance learning,” and “distance education” are frequently used interchangeably. Consensus appears to prevail that the title of the field may combine both “open” and “distance,” despite the fact that the terms are not synonymous (Zawacki-Richter et al., 2020). Open learning can be delivered remotely, in person, or in a hybrid format; it often has to do with “flexibility, access, and the choice of what, when, at what pace, where, and how people learn” (Zawacki-Richter et al., 2020, p. 332). A term related to open digital pedagogy is “open education,” or “the use of cost-free, publicly available online tools and platforms by instructors and students for teaching, learning, and communicating in support of educational goals” (Rosen & Smale, 2015, para. 2). “Distance education” is defined as a form of education in which students are not always, or only sometimes, able to physically attend classes at school (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2016). The Commonwealth of Learning (2020) defines Open and Distance Learning (ODL) as “a system of teaching and learning characterized by separation of teacher

1.6 Conclusion

9

and learner in time and/or place; [that] uses multiple media for delivery of instruction; [and] involves two-way communication and occasional face-to-face meeting for tutorials and learner-learner interaction” (p. 4). Similarly, ODE implies “nontraditional forms of teaching and learning in which the students and tutors have little or no face-to-face contact, a separation in space and often also in time” (Sewart, 2014, p. 1). Xiao (2022) emphasizes that from a pedagogical standpoint, Open, Distance, and Digital Education (ODDE) is more suitable than the traditional face-to-face mode in light of an increasingly technology-enhanced and mediated reality. ODL employs generic education theories while also developing its own (Bozkurt, 2019; Xiao, 2022). According to Zawacki-Richter et al. (2020), the growth and understanding of open education and distance learning has been influenced by Wedemeyer’s (1971) proposed theory of ODL conceptualization; by Peters’ (1983) theory of industrialized teaching and learning; by the Community of Inquiry (CoI) model promulgated by Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2000); by Connectivism; and by Jung and Latchem’s (2011) extended spatial model of e-education. ODE itself must move with the times. Its traditional tools (written correspondence and even broadcast media) are no longer adequate to equip students with the knowledge, skills, and experience required by the labor market in the digital age. Digital technologies are the main drivers in implementing ODE in contemporary education. Their many advantages for ODE include availability, affordability, flexibility, and more equitable access; they help save on resources (both time and often money); eliminate barriers in time and space; and facilitate education of those students who for personal or professional reasons are unable to attend campus-based schooling or other in-person schooling opportunities. These compelling advantages have boosted ODE enrollment around the world and increased the number of ODE providers, both public and private. Diplomas awarded by ODE institutions are more widely recognized than ever, as their image is constantly improving. However, in addition to the digital divide, ODE faces additional challenges in contemporary educational systems. These hurdles are frequently associated with methodological approaches to teaching. Implementing ODE in a capable way is a demanding and complex task that requires the combination of three knowledge areas: pedagogical knowledge, digital technology knowledge, and expert knowledge of the subject matter being taught. Because the academic discipline of digital pedagogy is centered on methodological approaches to employing digital technologies and resources in the educational process, its strategies and methods can facilitate successful ODE implementation.

1.6 Conclusion Digital pedagogy is a relatively new academic discipline that deals with teaching and learning. It has undergone rapid development in recent years. In the future, digital pedagogy will continue to be a subject of debate and research because it will form the

10

1 What Is Digital Pedagogy?

foundation of education. While there are numerous and varied definitions of the discipline, there is general agreement that digital pedagogy is the study of how to teach and learn with digital tools and resources. Digital pedagogy implies the thoughtful use of modern digital technologies in the educational process to expose students to relevant educational experiences so as to achieve the expected teaching and learning outcomes, including acquiring the necessary skills and competencies required by the labor market in the digital age. Digital pedagogy encompasses teaching and learning in online, hybrid, and face-to-face environments. Digital technologies are positioned to serve as vital drivers in the transformation and reform of education. Educational institutions must adopt a strategy for digital transformation that changes their entire culture. As the critical factor for success in this transformation, digital pedagogy involves curricula development for the digital age; teaching and learning strategies; and the digital competencies of both students and instructors. It enables the purposeful, efficient, productive, and high-quality use of digital technologies in the educational process. Moreover, it aids in providing students with the necessary experience to acquire knowledge, skills, and abilities, and to create collaborative networks and student communities. Teaching and learning goals are influenced and affected by rapid technological advancements; the able use of digital tools is an important way for both teachers and students to respond to these changes effectively in order to achieve their goals. Digital transformation in education and digital pedagogy is critical for ODE. Educational institutions should effectively integrate digital technology into all operations and facilitate the steady growth of ODE. Digital pedagogy enhances these processes by providing educational institutions, instructors, and students with the necessary methodological support. However, to successfully implement digital transformation and digital pedagogy, there is need for pre-service and in-service training. Future research in this area should be region- and country-specific, focusing on the needs, barriers, and challenges for the successful digital transformation of educational systems. In addition, future research should focus on the requirements of institutions, teachers, and students in order to enable the successful implementation of ODE. Likewise, research efforts should focus on the obstacles to the successful implementation of digital pedagogy in varied geographical regions and educational settings.

References Abad-Segura, E., González-Zamar, M.-D., Infante-Moro, J. C., & Ruipérez García, G. (2020). Sustainable management of digital transformation in higher education: Global research trends. Sustainability, 12(5), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12052107 Anderson, V. (2020). A digital pedagogy pivot: Re-thinking higher education practice from an HRD perspective. Human Resource Development International, 23(4), 452–467. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13678868.2020.1778999

References

11

Be´cirovi´c, S., & Polz, E. (2021). Fostering giftedness: Challenges and opportunities. Nova Science Publishers. Benavides, L. M. C., Tamayo Arias, J. A., Arango Serna, M. D., Branch Bedoya, J. W., & Burgos, D. (2020). Digital transformation in higher education institutions: A systematic literature review. Sensors, 20(11), Article 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20113291 Bilyalova, A. A., Salimova, D. A., & Zelenina, T. I. (2020). Digital transformation in education. In T. Antipova (Ed.), Integrated science in digital age (pp. 265–276). Springer. https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-3-030-22493-6_24 Blundell, C., Lee, K.-T., & Nykvist, S. (2016). Digital learning in schools: Conceptualizing the challenges and influences on teacher practice. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 15, 535–560. https://doi.org/10.28945/3578 Bontly, S., Khalil, S., Mansour, T., & Parra, J. (2017, March 5). Starting the conversation: A working definition of critical digital pedagogy. Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (SITE) 2017, Austin, TX. Bozkurt, A. (2019). Intellectual roots of distance education: A progressive knowledge domain analysis. Distance Education, 40(4), 497–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2019.1681894 Cabero-Almenara, J., Gutiérrez-Castillo, J.-J., Palacios-Rodríguez, A., & Barroso-Osuna, J. (2020). Development of the teacher digital competence validation of DigCompEdu Check-In questionnaire in the University Context of Andalusia (Spain). Sustainability, 12(15), Article 15. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su12156094 Commonwealth of Learning. (2020). Open and distance learning: Key terms and definitions. Commonwealth of Learning (COL). http://hdl.handle.net/11599/3558 Croxall, B. (2012, August 30). “Digital pedagogy”? A Digital Pedagogy Unconference. https:// www.briancroxall.net/digitalpedagogy/what-is-digital-pedagogy/ García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2021). Avoiding the dark side of digital transformation in teaching. An institutional reference framework for eLearning in higher education. Sustainability, 13(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042023 Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1096-7516(00)00016-6 Guðmundsdóttir, G., & Hatlevik, O. (2020). “I just Google it”—Developing professional digital competence and preparing student teachers to exercise responsible ICT use. Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education (NJCIE), 4(3), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie. 3752 Howard, S. K., & Mozejko, A. (2015). Considering the history of digital technologies in education. In M. Henderson & G. Romero (Eds.), Teaching and digital technologies: Big issues and critical questions (pp. 157–168). Cambridge University Press. Howell, J. (2012). Teaching with ICT: Digital pedagogies for collaboration and creativity. Oxford University Press. Hunter, L., Rorabaugh, P., Stommel, J., Wharton, R., & Whitson, R. (2012, July 10). Digital humanities made me a better pedagogue: A crowdsourced article. Hybrid Pedagogy. https://hybridped agogy.org/digital-humanities-made-me-a-better-pedagogue-a-crowdsourced-article/ Iivari, N., Sharma, S., & Ventä-Olkkonen, L. (2020). Digital transformation of everyday life—How COVID-19 pandemic transformed the basic education of the young generation and why information management research should care? International Journal of Information Management, 55, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102183 Jackson, N. C. (2019). Managing for competency with innovation change in higher education: Examining the pitfalls and pivots of digital transformation. Business Horizons, 62(6), 761–772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2019.08.002 Jung, I. (2019). Introduction to theories of open and distance education. In I. Jung (Ed.), Open and distance education theory revisited: Implications for the digital era (pp. 1–9). Springer. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7740-2_1

12

1 What Is Digital Pedagogy?

Jung, I., & Latchem, C. (2011). A model for e-education: Extended teaching spaces and extended learning spaces. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(1), 6–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1467-8535.2009.00987.x Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2016). Higher education and the digital revolution: About MOOCs, SPOCs, social media, and the Cookie Monster. Business Horizons, 59(4), 441–450. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.bushor.2016.03.008 Kivunja, C. (2013). Embedding digital pedagogy in pre-service higher education to better prepare teachers for the digital generation. International Journal of Higher Education, 2(4), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v2n4p131 Krismiyati. (2013). Bringing technology into the classroom through digital storytelling. Asia Pacific Collaborative Education Journal, 9(2), 1–10. Maši´c, A., Polz, E., & Be´cirovi´c, S. (2020). The relationship between learning styles, GPA, school level and gender. European Researcher, 11(1), 51–60. https://doi.org/10.13187/er.2020.1.51 Morris, S. M., & Stommel, J. (2018). Critical digital pedagogy: A definition. In An urgency of teachers. Hybrid Pedagogy Inc. https://criticaldigitalpedagogy.pressbooks.com/chapter/chapte r-1/ Parry, D. (2009, July 24). On what it would mean to really teach “naked.” https://outsidethetext. com/2009/07/24/on-what-it-would-mean-to-really-teach-naked/ Peters, O. (1983). Distance teaching and industrial production—A comparative interpretation in outline. In D. Sewart, D. Keegan, & B. Holmberg (Eds.), Distance education: International perspectives (pp. 95–113). Croom Helm Routledge. Qayyum, A., & Zawacki-Richter, O. (2019). The state of open and distance education. In O. Zawacki-Richter & A. Qayyum (Eds.), Open and distance education in Asia, Africa and the Middle East: National perspectives in a digital age (pp. 125–140). Springer. https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-981-13-5787-9_14 Rorabaugh, P. (2012, August 6). Occupy the digital: Critical pedagogy and new media. Hybrid Pedagogy. https://hybridpedagogy.org/occupy-the-digital-critical-pedagogy-and-new-media/ Rosen, J. R., & Smale, M. A. (2015, January 7). Open digital pedagogy = Critical pedagogy. Hybrid Pedagogy. https://hybridpedagogy.org/open-digital-pedagogy-critical-pedagogy/ Rousseau, P. (2022). Research guides: Digital pedagogy—A guide for librarians, faculty, and students. https://guides.library.utoronto.ca/c.php?g=448614&p=3061919 Sean, M. M. (2013, March 5). Decoding digital pedagogy, pt. 1: Beyond the LMS. Hybrid Pedagogy. https://hybridpedagogy.org/decoding-digital-pedagogy-pt-1-beyond-the-lms/ Šereš, L., Pavli´cevi´c, V., & Tumbas, P. (2018). Digital transformation of higher education: Competing on analytics (p. 9497). INTED2018 Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2018. 2348 Sewart, D. (2014). Through the mirror of ICDE—From correspondence to distance to online. https:// www.icde.org/icde-history-articles/through-the-mirror-of-icde Shah, S., & Dafauti, B. (2013). A study of Open and Distance Education (ODE) for rural India. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering, 3(9), 1115–1118. Steele, J., Holbeck, R., & Mandernach, J. (2019). Defining effective online pedagogy. Journal of Instructional Research, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.9743/JIR.2019.8.2.1 Stommel, J. (2014, November 18). Critical digital pedagogy: A definition. Hybrid Pedagogy. https:// hybridpedagogy.org/critical-digital-pedagogy-definition/ Sz˝uts, Z. (2019). A critical approach to digital pedagogy—The search for an organic methodology in the information society. Opus et Educatio, 6(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.3311/ope.342 Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing your world. McGraw Hill Professional. Wedemeyer, C. A. (1971). Independent study. In L. C. Deighton (Ed.), The encyclopedia of education: Volume 4 (pp. 548–557). Free Press.

References

13

Xiao, J. (2019). Digital transformation in higher education: Critiquing the five-year development plans (2016–2020) of 75 Chinese universities. Distance Education, 40(4), 515–533. https://doi. org/10.1080/01587919.2019.1680272 Xiao, J. (2022). Introduction to history, theory, and research in ODDE. In Handbook of open, distance and digital education (pp. 1–11). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-03519_1-1 Zawacki-Richter, O., Conrad, D., Bozkurt, A., Aydin, C. H., Bedenlier, S., Jung, I., Stöter, J., Veletsianos, G., Blaschke, L. M., Bond, M., Broens, A., Bruhn, E., Dolch, C., Kalz, M., Kerres, M., Kondakci, Y., Marin, V., Mayrberger, K., Müskens, W., … Xiao, J. (2020). Elements of open education: An invitation to future research. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 21(3), 319–334. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v21i3.4659

Chapter 2

Why Do We Need Digital Pedagogy?

2.1 Introduction The effects of the rapid development of digital technology on both society and pedagogy are numerous. The spread of information and communication technologies (ICT) has significant potential to accelerate progress, bridge the digital divide, and support the development of inclusive knowledge societies based on human rights and gender equality. ICT is in fact crucial to achieving sustainable development goals (UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers, 2018). There are similarly high expectations placed on digital pedagogy. If the aim is to use digital pedagogy to cultivate informed citizens and active workforce participants in the digital age, we must investigate the effects of using digital technologies across various aspects of student development so as to develop constructive and practical paradigms for their use in education. Digital technologies have given rise to new pedagogical approaches at all educational levels, supplanting traditional teaching approaches that rely heavily on the blackboards and chalk of prior eras. Some argue that not making use of digital technology in teaching may produce ill-informed, uncritical, and unengaged students who will become, at best, passive technology consumers (Parry, 2009). Digital pedagogy assists instructors in incorporating digital technologies in the educational process in a purposeful and effective way. It helps impart the knowledge and skills needed to keep pace with the steady growth of Open and Distance Education (ODE), which takes place primarily online and in hybrid on- and offline modes. In short, digital pedagogy supports instructors by helping cultivate the know-how and competencies required for teaching in technology-mediated environments. When implemented effectively, digital pedagogy offers numerous benefits. It can significantly improve teaching quality and, by extension, learning outcomes. Digital pedagogy helps instructors by enabling them to use digital tools to adapt their teaching strategies to the respective context as well as to student needs and competence levels. It is potentially revolutionary in that it changes the way we perceive teachers by © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. Be´cirovi´c, Digital Pedagogy, SpringerBriefs in Open and Distance Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-0444-0_2

15

16

2 Why Do We Need Digital Pedagogy?

invalidating the conventional paradigm in which an “omniscient” and “omnipotent” teacher instills knowledge in empty minds of students (Howell, 2012, p. 5). According to Stommel (2013), digital pedagogy demands that we: ● rethink power relations between students and teachers; ● create more collaborative and less hierarchical institutions for learning; ● use computers to replicate the vestigial structures of industrial-era education. (para. 3) While digital pedagogy is not inherently superior or inferior to in-person pedagogy, it does require additional skills (Anderson, 2020), and some instructors may feel insufficiently prepared for this rapid pedagogical shift. Comprehensive training is needed to overcome such obstacles in the effective implementation of digital pedagogy and ODE. Stommel (2013) explains that none of us are “born digital pedagogues” and that the only way to progress is by “continuous encounters with what is novel, tentative, unmastered, and unresolved” (para. 12). A first step is to change attitudes and beliefs with respect to digital technologies. Many instructors, for example, found it difficult to cope with even minimal forms of distance learning imposed by educational authorities during the coronavirus pandemic. In resisting the implementation of distance learning, many argued that it cannot deliver acceptable learning outcomes, and that accurate student evaluation and assessment is hindered by the ease with which students can cheat. Compounding these negative attitudes is the problem that many instructors—particularly the so-called “digital immigrants” who did not grow up using such digital technologies—have non-existent or minimal experience in using such technologies in teaching, whether in-person or remote (Tschida et al., 2017). As ODE approaches in university courses in particular become more widespread, it is crucial to engender positive attitudes towards them and ensure that educators obtain the necessary competencies to use them effectively. In the future, the teaching process will require broader, more diverse, and overall more efficient use of digital tools and resources. A range of stakeholders have a say in determining what digital pedagogy is for, and why we need it: students, parents, and educational authorities, but also the larger interests of ODE (as an approach which can already be considered mainstream and will gain in future importance), pedagogy in general, and society as a whole (Fig. 2.1). The subsequent sections of this chapter examine why we need digital pedagogy and what we expect it to achieve, particularly with respect to ODE.

2.2 Societal Expectations Society is changing under the influence of globalization (Be´cirovi´c & Akbarov, 2015). The use of modern information technologies facilitates these changes. We live in an era driven by information, global competition, and new technologies that have changed the way people think, live, and work; the way we communicate and acquire information has become digital. The labor market for which schools train

2.2 Societal Expectations

17

Fig. 2.1 Why we need to use DT in education

Societal Expectations Educational Authority Expectations

Student Expectations Why we need to use DT

Pedagogical Expectations

Parental Expectations

ODE Expectations

their students is significantly influenced by digital technologies (Howell, 2012); new jobs that require higher levels of digital knowledge, skills, and competencies are constantly emerging (Birzina et al., 2012; Pillay et al., 2004). However, in many highly-developed markets, traditional approaches to education are no longer adequate in preparing young people to enter the workforce in a dynamic world (Pillay et al., 2004). The global economy of our information age demands new skills and abilities (Tapscott, 2009, p. 127). According to the UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers, modern societies are based on information, knowledge, and the ubiquity of technologies, and must therefore: ● Build workforces that have information and communications technology (ICT) skills and are reflective, creative and adept at problem-solving in order to generate knowledge; ● Enable people to be knowledgeable and resourceful so they are able to make informed choices, manage their lives effectively, and realize their potential; ● Encourage all members of society—irrespective of gender, language, age, background, location and differing abilities—to participate fully in society and influence the decisions that affect their lives; and ● Foster cross-cultural understanding, tolerance and the peaceful resolution of conflict. (UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers, 2018, p. 7) In implementing digital pedagogy, curricula as well as teaching and learning methods must respond adequately to the needs of society. Modern educators must track trends in ICT in order to keep pace with, and contribute to, technological

18

2 Why Do We Need Digital Pedagogy?

advancement. Teachers must be well trained and schools properly equipped. Classrooms should be places where existing knowledge is transferred, deepened, and expanded, and where new knowledge that challenges current boundaries is created.

2.3 Educational Authority Expectations Preparing and training students for the labor market is one of the fundamental aims of education. Consequently, it is critical to develop high-quality curricula that incorporate the effective use of digital technology in teaching and learning so as to develop the competencies required in the digital age. Many instructors, however, teach exactly as they themselves were taught; many have never taken online courses throughout their formal education (Tschida et al., 2017). Educational authorities thus have an interest in ensuring that instructors receive ongoing professional training in the use of modern digital technologies in daily teaching activities. In addition to the proficient use of digital technologies to teach, they must also be used capably in evaluating student performance (Luchoomun et al., 2010). The global coronavirus pandemic is one obvious and recent example of the challenges faced by educational administrators in implementing online teaching. In most parts of the world, teachers at all levels, from primary to higher education, had to switch from in-person to online teaching at short notice. One key obstacle to the effective implementation of distance learning involves general attitudes towards the use of digital technologies in teaching. Some educators believe that distance teaching cannot be executed well, and that the desired learning outcomes cannot be achieved; furthermore, many doubt that student performance can be accurately and effectively evaluated via distance learning tools. Another major obstacle is insufficient expertise among teachers in using digital technologies. Overcoming these barriers requires that more effort be put into fostering positive attitudes toward digital pedagogy among instructors, particularly those who must teach online. Moreover, administrators must provide sufficient financial support and training opportunities in the use of digital pedagogical tools used in ODE. Rorabaugh (2012) points out that most teachers do their work within institutions, but the principles of critical pedagogy are extra-institutional; issues revolving around power relationships, teaching approaches, and technologies have been debated among advanced educators for decades. Critical educators must negotiate between their own principles and the goals of the institution for which they work; educational authorities must use digital pedagogy in such a way that instructors can improve their teaching, and students their learning, in technology-mediated educational environments.

2.4 Pedagogical Expectations

19

2.4 Pedagogical Expectations Every instructor’s goal in the teaching process should be to maximize students’ abilities and potential (Krismiyati, 2013). Educational policies as well as didactic and pedagogical trends promote the use of digital technologies in the teaching process (Cabero-Almenara et al., 2020). Because of the pervasiveness of modern technologies in our lives, students now have different needs, goals, and skill requirements than in previous generations, necessitating the development of new interdisciplinary methodologies to equip them with the necessary competencies to participate and contribute meaningfully to society (Howell, 2012, p. 12). Prensky (2001) maintains that teaching and learning materials in the future will be largely digital and technological, including “software, hardware, robotics, nanotechnology, genomics, etc., it also includes ethics, politics, sociology, languages and other things that go with them” (p. 5). Students use sophisticated digital technologies outside of school on a daily basis. They are often not receptive to traditional teaching tools such as blackboard, chalk, textbooks, paper, and pencil, because these can no longer meet their learning needs. Within digital pedagogy, new instructional methodologies involve the skilled use of digital technologies in teaching so as to significantly increase engagement and motivation for learning. Students need to gain experience in formal learning using the latest digital technologies, because these will enable them to acquire relevant knowledge, and develop critical thinking, problem-solving and other skills and abilities related to specific teaching areas. The use of digital technologies in the classroom may also contribute to building the foundation of lifelong learning. Howell (2012) believes that “effective learning in school that is rich in digital technologies will ensure learning longer through life” (p. 13). Tapscott (2009) claims that as the type of jobs and the labor market itself are changing, people can return to school to be retrained in a particular field. And for teachers in the digital age, he proposes seven strategies: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Don’t throw technology into the classroom and hope for good things. Cut back on lecturing. Empower students to collaborate. Focus on lifelong learning, not teaching to the text. Use technology to get to know each student. Design educational programs according to the eight norms (choice, customization, 7. transparency, integrity, collaboration, fun, speed and innovation in learning experiences). 8. Reinvent yourself as a teacher or educator. (Tapscott, 2009, p. 148) Digital pedagogy entails a readiness to improvise, experiment, and respond to new environments. The digital pedagogue seeks options, rejects LMS limitations, invites students to participate in the learning process, creates networked learning, and is mindful in practice (Sean, 2013). Furthermore, digital pedagogy is “less about

20

2 Why Do We Need Digital Pedagogy?

knowing and more a rampant process of unlearning, play, and rediscovery” (Stommel, 2013, para. 12). Online learning accounts for a significant share in education today, yet its quality is occasionally questioned. According to Sharma (2018), the successful implementation of distance learning depends on several factors, such as how teaching units are designed, lessons implemented, and student performance evaluated. Sharma (2018) also highlights the importance of subject planning in the overall development of a course, emphasizing that distance learning should be more than just a repository of online material that students access; they need proper guidance from teachers in order to cultivate the best learning practices. A range of factors must be considered, from student motivation and active learning, to timely student feedback, and effective performance evaluation (Be´cirovi´c, 2017). Blundell et al. (2015) offer a list of extrinsic and intrinsic elements that influence digital pedagogy and the use of digital technology in teaching practice, regardless of whether it takes place online, in hybrid form, or face-to-face: a. Extrinsic factors 1. Access to resources (quantity and type of digital tools, approaches, technical support, and time for learning and planning); 2. Institutional factors (school culture, leadership, planning); 3. Subjects, curriculum and evaluation. (p. 537) b. Intrinsic factors 1. Attitudes and beliefs (attitudes towards innovation, the role of digital technologies in education, pedagogical beliefs, self-efficacy and way of thinking); 2. Innovation and routines; 3. Knowledge and skills (technological, pedagogical, and teaching strategies); and 4. Teacher vision and ways of thinking. (p. 539) It is critical to consider both external and internal influences on the way teachers use digital technologies (Blundell et al., 2015). Instructors will be unable to effectively employ digital technology if they do not heed both external and internal influences; as a result, students may lack the exposure necessary to develop digital literacy and competency, as well as other required learning outcomes.

2.5 ODE Expectations ODE may now be well established, but there are still prejudices against it; there is some resistance to accepting it as a “normal” type of education (Xiao, 2022). In addition, the rapid pace of technological change and adaption poses additional challenges to both instructors and students. According to Zawacki-Richter et al.

2.7 Student Expectations

21

(2020) “OEP faces a lack of clarity, lip-service adoption, institutional resistance, and cultural norms that contrast with values of openness and quality concerns” and technological advancements and the expansion of ODL opportunities necessitate new pedagogical strategies (p. 325). Given that technology-enhanced instructions are employed in the majority of the implementation of modern ODE, there is a high expectation and demand from digital pedagogy to provide strategies to improve the quality and efficiency of ODE implementation. Such improvements may result in less resistance to ODE; it may become a “normal form of education,” improve its reputation and gain wider acceptance among academics, students, parents, and other stakeholders.

2.6 Parental Expectations Although the introduction of digital technologies was expected to revolutionize education, this has not yet been the case (Howard & Mozejko, 2015). The lack of access to digital technologies, often for socioeconomic reasons, has created a digital divide between students and teachers, and among students as well. This means that digital technologies cannot always be used in meaningful and efficient ways. Yet for digital pedagogy to fulfill its role in helping students develop twenty-first century digital competencies, schools must be adequately equipped. Ideally, there should be no major differences in the types of equipment and devices used by students at school and the types used at home. Parents expect schools to procure and maintain functioning digital technologies in order to equip their children with the necessary knowledge, competencies, skills, and learning experiences. Parents and guardians expect schools to help their children develop the ability to search, evaluate, and use online data responsibly; to appreciate the importance of security in online environments; to protect their own and others’ privacy; and to impart the ethical use of digital tools. A primary expectation held by parents and guardians is that schools adequately prepare and educate their students for future employment in the workforce. In tandem with other relevant factors, digital pedagogy may make a significant and positive contribution to fulfilling these expectations and demands.

2.7 Student Expectations Computer-assisted learning, also known as technology-based learning, has given rise to a new theory of learning which is innovative at its core, and which changes the way students learn (Howell, 2012). Today’s students must rely on their teachers, as digital pedagogues, to utilize digital technologies skillfully and effectively. Only in this way can students themselves acquire the essential digital skills and competencies required for the future, and avoid digital illiteracy (Parry, 2009). Devi and McGarry (2013)

22

2 Why Do We Need Digital Pedagogy?

point out that “the interaction between technology, learner and teacher synergizes the learning process” (pp. 43–44). The role of the teacher in the digital learning environment should be the role of co-collaborator or eModerator (Howell, 2012; Pelz, 2019). As students use information technology ever more extensively, the way they think is also changing. In contemporary education, students must be taught to think on different levels. They must swiftly adapt to the digital environment in order to receive digital content delivered via modern technologies, but they must also use digital media to demonstrate their knowledge and abilities, and achieve their own goals. Educators must do more than teach students to be consumers of digital teaching content; they must be trained to use digital tools and technologies to solve problems, employ and refine their creativity, and to develop the skills and abilities required for each respective school subject (Anderson, 2020) as well as their future vocation. Simply put, students expect educational institutions to provide them with the knowledge and competencies that will allow them to adapt to the uncertainties resulting from rapid change.

2.8 Conclusion In the new information-driven era, global competition and new technologies are changing the ways people think and live. Traditional pedagogical concepts are no longer sufficient to train young people as workers because the global economy and jobs in the digital age require new knowledge, skills, and competencies. Both curricula and teaching and learning methods need to respond well to the new needs of students and society. Instructors in contemporary education are urged to integrate digital instruction into the education process, because many digital tools have the potential to improve teaching performance and, consequently, learning outcomes. In the future, the use of digital technologies will be much broader, more efficient, and diverse in the educational process. The implementation of digital pedagogy in the classroom must serve a range of needs and expectations, including those originating in students, parents, and educational authorities as well as in general pedagogy, ODE, and society as a whole. The different stakeholders share one common expectation, namely that teachers should implement digital pedagogy in a successful and effective way by integrating digital technologies into the teaching process. Only this will enable students to acquire the necessary knowledge and competencies required for successful participation in modern society. Contemporary pedagogical expectations of digital pedagogy are based on the notion that innovative teaching methodologies mean using digital tools and resources in the classroom in a purposeful way. When used correctly, these tools can boost student engagement and motivation for learning. Yet the implementation of digital pedagogy requires additional skills and abilities on the part of the instructor. Educational authorities expect schools and teachers to receive permanent professional

References

23

training in the use of modern digital technologies in their daily teaching activities. It is critical to organize ongoing training to assist teachers in forming positive attitudes towards digital technologies and in gaining the experience, abilities, and skills they need to successfully employ digital tools and resources in the teaching and learning process. Future research should focus on determining the extent to which educational institutions prepare students for the labor market in specific geographic regions, and which changes would be necessary for improvement. More research on attitudes towards technology-mediated teaching and learning, and satisfaction levels among students, instructors, and parents is required so as to develop new and improved strategies for digital pedagogy. Finally, future research should explore what teachers need (e.g. specific tools, training, support) to be able to successfully implement digital pedagogy in order to fulfill the needs and expectations of their students and other stakeholders.

References Anderson, V. (2020). A digital pedagogy pivot: Re-thinking higher education practice from an HRD perspective. Human Resource Development International, 23(4), 452–467. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13678868.2020.1778999 Be´cirovi´c, S. (2017). The relationship between gender, motivation and achievement in learning English as a foreign language. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 6(2), 210–220. https://doi.org/10.13187/ejced.2017.2.210 Be´cirovi´c, S., & Akbarov, A. (2015). Impact of social changes on teacher’s role and responsibilities in the educational system. The Journal of Linguistic and Intercultural Education, 8, 21–34. https:// doi.org/10.29302/jolie.2015.8.2 Birzina, R., Fernate, A., Luka, I., Maslo, I., & Surikova, S. (2012). E-learning as a challenge for widening of opportunities for improvement of students’ generic competences. E-Learning and Digital Media, 9, 130–142. https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2012.9.2.130 Blundell, C., Lee, K.-T., & Nykvist, S. (2015). Conceptualising the challenge of integrating digital technologies in pedagogy. In G. Finger & P. S. Ghirelli (Eds.), Educators on the edge: Big ideas for change and innovation (pp. 44–51). Australian College of Educators (ACE). https://www.aus tcolled.com.au/documents/item/165 Cabero-Almenara, J., Gutiérrez-Castillo, J.-J., Palacios-Rodríguez, A., & Barroso-Osuna, J. (2020). Development of the teacher digital competence validation of DigCompEdu Check-In questionnaire in the University Context of Andalusia (Spain). Sustainability, 12(15), Article 15. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su12156094 Devi, A., & McGarry, A. (2013). Online pedagogy: Reaching out to the “hard-to-reach” learners. Journal of Assistive Technologies, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1108/17549451311313200 Howard, S. K., & Mozejko, A. (2015). Considering the history of digital technologies in education. In M. Henderson & G. Romero (Eds.), Teaching and digital technologies: Big issues and critical questions (pp. 157–168). Cambridge University Press. Howell, J. (2012). Teaching with ICT: Digital pedagogies for collaboration and creativity. Oxford University Press. Krismiyati. (2013). Bringing technology into the classroom through digital storytelling. Asia Pacific Collaborative Education Journal, 9(2), 1–10. Luchoomun, D., Mcluckie, J., & Van Wesel, M. (2010). Collaborative e-Learning: e-Portfolios for assessment, teaching and learning. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 8(1), 21–30.

24

2 Why Do We Need Digital Pedagogy?

Parry, D. (2009, July 24). On what it would mean to really teach “naked.” https://outsidethetext. com/2009/07/24/on-what-it-would-mean-to-really-teach-naked/ Pelz, B. (2019). (My) three principles of effective online pedagogy. Online Learning, 8(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v8i3.1819 Pillay, H., Boulton-Lewis, G., & Wilss, L. (2004). Changing workplace environments: Implications for higher education. Educational Research Journal, 19(1), 17–42. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants: Part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. https:// doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816 Rorabaugh, P. (2012, August 6). Occupy the digital: Critical pedagogy and new media. Hybrid Pedagogy. https://hybridpedagogy.org/occupy-the-digital-critical-pedagogy-and-new-media/ Sean, M. M. (2013, March 5). Decoding digital pedagogy, pt. 1: Beyond the LMS. Hybrid Pedagogy. https://hybridpedagogy.org/decoding-digital-pedagogy-pt-1-beyond-the-lms/ Sharma, R. C. (2018). Innovative applications of online pedagogy and course design. IGI Global. Stommel, J. (2013, March 5). Decoding digital pedagogy, pt. 2: (Un)Mapping the terrain. Hybrid Pedagogy. https://hybridpedagogy.org/decoding-digital-pedagogy-pt-2-unmapping-the-terrain/ Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing your world. McGraw Hill Professional. Tschida, C. M., Hodge, E. M., & Schmidt, S. W. (2017). Learning to teach online: Negotiating issues of platform, pedagogy, and professional development. In Information Resources Management Association (Ed.), Educational leadership and administration: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 2092–2113). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-16248.ch096 UNESCO ICT competency framework for teachers: Version 3. (2018). United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Xiao, J. (2022). Introduction to history, theory, and research in ODDE. In Handbook of open, distance and digital education (pp. 1–11). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-03519_1-1 Zawacki-Richter, O., Conrad, D., Bozkurt, A., Aydin, C. H., Bedenlier, S., Jung, I., Stöter, J., Veletsianos, G., Blaschke, L. M., Bond, M., Broens, A., Bruhn, E., Dolch, C., Kalz, M., Kerres, M., Kondakci, Y., Marin, V., Mayrberger, K., Müskens, W., … Xiao, J. (2020). Elements of open education: An invitation to future research. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 21(3), 319–334. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v21i3.4659

Chapter 3

The Role of Digital Pedagogy in Fostering Digital Literacy in Students

3.1 Introduction It is established practice in all educational systems to teach students the elements of literacy and numeracy in preschool or in the primary grades of elementary school. Yet as modern digital technologies become increasingly present in daily life and the classroom, other kinds of skills are also required for effective participation in the digital world. The rapid development of information technology also influences the way people think, communicate and collaborate (Rizvi´c & Be´cirovi´c, 2017). Even around the start of digitalization, Prensky—who helped popularize the terms “digital immigrant” and “digital native” to describe those who grew up in the analogue and digital ages, respectively—observed that students at the time were processing information in a fundamentally different way than their predecessors (Prensky, 2001). This gives rise to a central question: how can today’s educators and educational systems best prepare students for their digital futures? As part of their education, students must acquire the knowledge, competencies, and skills necessary for success in the digital age. Modern technologies enable both the young and the old to establish connections, cultivate relationships, and collaborate with people from all parts of the world. It is important for students to learn how to communicate and collaborate efficiently using digital tools in virtual environments. Understanding how one can become a good digital citizen, and what digital citizenship entails, is also an important goal. Digital pedagogy can help achieve these objectives by providing instructors with strategies for teaching digital literacy as a key competence in the digital era. Digital literacy presents certain challenges for educational policy, pedagogy, and research (Lankshear & Knobel, 2015). Yet there are many benefits to teaching digital literacy, from enhanced safety in online environments and improved health and emotional wellness in the digital world, to prevention of cyberbullying and an increased sense of digital responsibility (Nina, 2019). However, because digital

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. Be´cirovi´c, Digital Pedagogy, SpringerBriefs in Open and Distance Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-0444-0_3

25

26

3 The Role of Digital Pedagogy in Fostering Digital Literacy in Students

technologies are continually evolving and occasionally disruptive, skills and competencies in using them must be taught from early childhood, both at home and at school, and in both formal and informal educational settings (Richardson & Milovidov, 2019). Digital pedagogues must help students develop digital literacy so as to participate responsibly, ethically, and safely in the virtual world. In recent years, universities and educational institutions around the world have implemented digital teaching methods and transferred many courses and study programs online; it is today nearly impossible to teach or learn without using digital technologies. Digital literacy is thus fundamental to both teaching and learning. This chapter defines digital literacy and explains its significance before elaborating various approaches to teaching it, and to cultivating digital citizenship.

3.2 What is Digital Literacy? While digital literacy has been a media buzzword in recent years, it is in fact an interdisciplinary topic with relevance to a great number of fields, including education, languages, media, communications, information technologies, economics, and more. The term “digital literacy” is sometimes used interchangeably with related terms such as information literacy, web literacy, multiliteracies, media and information literacy, media literacy, and digital competence (Mutta et al., 2014, p. 228) as well as computer literacy, internet literacy, and multi-modal literacy (Falloon, 2020). Digital literacy is not defined in the exact same way by all, but experts generally agree on its main features. It is more than simply consuming and sending communication messages via digital media or posting on social networks. Similarly, reading books online or on other digital devices does not automatically indicate digital literacy. This is not to imply that online reading is inferior, but digital literacy entails more than just being able to open and browse digital pages. Digital literacy enables users to make best use of the affordances of digital technologies, such as deciding when and how to use embedded resources like hyperlinks, audio clips, graphs, or other visualizations encountered when consuming online texts (What Is Digital Literacy and Why Does It Matter?, 2019). Digital literacy is not the same as computer literacy because it demands critical thinking skills, awareness of online behavioral norms, and an understanding of how digital technologies can be used to foment social conflict (Digital Literacy in the Classroom. How Important Is It?, 2017). Digital literacy requires the ability to think critically, assess the reliability of information, but also contextualize, analyze, and synthesize content found online (Fieldhouse & Nicholas, 2008). Digital literacy thus implies employment of technical and cognitive abilities to search, evaluate, appropriately use, produce, and share digital content with the help of digital technologies. Martin (2008) delineates the following key elements of digital literacy: a. Digital literacy involves being able to carry out successful digital actions embedded within work, learning, leisure, and other aspects of everyday life;

3.3 The Importance of Digital Literacy

27

b. Digital literacy, for the individual, will therefore vary according to his/her particular life situation and also be an ongoing lifelong process developing as the individual’s life situation evolves; c. Digital literacy is broader than ICT literacy and will include elements drawn from several related “digital literacies”; d. Digital literacy involves acquiring and using knowledge, techniques, attitudes and personal qualities and will include the ability to plan, execute and evaluate digital actions in the solution of life tasks; e. It also includes the ability to be aware of oneself as a digitally literate person, and to reflect on one’s own digital literacy development. (p. 166) Spires and Bartlett (2012) differentiate between three categories of “cognitive and social processes” in digital literacy (Fig. 3.1): “(a) locating and consuming digital content, (b) creating digital content, and (c) communicating digital content” (p. 9). They maintain that in order to be successful, students must be able to search for web resources; and because creating digital materials can be motivating for students, this implies that their greater incorporation in the teaching process is required (Spires & Bartlett, 2012). Put another way, when instructors facilitate the use of technologybased tools in the classroom, this “opens the door to the whole universe” and enables students to “learn anywhere, anytime, and about anything” (Loveless, n.d., para. 17). Teaching students how to search for and effectively use relevant content is an essential task for teachers in implementing digital pedagogy. These and other digital literacy skills will be essential to navigating the increasingly complex digital environments of the future.

3.3 The Importance of Digital Literacy Modern educators are now teaching the generations of students born between the early 1980s and the early to mid-2000s, and variously known as Millennials, Generations X, Y, and Z, or the Net generation (Medlock et al., 2017), most of whom grew up using modern digital technologies. For them, online communication is routine and serves as a crucial tool for establishing and maintaining relationships (Nina, 2019). Existing and emerging technologies also help extend learning outside of classroom walls and encourage lifelong learning and knowledge sharing (Loveless, n.d.). Information and communication technologies have “transformed the practices of literacy” (Cabero-Almenara, Gutiérrez-Castillo, et al., 2020, p. 1). The rapid advancement of information and communication technology has made digital literacy a basic skill required by most individuals: even the use of today’s advanced and “smart” home appliances requires some knowledge of modern technology. In the same way, digital literacy is a key competence in contemporary education. Being digitally literate directly and significantly impacts student performance. Digital literacy must be taught starting at a young age, because it forms the foundation for learning

28

3 The Role of Digital Pedagogy in Fostering Digital Literacy in Students

Fig. 3.1 Digital literacies (Adapted from Spires & Bartlett, 2012)

and developing many of the skills required for effective participation in social and work-related activities. The use of digital technologies in delivering various educational content has the potential to improve teachers’ efficacy and students’ learning. Likewise, digital literacy is helpful in teaching and learning all school subjects. An approach that involves the teacher standing in front of the students and verbally explaining the teaching unit becomes a thing of the past. Effective application of digital educational tools exposes students to a more efficient teaching experience, enables them to master teaching content more easily and profoundly, and to store it in long-term memory. Similarly, deep learning, which is difficult to achieve and which comprises six essential skills: collaboration, creativity, critical thinking, citizenship, character, and communication, is an essential component of digital literacy in pedagogy (Digital Literacy in the Classroom. How Important Is It?, 2017). Furthermore, there are five ways in which digital literacy makes learning more effective: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Take learning everywhere Interact with peers Constant connection with teachers Work at their own pace Decreases behavior issues (Loveless, n.d.).

3.4 Teaching Digital Literacy

29

There are potential dangers in neglecting to cultivate important components of digital literacy. As the authors of a Council of Europe report warn, decision- and policymakers must recognize that a dearth of Digital Citizenship Education (DCE) may result in “youth exclusion if such basic literacy is not provided in order to empower them as citizens and as creative and critical actors” (Frau-Meigs et al., 2017, p. 53). In 2017, the UK educational authorities recognized the importance of digital literacy as a “fourth pillar” of education: We agree with the Digital Skills Committee that no child should leave school without an adequate standard of digital literacy. It is the view of this Committee that digital literacy should be the fourth pillar of a child’s education alongside reading, writing and mathematics, and be resourced and taught accordingly. (House of Lords, 2017, para. 317)

Yet because digital technologies themselves are neither neutral nor unbiased, certain complications in their use and implementation are inevitable, as Koehler and Mishra (2009) concede. The very affordances of digital technologies that make them especially advantageous, beneficial, or convenient teaching tools, can also be abused. Students may be exposed to cyberbullying, identity theft, data theft, sexting, fake news, intrusive online advertising, and more. Users run the risk of revealing private information online, whether on purpose or by accident, by accessing certain accounts, shopping online, and sharing content on social media, as “devices collect data about them, internet algorithms, companies, third parties, data miners, and the internet of things (e.g., voice-activated technologies)” (James et al., 2019, p. 21). Students lacking digital literacy are particularly vulnerable to fraudsters and bullies on social media, even more so if they are socially isolated, as was the case during widespread pandemic lockdowns. Together, this can lead to “feelings of inadequacy, detachment, isolation, and even the development of mental health issues” as students compare their own lives to the “often-fabricated online lives of others” (Digital Literacy in the Classroom. How Important Is It?, 2017, para. 12). Cultivating digital literacy means imparting awareness of safety and privacy protection in the digital sphere, and encouraging healthy online behaviors that facilitate emotional, social, and personal growth. Digital literacy is inextricably linked with the safety of students in digital environments. When educators teach students to be digitally literate, they are also addressing legitimate parental and societal concerns about the effects of digital technologies on children and young people.

3.4 Teaching Digital Literacy Today’s young people live, play, communicate, and learn in very different ways compared to previous generations, who came of age in a pre-digital era. The prevalence of electronic devices, and the smartphone in particular, means that many characteristic aspects of daily life for young people take place in digital environments: using social networks to communicate with friends, consuming and creating videos and music using apps, or playing games online rather than on a playing field. Given

30

3 The Role of Digital Pedagogy in Fostering Digital Literacy in Students

these changes, it would appear that using a blackboard to teach to a classroom of students holding pencils may very well be a thing of the past. Educational policies must respond to these social changes as well as market demands by adapting curricula and teaching methods to real-world needs. As society becomes increasingly digitalized, a key aim is to ensure that students are prepared to adapt to, and move with, these changes so as to participate effectively in all fields of endeavor, whether social, economic, technological, scientific, or cultural. The efficient use of digital technologies in the cultivation of digital literacy has potential to not only improve learning outcomes in a wide range of school subjects, but also enable students to excel in their future occupations. Many educational systems recognize the importance of incorporating digital literacy and competencies as a formal educational goal (Lankshear & Knobel, 2015). However, teaching digital literacy cannot be effectively implemented without adequate technology. As a result, modern schools must supply adequate equipment such as tablets or laptops, and invest in various technology tools and resources in order to ensure supportive teaching and learning environments. Students should not be limited to using school textbooks, workbooks, and other print-based educational materials; from an early age, they should enjoy access to e-books, web platforms, various software apps, movies, and the like. Loveless (n.d.) lists the following basic technological requirements for starting digital literacy programs in primary and secondary schools (grades K-12): ● Technology devices, such as tablets, desktop computers or laptop computers for every student ● Broadband connection ● Classroom website where students, teachers and parents can view updates and classroom events and assignments ● Digital calendars that are updated with daily assignments, due dates and other classroom events ● Email addresses for all the students (for students in higher grades to interact on their own mobile devices) ● Develop e-safety procedures that protect students from inappropriate content, cyberbullying and predatory behaviors. (Integrating Web-based Technology in the Classroom, para. 2) Numerous digital-based resources are available to help teachers teach digital literacy. These include DigitalLiteracy.gov, the Digital Literacy Resources Roundup from Edutopia, Media Smarts, Edudemic, the Be Internet Awesome Curriculum from Google, the Microsoft Digital Literacy Curriculum, the InCtrl Digital Citizenship Website, Carnegie Cyber Academy, FutEdTech, and Common Sense Education. Several of these resources also include free lesson plans. However, despite the availability of such resources, empirical research conducted by Valdmane et al. (2020) suggests that in addition to technological and curricula requirements, teachers must first be motivated to teach digital literacy and also feel confident enough to do so. Their knowledge levels must be improved so that they feel well equipped to explain

3.4 Teaching Digital Literacy

31

and teach both the concepts and skills necessary for their students to develop digital and media literacy. Students lacking digital literacy face obstacles in learning and may not progress in their schooling. Thus digital literacy should be developed across all levels of education, from primary school to higher education. Furthermore, digital literacy can be incorporated in all school subjects. Loveless (2022) has identified six essential steps in teaching digital literacy to students across different subjects: teach (1) how to find reliable information; (2) effective search techniques; (3) critical thinking online; (4) the ethical use of online resources; (5) the basics of Internet safety; and (6) how to handle online bullying. Stenger (2018) augments these widely practiced six steps by proposing inclusion of the following: use social media for learning and collaborating; help students cope with digital distractions; offer “authentic contexts” in learning practice; and “guide students out of their comfort zone” by giving them the necessary tools to navigate digital technologies above and beyond their favorite apps and programs. Of the essential steps in teaching digital literacy outlined above, the very first is to cultivate the skills required to locate relevant and trustworthy information and content. Students who use both cognitive and technical skills to find, evaluate, create, and communicate information are on the best path to becoming “digitally literate, savvy consumers of digital content” (“What Is Digital Literacy and Why Does It Matter?,” 2019, para. 7). Leu et al. (2008) confirm that effective Internet search skills must be developed in students. Specific instruments, such as the Teaching Internet Comprehension to Adolescents (TICA), can help students obtain the prerequisite skills to locate quality information on the Web. A next step in teaching digital literacy is cultivating critical thinking skills in online environments. Digital pedagogues must teach students how to analyze and evaluate content found in digital environments—whether online, via apps, or on social media—because much of this content is not vetted for accuracy or reliability. While some platforms provide helpful and beneficial information, others may offer lowquality and in some cases harmful or dangerous content. Students must be equipped to evaluate the content available to them in a critical manner, because otherwise they cannot determine whether to use it at all, much less use it effectively. What is more, unverified and inferior content can lead students in the wrong direction altogether, thus hindering them from achieving their learning objectives. Given the wealth of material available in various digital-based formats—whether text-based, photos, videos, graphics, or even maps—digital pedagogues must teach students to respect the intellectual property of others. This important step in teaching digital literacy encourages students, many of whom are not yet acquainted with the notion of plagiarism, to use digital resources in an ethically correct way. This includes incorporating and citing sources correctly, obtaining permission from content owners to use their work, and avoiding plagiarism. Teaching awareness of online security and data protection are crucial steps in fostering digital literacy. Students must be aware that in the same way that they are responsible for their own behavior in face-to-face interactions, they are also responsible for their actions in the digital sphere. Cole (2019) suggests that teachers

32

3 The Role of Digital Pedagogy in Fostering Digital Literacy in Students

exhort students to think twice before posting anything on social media and to protect their own privacy by not revealing personal details, like addresses and phone numbers, on the Internet. Digital pedagogy should stress that technology can be used to both beneficial and harmful ends; students can harness digital technologies to ensure they do not fall victim to data theft, or to online harassment. Online bullying is in fact a widespread and serious issue which can negatively impact social and emotional development. However, it can be counteracted using digital literacy and its tools. When digital pedagogues help translate the techniques of traditional etiquette— mainly politeness and respect for others—to digital environments, students may more easily identify and respond to cyberbullies so as to avoid harassment. Teachers’ lack of knowledge, experience, and competency are the most significant barriers to teaching digital literacy. Since today’s many students spend most of their time engulfed in computer games, emails, social networks, mobile phones, and the like, Prensky (2001) calls them Digital Natives. These experiences have aided in developing their digital abilities, which are frequently superior to those of their instructors labeled as Digital Immigrants. Prensky (2001) uses the term Digital Immigrants to refer to teachers who still speak the outdated language of the pre-digital age and struggle to teach students who speak an entirely new language. Similarly, “digital immigrants” limit students’ learning opportunities and the growth of their digital literacy. Digital pedagogy demands the introduction of digital literacy and competencies into teacher preparation programs and in-service training in order to enable them to teach these essential skills to their students because, even if the vast majority of students utilize digital technology on a daily basis, they should be taught how to use it properly and for educational purposes.

3.5 Cultivating Digital Citizenship Schools have traditionally focused on preparing students for quality and productive interactions with people they might meet in person. However, the impact of digital technologies on society means that educational systems must now prepare students to interact responsibly, ethically, safely, and productively in online settings as well. Canan Güngören and ˙Isman (2014) point out that in light of rapid technological twenty-first century development, just as schools have an obligation to train a “good citizen,” they should also train a “digital citizen.” Teaching digital citizenship equips students with the knowledge, skills, and resources they need to succeed, allowing them to learn how to engage responsibly in the digital world and develop self-confidence as leaders who will have a meaningful impact on the lives of others (Nina, 2019). In addition to the term “digital citizenship,” the terms “digital wellness” and “digital ethics” also relate to aspects associated with online behavior. While definitions may vary, digital citizenship generally refers to the use of digital technologies in a responsible, respectful, positive, and effective manner while adhering to legal, ethical, and moral principles. Digital citizenship entails the ability to self-monitor

3.5 Cultivating Digital Citizenship

33

the use of digital technologies in a safe, civic, and non-abusive manner. The Council of Europe describes digital citizenship as: The competent and positive engagement with digital technologies (creating, working, sharing, socializing, investigating, playing, communicating and learning); participating actively and responsibly (values, skills, attitudes, knowledge) in communities (local, national, global) at all levels (political, economic, social, cultural and intercultural); being involved in a double process of lifelong learning (in formal, informal and non-formal settings) and continuously defending human dignity. (A Conceptual Model, n.d., para. 3)

In their explication of digital citizenship, Richardson and Milovidov (2019) also include offline communities, describing the digital citizen as an individual who, through the acquisition of a diverse set of skills, can participate actively, positively, and responsibly in both offline and online communities, whether local, national, or international. They propose five essential pillars for the development of “effective digital citizenship practices” (Fig. 3.2): “policies” and “evaluation” form two framework pillars, while “stakeholders,” and “infrastructures and resources” are key supports for success. “Strategies” are at the heart of the model because they guide practices which enable learners of all ages to reach their full potential as active citizens in today’s and tomorrow’s democracies (Richardson & Milovidov, 2019, p. 15). The rules of interaction that apply in person should also apply in the virtual environment. In practice, school systems are frequently preoccupied with the cognitive development of their students, despite the fact that other developmental components, such as social, emotional, personal, and moral, are also considered highly important and could be significantly affected by online interactions. For this reason, digital pedagogues must cultivate certain behavioral patterns in students in the online environment as well. Likewise, schools must teach students to respect others in their digital environments; follow legal, ethical, and moral rules; direct their use of digital technologies toward positive outcomes; and understand that inappropriate behavior can result in negative outcomes. Although students are expected to be taught to respect everyone equally, research shows that the reality is frequently quite different, particularly in countries with less stringent legal constraints. Various forms of discrimination and racism are often noticeable in online settings (Be´cirovi´c et al., 2019). Individuals hide behind fictitious aliases on the Internet and then humiliate and disparage others. Frau-Meigs et al. (2017) point out that the radicalization of young people on social networks, the rise of fake news and hate speech as well as the crisis of “post-truth” politics have strengthened the need to take decisive steps in the development of DCE. To this end, Zook (2019) differentiates between good digital citizenship and bad digital citizenship, pointing out that “good digital citizenship engages young students and shows them how to connect with one another, empathize with each other, and create lasting relationships through digital tools”; in contrast, “bad” digital citizenship involves “cyberbullying, irresponsible social media usage, and a general lack of knowledge about how to safely use the Internet” (para. 8). In contemporary education, schools have an even greater responsibility and obligation to teach students to become digital citizens, along with all the qualities that

34

3 The Role of Digital Pedagogy in Fostering Digital Literacy in Students

Fig. 3.2 Digital citizenship domains (Richardson & Milovidov, 2019, p. 15)

this concept entails. The following topics are perceived to be central to teaching and thus cultivating digital citizenship: digital and information literacy; internet safety; privacy and security; cyberbullying and relationships; etiquette and communication; digital divides; creative credit and copyright, self-image and identity; digital footprint; balancing technology use; digital commerce; and digital health and wellness. Students at all levels should be educated in these areas to promote good digital citizenship, as they have the potential to deter inappropriate and even criminal behavior. Teachers should act as role models in online interactions in the same way as they are expected to be in face-to-face interactions; digital pedagogues should exemplify the norms of online behavior. There are numerous opportunities and strategies for teaching digital citizenship by implementing digital pedagogy. Nearly every school subject offers potential for the use of digital pedagogical tools to impart digital citizenship; teachers must be supported in incorporating digital citizenship into existing curricula and lesson plans. One of the best ways to teach it is to expose students to the practice, and provide them with resources and quality examples. Some valuable and useful resources for teaching digital citizenship include Infographic: I’m a Digital Citizen; Common Sense Media; Digital Citizenship in Education; Digital Citizenship in Action; Our

3.6 Conclusion

35

Space: Being a Responsible Citizen of the Digital World; Everything You Need to Teach Digital Citizenship; and Digital Community, Digital Citizen. In addition to using the above-listed resources, digital pedagogues may use their daily lessons to link various topics to aspects of digital citizenship, thus helping students develop the awareness, attitudes, values, and norms necessary for effective communication and collaboration in the online environment. For example, students may use digital tools in hands-on, collaborative digital citizenship education projects, and present results to the rest of the class. They could test their information location skills by conducting online research, then use digital tools to create presentations used as a basis for in-class discussions. Assigning topics of great relevance to students— cyberbullying, data protection, copyright, and plagiarism—may further stimulate discussion and awareness. The use of digital pedagogy to impart digital literacy skills thus works to guide students through the critical thinking process so as to empower them as digital citizens.

3.6 Conclusion The rapid advancement of information technologies has impacted how students think, communicate, and interact. Educational institutions are responsible for preparing students to be lifelong learners, responsible citizens, and constructive contributors to society. Traditional literacy modes have become insufficient and inadequate for training young people to use modern technologies appropriately and efficiently, and to communicate effectively in virtual environments. Although there is no single definition of digital literacy, experts agree on its key characteristics. Digital literacy is the capacity to use digital technology to find, evaluate, use, create, and functionally communicate information. It requires both technical and cognitive skills. Digital literacy is a major challenge for educational policy, digital pedagogy, and research in the field. In addition to their core mission of educating responsible citizens, modern educators must now also educate responsible digital citizens. This includes teaching students to respect others in their virtual interactions; comply with legal, ethical, and moral norms and standards; recognize that inappropriate technology use can have negative consequences; and promote the use of digital technology for positive purposes. Teaching digital citizenship equips students with the knowledge, competencies, skills, and experiences they need for successful interaction in digital environments. Digital pedagogy should strengthen teacher motivation, understanding, and knowledge of digital literacy. Likewise, teachers must be trained and supported to build the digital skills and competencies of their students. Digital literacy not only facilitates learning in all subjects in the modern educational environment; given the prevalence of digital technologies in daily life, it has become essential for lifelong learning. Cultivating digital literacy and citizenship includes, yet goes beyond, teaching students to respect others and interact considerately in digital environments.

36

3 The Role of Digital Pedagogy in Fostering Digital Literacy in Students

Students must be made aware of the possible dangers in the digital sphere and use due care when offering or exchanging personal information and communicating online. Digitally literate individuals understand the need for vigilance with regard to online security, data privacy, and protection, and have developed strategies to counteract threats such as cyberbullying and other forms of harassment. Future research in the field should focus on measuring digital literacy levels among students in various geographic regions in order to adapt and improve digital literacy teaching. Furthermore, research should be conducted to determine instructor readiness for teaching digital literacy, and the effects of various digital resources and teaching methods on fostering student digital literacy.

References ˇ Be´cirovi´c, S., Brdarevi´c Celjo, A., & Zavrl, I. (2019). Research into intercultural effectiveness in a multicultural educational milieu in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 32(1), 1336–1351. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2019.1629329 Cabero-Almenara, J., Gutiérrez-Castillo, J.-J., Palacios-Rodríguez, A., & Barroso-Osuna, J. (2020). Development of the teacher digital competence validation of DigCompEdu check-in questionnaire in the University Context of Andalusia (Spain). Sustainability, 12(15), Article 15. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su12156094 Canan Güngören, O., & I¸sman, A. (2014). Digital citizenship. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 13(1), 73–77. Cole, K. (2019). The Epic Guide to Digital Literacy in Education. https://www.schoology.com/ blog/epic-guide-digital-literacy-education Digital literacy in the classroom. How important is it? (2017, April 23). Promethean Blog. https:// resourced.prometheanworld.com/digital-literacy-classroom-important/ Falloon, G. (2020). From digital literacy to digital competence: The teacher digital competency (TDC) framework. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 2449–2472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09767-4 Fieldhouse, M., & Nicholas, D. (2008). Digital literacy as information Savvy: The road to information literacy. In M. Knobel & C. Lankshear (Eds.), Digital literacies concepts, policies and practices. Peter Lang Publishing. Frau-Meigs, D., O’Neill, B., Soriani, A., & Tomé, V. (2017). Digital citizenship education: Overview and new perspectives. Council of Europe. House of Lords. (2017). https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldcomuni/130/ 13004.htm James, C., Weinstein, E., & Mendoza, K. (2019). Teaching digital citizens in today’s world: Research and insights behind the common sense K-12 digital citizenship curriculum. Common Sense Media. Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70. Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2015). Digital literacy and digital literacies: Policy, pedagogy and research considerations for education. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 9(4), 8–20. Leu, D., Henry, L., Castek, J., Hartman, D., Henry, L., & Reinking, D. (2008). Research on instruction and assessment in the new literacies of online reading comprehension. In C. Collins-Bloc, S. Parris, & P. Afferbach (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 321–346). Guilford Press. Loveless, B. (2022, March 10). 6 Essential steps: How to teach digital literacy to your students. Education Corner. https://www.educationcorner.com/how-to-teach-digital-literacy/

References

37

Martin, A. (2008). Digital literacy and the “Digital society.” In C. Lankshear (Ed.), Digital literacies: Concepts, policies and practices (1st ed.). Peter Lang Publishing Inc. Medlock Paul, C., Spires, H., & Kerkhoff, S. (2017). Digital literacy for the 21st century. In Encyclopedia of information science and technology (pp. 2235–2242). IGI-Global. https://doi.org/10. 4018/978-1-5225-7659-4.ch002 Mutta, M., Pelttari, S., Salmi, L., Chevalier, A., & Johansson, M. (2014). Digital literacy in academic language learning contexts: Developing information-seeking competence. In G. Janel Pettes & W. Lawrence (Eds.), Digital literacies in foreign and second language education, 12 (Mongograph Series), 227–244. Calico. Nina, W. (2019). 5 Reasons to teach digital citizenship this school year. GoGuardian. https://www. goguardian.com/blog/learning/5-reasons-to-teach-digital-citizenship-this-school-year/ Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. https:// doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816 Richardson, J., & Milovidov, E. (2019). Digital citizenship education handbook. Council of Europe. https://book.coe.int/en/human-rights-democratic-citizenship-and-interculturalism/ 7851-digital-citizenship-education-handbook.html Rizvi´c, E., & Be´cirovi´c, S. (2017). Willingness to communicate in english as a foreign language in Bosnian-Herzegovinian EFL context. European Researcher, 8(3), 224–235. https://doi.org/10. 13187/er.2017.3.224 Spires, H., & Bartlett, M. (2012). Digital literacies and learning: Designing a path forward. NC State University. Stenger, M. (2018, October 22). 7 ways to teach digital literacy | Tips and tricks for educators. InformED. https://www.opencolleges.edu.au/informed/edtech-integration/7-ways-teach-digitalliteracy/ Valdmane, L., Zari¸na, S., Badjanova, J., Iliško, D., & Petrova, M. (2020). Empowering digital and media literacy of primary school teachers in Latvia. EDULEARN20 Proceedings, 4022–4029. https://doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2020.1087 What is digital literacy and why does it matter? (2019, February 8). Renaissance. https://www.ren aissance.com/2019/02/08/blog-digital-literacy-why-does-it-matter/ Zook, C. (2019). What Is Digital Citizenship & How Do You Teach It? https://www.aeseducation. com/blog/what-is-digital-citizenship

Chapter 4

Digital Competence of Teachers and Students

4.1 Introduction Educational institutions face numerous challenges in times of rapid technological advancement. We are in the midst of a historical period in which sustainable educational practices are being influenced by the spread of technology and its application at all levels of society, necessitating its integration into the educational context (CaberoAlmenara, Gutiérrez-Castillo, et al., 2020). While digital technologies are essential tools in school reform and transformation (Howard & Mozejko, 2015; Valdmane et al., 2020), their successful use requires that schools have adequate technology infrastructure, appropriate curricula, and digitally competent teachers who are able to impart digital skills and abilities to their students through the efficient and structured used of digital tools. Although using digital technologies in the classroom can significantly improve teaching efficiency, Koehler and Mishra (2009) note that teachers frequently lack adequate experience in the use of digital technologies in the teaching process. Many teachers obtained their degrees when digital technologies were at a significantly lower level of development than they are today. Furthermore, numerous studies have shown that the narrow focus on technology and content related to specific subjects (subject-related) does not adequately educate students, and does not provide them with the necessary knowledge and competencies needed in the digital age (Falloon, 2020). Attempts have been made in recent years to foster positive attitudes toward digital technologies, but these efforts have proven insufficient; teachers require a broader and more sophisticated set of competencies, mainly digital (Redecker & Punie, 2017). Due to the crucial role digital competence plays in education and further vocational development, many governments have created policies directed towards students and teachers, especially university instructors, to address its development (Alarcón et al., 2020).

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. Be´cirovi´c, Digital Pedagogy, SpringerBriefs in Open and Distance Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-0444-0_4

39

40

4 Digital Competence of Teachers and Students

Ottestad et al. (2014) claim that no clear strategies for effectively training future teachers to use digital technologies in the teaching process have been forwarded to date. The extent to which teachers cultivate professional digital competencies often depends on their own initiative and enthusiasm. Furthermore, clear articulation of what digital competencies entail, and how they relate to the quality of the teaching and learning process, is often scarce in the teacher training curriculum (Ottestad et al., 2014). This dearth of clear strategies and guidelines regarding digital competencies among both students and teachers—a current topic of often heated debate—points to the need for additional scholarly research. Teachers must possess digital competencies in order to implement digital pedagogy; it follows that digital competencies are indispensable to becoming successful educators. Thus teacher training and the cultivation of digital competencies are central and key elements in cultivating the kind of pedagogical knowledge needed for effective teaching in the digital age (Viberg et al., 2020). Furthermore, the increasing importance of developing teacher competencies should be viewed in the context of lifelong learning (Cabero-Almenara, Gutiérrez-Castillo, et al., 2020). Students need digital competencies to cope effectively with social and economic change, and to participate fully and actively in information societies (Reiso˘glu & Çebi, 2020). However, statistics indicate that 42% of the overall EU population, and 20% of young people, lack fundamental digital skills (ALL DIGITAL WEEKS, 2022). Some forms of education, such as ODE (as an increasingly widespread mode of distance teaching and learning) require both students and teachers to possess high digital competence levels. Digital pedagogy is concerned with strategies which assist teachers and students in acquiring digital competencies, then applying them effectively in the teaching and learning process. These skills may be applied in extracurricular activities and other contexts as well. This chapter first defines digital competencies, then discusses the resources and opportunities for improving the digital competencies of teachers, as well as those for fostering digital competencies in students.

4.2 Defining Digital Competence While the term “digital competence” is often encountered in the media and in public debate, its meaning and area of application are not clearly defined (Spante et al., 2018). There are in fact varying definitions of this complex and multidimensional concept. Digital competence is the bundle of knowledge, technical skills, beliefs, capabilities, and awareness which enables people to use digital technology in a meaningful way so as to construct knowledge; communicate; collaborate; perform tasks; manage information; solve problems; and use, create and share digital content. For teachers, digital competence involves attitudes, knowledge, awareness, skills, and the ability to use digital technologies in various educational tasks. These include designing and presenting instructional content; conducting research; communicating and networking; and collaborating with others.

4.2 Defining Digital Competence

41

Other approaches to determining what digital competence entails include the “Key Competences for Lifelong Learning,” a document published by the European Parliament. In it, digital competency is one of eight key competencies, and is “underpinned by basic skills in ICT: the use of computers to retrieve, assess, store, produce, present and exchange information, and to communicate and participate in collaborative networks via the Internet” (“Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on Key Competences for Lifelong Learning,” 2006, p. 16). DIGCOMP: A Framework for Developing and Understanding Digital Competence in Europe, identifies five areas of digital competence: information, communication, content creation, safety, and problem-solving, each of which are described in terms of knowledge, skills, and attitudes (Ferrari, 2013). Spante et al. (2018) consider digital literacy and digital competencies to be synonymous. In contrast, Ilomäki et al. (2011) describe digital competence as a combination of technical skills; the ability to use digital technologies; the ability to critically evaluate digital technologies; and the motivation to participate in the digital culture (p. 8). According to Krumsvik (2011), teacher digital competence refers to the teacher’s ability to use ICT in a professional setting while maintaining sound pedagogical-didactic judgment, as well as awareness of the implications for students’ learning methodologies and digital education. The model of teacher digital competence (Fig. 4.1) developed by Krumsvik (2011) includes four core components: basic ICT skills, didactic ICT competence, learning strategies, and digital education. At a fundamental level, complex digital competence in teachers comprises the confluence of cognition, metacognition, motor skills, learning strategies, self-efficacy, and pedagogical-didactic skills. Krumsvik points to the need for teachers to acquire digital competencies because, when applied to teachers, digital competence goes beyond mere technical or “practical” proficiency (Krumsvik, 2011). Redecker (2017) asserts that proficiency in designing, planning, and implementing the use of digital technology at various levels of the learning process is strongly connected to the teacher’s own digital competency. Aspects such as prior training and education, age, and even gender may also play a role. For example, a 2020 study by Grande-de-Prado et al. (2020) revealed marked differences between men and women with respect to digital competence: men tend to use digital technologies primarily for technical and training purposes, and exhibit significantly higher levels of digital competence. Men display greater general interest in digital content, are better at information management and online collaboration; they use computers as their sole device for browsing, downloading, and streaming. They also have greater confidence in their ability to fix technical problems related to their devices. Women in this study, on the other hand, tend to use mobile phones as their primary device, and often use digital technologies for social purposes. They are often more skilled in using social networks and in utilizing digital technologies for text and image processing, and for graphic design-related activities (Grande-de-Prado et al., 2020). It is challenging for teachers to keep up with the pace of digital technology development (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). Yet teacher competencies must be reviewed in

42

4 Digital Competence of Teachers and Students

Fig. 4.1 Model of digital competence for teachers and teacher education (Adapted from: Krumsvik, 2011, p. 45)

parallel with larger changes and reforms, because teachers drive change in education (Valdmane et al., 2020). There is no doubt that the Covid pandemic accelerated all processes related to the digital competence of both teachers and students. Although numerous models for using digital technologies in the teaching process had been developed prior to the pandemic, circumstances forced educational authorities to make quick decisions on the comprehensive use of digital technologies in the educational process, regardless of whether teachers possessed the requisite digital competencies or experience. Thus the pandemic forced the implementation of online learning and, in turn, has accelerated the development of teachers’ digital competence.

4.3 Developing Digital Competence in Teachers: Resources and Opportunities Information and communication technologies are important tools in teacher education because they promote meaningful learning and contribute to professional performance, development, management, and organization of educational resources (Grande-de-Prado et al., 2020). Although governments and educational authorities

4.3 Developing Digital Competence in Teachers: Resources and Opportunities

43

make important decisions about the digitalization of education, in addition to undertrained staff and underdeveloped digital competencies, educational institutions also face the problem of insufficient digital tools and resources to enable and facilitate digitalization. Koehler and Mishra (2009) confirm that social and institutional environments are frequently unconducive to teachers’ attempts to integrate technology into their work. In low and middle-income countries, teachers face even greater difficulties when it comes to accessing resources and opportunities to develop digital competencies, and to use digital technologies in teaching. In the first of two separate studies conducted in Uganda, Tusiime et al. (2019) documented that digital tools (Internet, hardware, software) were lacking, and that only a small number of teachers had access to computers and other ICT tools. In their second study, the authors noted that teachers had no Internet access in any of their classrooms, computer labs, teaching staff rooms, or elsewhere, and that instructors had to use their own personal equipment in the teaching process (Tusiime et al., 2020). This lack of digital resources thus clearly inhibits the development of digital competencies among teachers and prevents them from adapting their teaching methods to meet the needs of modern society. Because resources and opportunities for fostering the digital competence of teachers are crucial to their professional development, educational authorities must provide access to those tools and resources required to improve their own as well as their students’ competencies. Bond and Bedenlier (2019) stress that technological resources also affect teachers’ self-confidence. Van Dijk (2005) describes four successive levels of access to digital technologies (Fig. 4.2): ● Motivational access (motivation to use digital technology), ● Material or physical access (possession of computers and Internet connections or permission to use them and their contents),

Fig. 4.2 Model of successive kinds of access to digital technologies (Adapted from: Van Dijk, 2005)

44

4 Digital Competence of Teachers and Students

● Skills access (possession of digital skills: operational, informational and strategic skills), and ● Usage access (number and diversity of applications, usage time). (p. 21) According to this model, the prerequisites for adopting and using new technologies are motivation, positive attitudes, and the desire to embrace and learn how to use new technologies; these are impacted by a variety of cultural, social, and psychological factors (Van Dijk, 2005). Given sufficient motivation, it is also necessary to provide material or physical access to digital technologies, including hardware and licensed software. This access is further influenced by income and sociodemographic factors such as gender, age, and level of education (Van Dijk, 2005). Three important aspects are related to inequality in access to technology: (1) differences in device opportunities; (2) differences in the diversity of devices and peripherals; and (3) differences in the maintenance costs of devices and peripherals (Van Deursen & Van Dijk, 2019). Once material access has been provided, digital skills must be developed through both formal and informal approaches; Van Dijk (2005) describes these skills as strategic, operational, and informational. The final level in Van Dijk’s (2005) model of successive access to digital technologies is the opportunities for their use, i.e., usage access, which includes needs, obligations, opportunities, and time. With regard to usage access in the teaching process, numerous empirical studies have investigated the frequency, diversity, and efficiency of the utilization of digital technologies at all teaching levels, from preschool to university. Despite action taken by governments and policymakers to encourage and accelerate the digitalization of the educational process, much more must be done, even taking geographic and socioeconomic disparities into account. Educators are expected to develop and improve their digital competencies over the entire course of their careers in order to impart these skills and competencies to their own students. Given the rapid development of digital technologies, current and comprehensive resources must be made available to educators so that they may stay up to date. These may be provided by the educational institutions themselves; by local, regional, and national governments; by external organizations, often not-for-profit; or through collaboration and cooperation with institutions and even foundations. For example, secondary and tertiary educational institutions may apply for funding from numerous international programs which frequently solicit project proposals directly related to digitalization in education and the cultivation of digital competency. These include the European Union’s Erasmus program; the Horizon International Fund; the Jean Monnet program; Cost; Spencer; and others. School administrators should encourage and support instructors in applying for support for professional training and digital resources, as these projects yield benefits for all. Educators can also draw on a wealth of free or low-cost online resources for developing and enhancing digital competencies for professional advancement. A good starting point is All Digital Weeks. This participatory platform promotes digital inclusion and empowerment by way of useful tools (such as assessment tests and training programs), digital toolkits, and regular events, all of which are easily located

4.4 Fostering Digital Competence in Students

45

thanks to indices and embedded links. Some of the courses featured include Certiport, MyDigiSkills, IC3 Digital Literacy Certification and DigComp, Online Collaboration Skills Barometer, HP Life, Media Information Literacy, IC3 Digital Literacy Certification, Be Strong Online, Who am I? and Learn My Way. If teachers are suitably motivated, there are numerous opportunities available to learn, adopt, and achieve proficiency with digital technologies and to enhance digital competence.

4.4 Fostering Digital Competence in Students A systematic literature review of 126 peer-reviewed articles conducted by SánchezCaballé et al. (2020) determined that university students are lacking in digital competence and thus require the support of educational institutions in developing what is “so necessary in the context of 21st-century education” (p. 63). These sobering findings are further evidence of what Whitworth (2020) has criticized, namely that the educational systems and teaching approaches required to develop digital competencies in students have not yet materialized in higher education. Yet in order for students to fully and actively participate in today’s digitally transformed society, they must be digitally competent. Digital competence is linked to success in education and employment, and thus future prosperity. Being able to use digital tools capably and responsibly is crucial to communication and collaboration in today’s media ecosystems. Because digital competence is so central to our lives, educational systems must prioritize the development of digital competence in our students, starting at an early age. Many international organizations have already prioritized digital competency as critical for social inclusion, active civic involvement, and long-term success in today’s society (Castaño Muñoz et al., 2021; Lucas, 2019). Establishing the broader context for developing digital competence is an important first step. For example, pedagogical requirements for teaching digital competence should be established at a national level by developing policies, strategies, and goals for technology integration in the classroom (Demchyk et al., 2021). Ideally, educational authorities should design national, regional, and institutional digital competence development strategies that are frequently updated and adapted to accommodate the most recent technological advancements. Such strategies should also address existing educational policies, curricula, lesson plans, courses, including general university-level programs (Sánchez-Caballé et al., 2020). Teaching and acquiring digital competence should be perceived as a continuum on which learners proceed, step by step, as they use an ever-expanding range of digital devices and applications (Pöntinen & Räty-Záborszky, 2020). In recent years, the expectations set for professional educators have become more demanding (Be´cirovi´c et al., 2022); teachers are expected to be able to help their students develop digital competence (Lucas, 2019). There are two main approaches

46

4 Digital Competence of Teachers and Students

for teachers to do so. The first approach perceives the development of digital competencies in students to be embedded in the overall curriculum, and employs instructional strategies as a key objective (Lucas, 2019; Sánchez-Caballé et al., 2020). This curriculum describes specific goals, teaching methods, and intended learning outcomes so as to assist instructors in developing and enhancing the digital competencies of their students. This approach is consistent with the European Union’s vision of a curriculum that enables students to participate in a digital society in a creative and critical way (Redecker & Punie, 2017); put another way, for digital competence to grow, it must be “nurtured, it needs to be scaffolded through learning and, ultimately, it needs to be fit for purpose” (Coldwell-Neilson, 2021). It is important, however, to note that digital competence development means more than simply learning how to use one or more digital tools or platforms. Empirical research conducted by CabezasGonzález et al. (2021) revealed that even among students who very frequently use online digital tools and social networks “a lot [of them] have lower levels of digital competence” (p. 1). The second main approach to cultivating digital competence is related to the overall school culture itself, as it may have a significant impact on the development of digital competencies. When instructors use digital technologies and promote their advantages in the classroom setting, students will use them more frequently, thus bolstering their own digital competencies. However, even though digital tools may be employed in the educational setting, the goal may not necessarily be to cultivate students’ digital competencies per se, but rather to impart knowledge on specific subjects or topics. The fact that students acquire digital competencies may thus be a side effect rather than the main effect of learning (Berger & Wolling, 2019). However, students may in fact expect their instructors to focus on the acquisition of digital competence by directly and systematically supporting and guiding them in the process (Sánchez-Caballé et al., 2020). In order to do so, instructors must be motivated and technically proficient, and stay up to date with the most current digital tools and technologies (Demchyk et al., 2021). Digital pedagogues should prioritize the development of their students’ digital competencies as a crucial and essential teaching objective (Sánchez-Caballé et al., 2020). Teachers can utilize a variety of strategies to help students acquire and enhance their digital abilities, particularly when they lead by example by using digital teaching tools and materials in in a capable way. Existing platforms such as Google Meet, Microsoft Teams, Zoom, and Webex can be used as online classrooms to facilitate interaction, communication, and collaboration; other established platforms that can be used to hone digital competencies include Moodle, LMS, Kahoot, Antolin, Code.org, Skooly, Geogebra, Lego Mindstorm & WeDo, Scratch, Quizlet, Lernmax, Learningapps.org, and Bee Bot. Digital pedagogues can require their students to use digital resources to complete tasks: for example, assigning collaborative writing assignments using Google Docs, LaTex, or GitHub; producing videos; programming websites; creating e-books, designing and holding presentations; conducting research; and designing, developing, and distributing OER. Using digital tools enables digital skills to develop into digital capabilities. Moreover, according to the findings of a study carried out by Castaño Muñoz et al. (2021), digital technology in

4.5 Conclusion

47

cross-curricular projects is the instructional technique most closely associated with developing learners’ digital competence. Diverse approaches to digital pedagogy have an impact on the design, delivery, and quality of the learning experience. In order to effectively develop digital competencies in students, teaching should be student-centered. Furthermore, given the rapid pace of technological change, the development of digital competencies should be considered a continuous and lifelong process. In addition, because schools are responsible for training students to be capable, responsible, lifelong learners who contribute positively to society, and because teaching digital competencies and citizenship crosses curricular lines, digital pedagogues and students must be able to adapt to changes and advancements in modern technologies.

4.5 Conclusion Teaching practices are being modified in modern education due to the rapid development and spread of digital technologies. Many governments are developing digital transformation strategies, and educational institutions expect instructors to have the digital competencies needed to integrate digital technologies into the teaching process effectively. As teachers in modern education face rapidly changing requirements, they need a much broader and more sophisticated set of competencies than in the past. Digital literacy and digital competencies are defined in various ways as complex, multifaceted concepts. Although they have different origins and meanings, these two concepts are sometimes used synonymously. Digital competence entails using digital tools thoughtfully for tasks, recreation, and communication. Digital competence in teachers implies the presence of the appropriate attitudes, knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to use digital technologies and tools in the teaching process. Both teachers and students are frequently lacking in digital competencies. Many teachers acquired their university training when digital technologies were considerably less sophisticated than they are today. Their own teaching approaches are frequently the same or similar to the ones they were taught, and are no longer sufficient to impart the skills and abilities required for digital age. Governments and policymakers must establish the necessary framework for cultivating digital competence by ensuring that educational institutions equip teachers with the digital competencies required to effectively use digital technologies, and to implement digital pedagogy. Given the importance of developing digital competence among teachers, educational authorities must also provide them with the tools and resources they need to enhance their own as well as their students’ digital competencies—a process of lifelong learning that takes place both in and outside the classroom, and which starts at the earliest possible age and continues through all levels of schooling. Curricula should include digital competency development as well as methods and strategies to assist teachers in achieving these objectives. Digital competence-related learning outcomes should be clearly defined. Instructors should further promote digital competence among their students by using digital technologies and tools in

48

4 Digital Competence of Teachers and Students

an effective and engaging way in their own teaching. Moreover, students should become accustomed to using digital technologies to carry out assignments, and to interact with their teachers and fellow students. Instructors have an essential role to play in accompanying their students on the journey to digital competence. Future research in the field should focus on measuring the digital competencies of teachers and students at different levels of age and experience in order to identify, then address, potential issues or shortcomings with concrete improvement measures. Research should also explore the challenges and barriers to developing digital competencies in students and teachers in order to overcome, or eliminate them altogether. Finally, future researchers should measure the effects of various programs, tools, resources, and frameworks on the development of digital competencies in teachers and students.

References Alarcón, R., Jiménez, E. del P., & Vicente-Yagüe, M. I. de. (2020). Development and validation of the DIGIGLO, a tool for assessing the digital competence of educators. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(6), 2407–2421.https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12919 ALL DIGITAL WEEKS. (2022, November 7). https://www.alldigitalweek.eu/ Be´cirovi´c, S., Ahmetovi´c, E., & Skopljak, A. (2022). An examination of students online learning satisfaction, interaction, self-efficacy and self-regulated learning. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 11(1), 16–35. https://doi.org/10.13187/ejced.2022.1.16 Berger, P., & Wolling, J. (2019). They need more than technology-equipped schools: Teachers’ practice of fostering students’ digital protective skills. Media and Communication, 7(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v7i2.1902 Bond, M., & Bedenlier, S. (2019). Facilitating student engagement through educational technology: Towards a conceptual framework. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1(11), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.528 Cabero-Almenara, J., Gutiérrez-Castillo, J.-J., Palacios-Rodríguez, A., & Barroso-Osuna, J. (2020). Development of the teacher digital competence validation of DigCompEdu check-in questionnaire in the University Context of Andalusia (Spain). Sustainability, 12(15), Article 15. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su12156094 Cabezas-González, M., Casillas-Martín, S., & García-Valcárcel Muñoz-Repiso, A. (2021). Basic education students’ digital competence in the area of communication: The influence of online communication and the use of social networks. Sustainability, 13(8), Article 8. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su13084442 Castaño Muñoz, J., Vuorikari, R., Costa, P., Hippe, R., & Kampylis, P. (2021). Teacher collaboration and students’ digital competence—Evidence from the SELFIE tool. European Journal of Teacher Education, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2021.1938535 Coldwell-Neilson, J. (2021, February 4). Developing students’ digital skills through online learning. THE Campus Learn, Share, Connect. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/campus/develo ping-students-digital-literacy Demchyk, K., Pasichnyk, M., Pozharytska, O., Parfeniuk, I., & Tonkykh, O. (2021). Pedagogical aspects of students’ digital competence development. Laplage Em Revista, 7(Extra-A), Article Extra-A. https://doi.org/10.24115/S2446-622020217Extra-A848p.471-480 Falloon, G. (2020). From digital literacy to digital competence: The teacher digital competency (TDC) framework. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 2449–2472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09767-4

References

49

Ferrari, A. (2013). DIGCOMP: A framework for developing and understanding digital competence in Europe. Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/https://doi.org/ 10.2788/52966 Grande-de-Prado, M., Cañón, R., García-Martín, S., & Cantón, I. (2020). Digital competence and gender: Teachers in training. A case study. Future Internet, 12(11), Article 11. https://doi.org/10. 3390/fi12110204 Howard, S. K., & Mozejko, A. (2015). Considering the history of digital technologies in education. In M. Henderson & G. Romero (Eds.), Teaching and digital technologies: Big issues and critical questions (pp. 157–168). Cambridge University Press. Ilomäki, L., Kantosalo, A., & Lakkala, M. (2011). What is digital competence? Linked Portal, 11. Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70. Krumsvik, R. (2011). Digital competence in the Norwegian teacher education and school. Högre Utbildning, 1(1), 39–51. Lucas, M. (2019). Facilitating students’ digital competence: Did they do it? In M. Scheffel, J. Broisin, V. Pammer-Schindler, A. Ioannou, & J. Schneider (Eds.), Transforming learning with meaningful technologies (pp. 3–14). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-030-29736-7_1 Ottestad, G., Kelentri´c, M., & Guðmundsdóttir, G. (2014). Professional digital competence in teacher education. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 9(4), 243–249. Pöntinen, S., & Räty-Záborszky, S. (2020). Pedagogical aspects to support students’ evolving digital competence at school. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 28(2), 182–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2020.1735736 Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning. (2006). In OJ L (No. 32006H0962; Vol. 394). http://data.eur opa.eu/eli/reco/2006/962/oj/eng Redecker, C., & Punie, Y. (2017). European framework for the digital competence of educators: DigCompEdu. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/159770 Reiso˘glu, ˙I, & Çebi, A. (2020). How can the digital competences of pre-service teachers be developed? Examining a case study through the lens of DigComp and DigCompEdu. Computers & Education, 156, 103940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103940 Sánchez-Caballé, A., Gisbert-Cervera, M., & Esteve-Mon, F. (2020). The digital competence of university students: A systematic literature review. Aloma: Revista de Psicologia, Ciències de l’Educació i de l’Esport, 38(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.51698/aloma.2020.38.1.63-74 Spante, M., Hashemi, S. S., Lundin, M., & Algers, A. (2018). Digital competence and digital literacy in higher education research: Systematic review of concept use. Cogent Education, 5(1), 1519143. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2018.1519143 Tusiime, W. E., Johannesen, M., & Gudmundsdottir, G. B. (2020). Teaching art and design in a digital age: Challenges facing Ugandan teacher educators. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2020.1786439 Tusiime, W., Johannesen, M., & Guðmundsdóttir, G. (2019). Developing teachers digital competence: Approaches for art and design teacher educators in Uganda. The International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 15(1), 133–149. Valdmane, L., Zari¸na, S., Badjanova, J., Iliško, D., & Petrova, M. (2020). Empowering digital and media literacy of primary school teachers in Latvia. EDULEARN20 Proceedings, 4022–4029. https://doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2020.1087 van Deursen, A. J., & van Dijk, J. A. (2019). The first-level digital divide shifts from inequalities in physical access to inequalities in material access. New Media & Society, 21(2), 354–375. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1461444818797082 van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2005). The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society (p. 240). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452229812

50

4 Digital Competence of Teachers and Students

Viberg, O., Mavroudi, A., Bälter, O., & Khalil, M. (2020). Validating an instrument to measure teachers’ preparedness to use digital technology in their teaching. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 15(1), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1891-943x-2020-01-04 Whitworth, A. (2020). Fostering digital skills and competencies through discursive mapping of information landscapes. In A. Curaj, L. Deca, & R. Pricopie (Eds.), European higher education area: Challenges for a new decade (pp. 531–543). Springer International Publishing. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-030-56316-5_33

Chapter 5

Fostering Digital Competence in Teachers: A Review of Existing Frameworks

5.1 Introduction Digital technologies are being used at a constantly increasing rate in both teaching and learning; their use has in fact become unavoidable. Numerous studies have pointed to the advantages and benefits of using them in the teaching process as well as their positive effects on teaching and learning outcomes; digital technology is recognized as a mandatory, and not an optional, feature of high-quality education (Al-Khalidi, 2021; Be´cirovi´c et al., 2021). There has been much discussion and debate in previous decades with regard to digital literacy and digital competencies among teachers (Spante et al., 2018). Specific educational policies have been developed to identify which competencies are required, and how teachers should obtain them, in order to respond effectively to modern challenges and educational requirements. Digital competence appears to be one of the fundamental competencies of teachers that must be included in teacher education curricula. The European Commission also lists digital competence as one of the eight key competencies of all citizens. However, there are differences in the way digital competence is defined (Spante et al., 2018), adding another dimension to the issue. Despite the increasing number of research studies on digital competencies in the educational context, there is still a knowledge gap with regard to digital competencies and their relationship with organizational infrastructures and strategic leadership (Pettersson, 2018). Moreover, developing competencies for the successful use of digital technology in the teaching process can be difficult, especially when one considers that these competencies must be combined with both pedagogical know-how and expertise in teaching specific subjects. Furthermore, Tømte (2015) has highlighted this challenging endeavor by emphasizing that ICT in education includes a variety of topics, ranging from organizational and technical equipment topics, to user perspectives and user competencies applied to various digital tools.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. Be´cirovi´c, Digital Pedagogy, SpringerBriefs in Open and Distance Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-0444-0_5

51

52

5 Fostering Digital Competence in Teachers: A Review of Existing …

The ability to use digital technology competently in the teaching process has become one of the key goals of teachers’ professional development (Alarcón et al., 2020). To this end, a range of indicators, standards, theories, and frameworks have been developed to assess and develop teachers’ digital competencies, and to ensure the efficient use of digital technologies in implementing digital pedagogy. Multiple frameworks have been conceived to facilitate knowledge generation and competence development in the currently undertheorized yet rapidly evolving field of educational technologies (Schad et al., 2021). Cabero-Almenara, Gutiérrez-Castillo, et al., (2020) consider the following digital competence frameworks to be the most consolidated: the European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators (DigCompEdu); the ISTE Standards for Educators; the UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers (ICT CFT); the Spanish Common Framework of Teacher’s Digital Competence; the British Digital Teaching Professional Framework; the Colombian ICT Competencies for the professional development of teachers; and the Chilean ICT Competencies and Standards for the teaching profession (p. 3). Martín et al. (2020) also propose the DigCompEdu framework as well as other standards and models for assessing and developing teacher digital competence: Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK); the Krumsvik model; and the ISTE Standards for Students, a Practical Guide for Learning with Technology (p. 3). As noted in the literature, TPACK and SAMR are two conceptual frameworks that are widely utilized for designing teacher education in the domain of digital competence programs; both are well supported by empirical research (Falloon, 2020, p. 2452). In addition to the frameworks mentioned above, many educational institutions are developing their own frameworks for enhancing digital competence in teachers. After a discussion of the urgency of enhancing teachers’ digital competencies, the subsequent sections present and review the frameworks most valuable for developing digital competence and integrating technology into the teaching process: DigCompEdu, ICT CFT, TPACK, and SAMR. This review may be used as a helpful reference guide in designing teacher training, integrating digital technology into the teaching process, and in expanding existing, or developing new, frameworks.

5.2 The Urgency of Enhancing Teachers’ Digital Competence Modern educators are confronted with rapidly advancing technologies that are changing the teaching process itself. A higher level of technically advanced expertise is required to manage these challenges. Educational institutions have traditionally offered discrete subjects or separate teaching units aimed at providing teachers with specific training and, ideally, developing positive attitudes towards digital technologies and acquiring self-confidence in using them (Falloon, 2020). However, a number of studies have found that this approach is ineffective in developing in

5.2 The Urgency of Enhancing Teachers’ Digital Competence

53

teachers a broader and deeper understanding of the knowledge and capabilities needed to educate students in the digital age; it has also been criticized for its narrow focus on context-free, isolated technical skills (Falloon, 2020, p. 2450). Koehler and Mishra (2009) warn that teachers do not receive adequate training for the use of digital technologies in teaching, pointing out that many approaches to teacher training for the development of digital competencies use an identical, one-size-fitsall approach. These methods disregard the fact that teachers operate in different contexts of teaching and learning. Research indicates that inexperienced instructors often do not use digital technology in the classroom at all, or use it only rarely (Tondeur et al., 2017); their formal education may have something to do with this lack of use. However, teachers cannot be effective in modern education, and cannot develop digital competencies in their students, if they lack these competencies themselves. Teachers at various educational levels acknowledge that they lack the necessary skills to use digital technologies in teaching, and that this is a challenge for educational systems (Liesa-Orús et al., 2020). A study conducted by Valdmane et al. (2020) revealed that only 40% of teachers participated in specific types of training (seminars, workshops, lectures) on how to use ICT in the teaching process, and just over 73% expressed the need for training to help them acquire media and digital literacy as well as digital competencies. Moreover, only 39% of educators felt prepared to use digital technologies in their tasks, 29% were unsure about their ability to recognize disinformation, and 72% believed that robots will take their jobs (ALL DIGITAL WEEKS, 2022). At the same time, instructors are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of digital literacy and the technical skills required to use digital technologies in teaching (Tømte, 2015), and for preparing students for the labor market in the digital age. Studies have pointed to the many positive effects of introducing programs for strengthening digital literacy and developing digital competencies in teacher education. Strong emphasis should thus be placed on digital competence development in pre-service and in-service teacher training. Yet whether instructor or student, successful digital competence development also has an attitudinal component: the requisite mindset is characterized by openness to new ideas and perceptions; willingness to learn in order to develop; understanding of the importance of effort; readiness to take risks and try out new strategies; willingness to seek out advice and confront challenges; and the ability to persevere in order to progress (Valdmane et al., 2020, p. 4029). Augmenting this list is the availability of, and access to, the ICT tools essential for the successful development of digital competencies in teachers and students. Adequate digital tools and resources must be provided in schools so that teachers and students can use them effectively, on a daily basis, so as to improve and maintain their digital skills and competencies.

54

5 Fostering Digital Competence in Teachers: A Review of Existing …

5.3 The European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators (DigCompEdu) The European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators (DigCompEdu) is one of the most popular frameworks for developing digital competencies in teachers working at all levels, from preschool to university, as well as in special needs education and adult continuing education (both general and vocational). DigCompEdu was developed as an extension of the DigComp framework, which was designed to help shape policies for the development of digital competencies of citizens of all ages. It was later revised to provide a general framework for students, employees, and teachers (Guðmundsdóttir & Hatlevik, 2020). The DigCompEdu framework adapts and emphasizes the pedagogical dimension of five areas of digital competencies: information and media literacy; digital communication and collaboration; digital content creation; responsible use; and digital problem-solving (Redecker & Punie, 2017). Experts rate this framework as the most valuable for developing teachers’ digital competencies (Cabero-Almenara, Romero-Tena, et al., 2020). The DigCompEdu is a science-based framework that can help guide educational policy and can be directly adapted for the implementation of regional and national teacher training strategies and programs (Redecker & Punie, 2017). The DigCompEdu framework (Fig. 5.1) aims to offer a “general reference frame for developers of Digital Competence frameworks, i.e., member states, regional governments, relevant national and regional agencies, educational organizations themselves, and public or private professional training providers” (Redecker & Punie, 2017, p. 3). Furthermore, this framework seeks to align European education policy on developing teachers’ digital competencies (Cabero-Almenara, Romero-Tena, et al., 2020). To capture and describe educator-specific digital competencies, DigCompEdu proposes 22 elementary competencies organized in six areas: professional engagement; digital resources; teaching and learning; assessment; empowering learners; and facilitating learners’ digital competence (Redecker & Punie, 2017, p. 9). Professional Engagement—Area 1 focuses on using information technologies for professional development, teaching, communication, and collaboration. Teachers are required to use digital technology to improve teaching and professional interactions with colleagues, students, and third parties (Redecker & Punie, 2017). Hence, there is a need to assess instructors’ digital competencies and provide training tailored to their levels and needs. Digital Resources—Area 2 refers to the digital competencies needed to effectively and responsibly use, modify, create, and share digital learning resources. Today’s teachers in economically developed countries have an extensive repertoire of digital (educational) tools and resources at their disposal. A key competency is the ability to identify teaching tools and resources that are most appropriate and effective for realizing teaching and the learning objectives depending on the group (level) of students, and teaching and learning styles. Another key competency is the ability to structure the vast amount of open and available teaching materials, establish connections between them, and facilitate the modification and development of new digital

5.3 The European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators …

55

Fig. 5.1 The DigCompEdu framework (Redecker & Punie, 2017, p. 3)

teaching and learning resources. At the same time, teachers need to be aware of how to use and manage digital content responsibly. This means that when using, modifying, and sharing resources, they must respect copyright rules and protect sensitive content and data (Redecker & Punie, 2017). Teacher training programs must therefore cover topics associated with OER and data protection. Teaching and Learning—Area 3 is dedicated to managing and organizing the use of digital technologies to enhance teaching and learning strategies in any number of ways. Regardless of the pedagogical strategy or approach taken, a teacher’s digital competence lies in the effective orchestration of the use of digital technologies at various stages and circumstances of the teaching process. Teaching itself is in fact the fundamental competence of this framework area and arguably the most important of competence of all. It encompasses the design, planning, and use of digital content at different stages of the education process. The role of a “digitally-competent” teacher is to mentor students in their progressive and more autonomous learning endeavors, and must therefore be able to “design new ways, supported by digital technologies, to provide guidance and support to learners, individually and collectively and to initiate, support and monitor both self-regulated and collaborative learning activities” (Redecker & Punie, 2017, p. 20). Given that teaching is the primary responsibility of teachers, this area must be prioritized in teacher training. Furthermore, in light of the fact that digital tools are constantly being updated and changed, in-service teacher education programs should help teachers update their own digital competencies on a regular basis. Assessment—Area 4 refers to the use of digital strategies to improve the assessment and evaluation of student performance. When integrating digital technologies into the teaching and learning process, it is necessary to consider strategies for using digital tools in evaluating student work. In the same way that teachers acquire digital teaching competencies, they must also develop competencies for the use of digital technologies to evaluate student achievement. These strategies also include analyzing

56

5 Fostering Digital Competence in Teachers: A Review of Existing …

and interpreting student achievement to monitor progress, which should influence teacher feedback and teaching strategy adaptation (Redecker & Punie, 2017). Empowering Learners—Area 5 focuses on using digital technologies to enhance inclusion, personalization, learners’ active engagement, and the potential of digital technologies for learner-centered teaching strategies. The vital power of digital technologies is reflected in their potential to support students’ cognitive, behavioral and affective engagement in the teaching and learning process. Digital technologies can also be used effectively to differentiate and individualize instruction by taking into account students’ levels of knowledge and skills, as well as their learning styles and interests (Redecker & Punie, 2017). Accordingly, teacher training is expected to develop and strengthen digital competencies to empower students through technology-mediated teaching. Facilitating Learners’ Digital Competence—Area 6 defines the specific pedagogical competencies required to facilitate the development of students’ digital skills and competencies (Redecker, 2017, p. 9). It focuses on competencies for the creative and responsible use of digital devices for communication, collaboration, content use and creation, well-being, and problem-solving. Teachers must successfully complete pre-service and in-service training, as well as learn from their own experience and research, in order to be able to help students develop the aforementioned digital competencies. Otherwise, instructors will not be able to respond to the tasks described in this area adequately. The DigCompEdu is a helpful reference for educational policymakers in assessing teachers’ digital competencies and improving them through various types of training. This framework can in fact be used as a guide in establishing new training programs at the institutional, regional or even national level, and at both private and public educational institutions. Moreover, the DigCompEdu can be used as a solid foundation upon which to establish new, and improve existing, instruments and tools which foster the digital competencies of teachers.

5.4 The UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers (ICT CFT) The UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers (ICT CFT) is designed as a teacher training tool for the use of ICT in the educational process. This framework was created in 2008, optimized for the first time in 2011, and then again in 2018 with the release of the third version. ICT CFT Version 3 is a response to changes in the area of digital technologies and education. Incorporated in its structure are the inclusive principles of non-discrimination, open and equitable information accessibility, and gender equality in technology-mediated teaching (UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers, 2018). In order to foster the development of “inclusive Knowledge Societies based on human rights” (UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers, 2018, p. 1) it considers the effects of contemporary technological

5.4 The UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers (ICT CFT)

57

influences on teaching and learning, such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), coding, mobile technologies, the Internet of Things (IoT), virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), Open Educational Resources (OER), social media, big data, ethics, and privacy protection. The revised framework has been created in such a way as to enable educators to adapt and contextualize it in order to attain the digital competencies needed for the use of ICT technologies in the teaching process. The ICT CFT framework introduces 18 ICT competencies which are structured within six aspects of teachers’ professional practice: understanding ICT in education policy; curriculum and assessment; pedagogy; application of digital skills; organization and administration; and teacher professional learning (UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers, 2018). These six aspects are in turn divided into three levels of teachers’ pedagogical development and use of ICT in education: knowledge acquisition; knowledge advancement; and knowledge creation (Fig. 5.2). Knowledge Acquisition—At this first level, teachers acquire fundamental ICT competencies and gain confidence in their ability to use ICT to improve teaching and learning. Teachers are expected to become productive and effective members of the school community, assist students in properly using ICT, and become active and productive members of society (UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers, 2018). Knowledge Deepening—This level entails acquiring ICT competencies that improve overall learning effectiveness by enabling teachers to create collaborative

Fig. 5.2 ICT CFT (Adapted from: UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers, 2018, p. 10)

58

5 Fostering Digital Competence in Teachers: A Review of Existing …

and student-centered learning environments. At this level of pedagogical development, teachers are expected to be able to assist students in acquiring in-depth knowledge of their courses and apply it to challenging real-world circumstances (UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers, 2018). Knowledge Creation—Teachers who have reached the third and highest level are able to establish learning spaces which “encourage students to create the kind of new knowledge required for more harmonious, fulfilling and prosperous societies” (UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers, 2018, p. 9). Moreover, their competencies make these teachers suitable role models for good practice; they inspire their students, colleagues and others members of the community to do the same. The ICT CFT covers a comprehensive set of competencies needed by teachers to effectively integrate digital technology into the teaching process. It is targeted to education decision- and policymakers, education professionals, and professional training providers, including those responsible for developing teacher training programs (UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers, 2018, p. 7). The framework provides competency sets and levels for teachers and educational institutions as a whole. Designed to be adaptable to national and institutional goals, the ICT CFT provides support for policy, development, and capacity building in this dynamic area. It also promotes practical knowledge and the benefits of using ICT in educational systems (Cabero-Almenara, Romero-Tena, et al., 2020). Acknowledging that professional teacher development should be a lifelong process, and not a one-time event, the authors of the ICT CFT call for its integration in three phases of teacher professional development: 1. Pre-service—focusing on initial preparation in pedagogy, subject matter knowledge, management skills and use of various teaching tools, including digital tools and resources; 2. In-service—including structured face-to-face and distance training opportunities building upon pre-service programs and directly relevant to teaching needs in classrooms and beyond; and 3. Ongoing formal and informal pedagogical and technical support, enabled by ICT, for teachers’ innovative use of ICT to address daily needs, and to facilitate students’ higher-order learning (UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers, 2018, p. 8). Educational institutions may adopt or adapt the ICT CFT for the development of teachers’ professional digital competencies. Moreover, educational institutions may use it as a reference for creating a new frameworks in order to foster the development of teachers’ digital competencies. The ICT CFT could also be used by teachers as a guide in their own professional development. It is designed to allow them to revisit each theme after progressing through different sets of competencies as their levels of proficiency improve.

5.5 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

59

5.5 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) While the effective integration of digital technology in teaching can transform pedagogy and improve student performance, a crucial prerequisite is that teachers themselves display digital competence (UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers, 2018), encourage positive attitudes towards digital technologies and tools, and use these capably in the teaching process. The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework presents a model for describing and understanding the types of knowledge that teachers need for effective pedagogical practice in a technologically advanced learning environment (Howell, 2012, p. 30). Developed by Koehler and Mishra (2009), the TPACK framework is based on the Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) framework developed by Shulman (1986, 1987). In their model, Koehler and Mishra further expand the aspect of technological knowledge. Their framework is one of the most important—and arguably the very most important—for enhancing teachers’ competencies and ensuring success in teaching with digital technology. Numerous other experts have also contributed to this framework and adapted it for various academic disciplines and educational settings. The TPACK, with all of its enhancements and adaptions to various teaching areas, is one of the most popular frameworks. As a conceptual framework for integrating technology into the teaching process based on instructor knowledge, the TPACK is premised on the interaction between three types of knowledge: content knowledge (CK), pedagogical knowledge (PK), and technological knowledge (TK). The three knowledge bases form the core of the TPACK framework. It is the interaction of these types of knowledge that produces the flexible knowledge needed for successful integration of technologies in teaching (Koehler & Mishra, 2009, p. 62). The TPACK is built on the assumption that teaching is a very complex activity in which different types of specific knowledge are intertwined. Effective teaching is dependent on a flexible approach to rich, well-organized, and integrated knowledge from different domains. These include student thinking and learning, along with teacher familiarity with the subject matter, and digital technologies (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). The framework attempts to incorporate various elements that inform pedagogical practice because, in order for digital technologies to be adequately integrated into the teaching process, instructors must understand the interrelationships between technology, pedagogy, and teaching content (Howell, 2012). The interplay of these areas of knowledge generates the adaptable knowledge required for the effective incorporation of technology into the classroom. The TPACK comprises seven types of knowledge described in more detail below: content knowledge (CK); pedagogical knowledge (PK); technology knowledge (TK); pedagogical content knowledge (PCK); technological content knowledge (TCK); technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK); and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) (Fig. 5.3).

60

5 Fostering Digital Competence in Teachers: A Review of Existing …

Fig. 5.3 The TPACK framework and its knowledge components (http://tpack.org)

Content Knowledge (CK)—Represents the knowledge of teachers in the specific field they teach. Content knowledge varies depending on the age group and the variety of academic subjects. According to Koehler and Mishra (Koehler & Mishra, 2009, p. 63), knowledge of the content taught is critical for teachers. They must understand the underlying knowledge fundamentals of the disciplines in which they teach, because knowledge varies across academic fields. If the teacher is not an expert in the subject matter, students may receive insufficient or erroneous information and develop incorrect concepts. Pedagogical Knowledge (PK)—Koehler and Mishra define PK as “teachers’ deep knowledge about the processes and practices or methods of teaching and learning and they encompass, among other things, overall educational purposes, values, and aims” (Koehler & Mishra, 2009, p. 64). This type of knowledge includes general knowledge of how students learn and think; strategies for teaching, evaluation, classroom management, teacher-student and student–student relationships; and developmental theories such as cognitive, social, personal, and the like. PK includes knowledge of students’ motivation to learn, quality planning of teaching content, and different teaching and mentoring strategies (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). Technology Knowledge (TK)—This type of knowledge implies knowledge of the use of technology in the teaching process. TK is significantly more difficult to define because technologies are constantly advancing; this may necessitate changing the

5.5 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

61

way technological knowledge itself is defined. Koehler and Mishra (2009, p. 64) define technological knowledge in a similar way as Fluency of Information Technology (FITness). TK goes beyond traditional computer literacy in that it requires people to have a broad understanding of information technology in order to use it productively at work and in daily life; to recognize when information technology can help or hinder achieving a goal; and to regularly adapt to changes in information technology. Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK)—This type of knowledge implies the combination of pedagogical and content knowledge (Shulman, 1987). Knowledge of pedagogical content varies by content area since it blends teaching content and pedagogy with the goal of developing better teaching practice (Schmidt-Crawford et al., 2009). Furthermore, it involves knowledge of how to make content understandable to students (Howell, 2012). Technological Content Knowledge (TCK)—Technological content knowledge refers to an understanding of how technologies can be used to create new teaching approaches. For example, digital animation allows students to understand how electrons divide atoms when chemical compounds are formed (Howell, 2012). It suggests that teachers need to understand that using a specific teaching technology can change the way students practice and understand concepts in a particular subject area (Schmidt-Crawford et al., 2009). Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK)—Technological pedagogical knowledge refers to the knowledge of how different technologies can be used in teaching, and the understanding that the use of technology can change the way teachers teach (Schmidt-Crawford et al., 2009). Furthermore, it includes knowledge of the advantages and disadvantages of using technology in specific teaching situations. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)—As an “emergent” form of knowledge that transcends the three core components (CK, PK, and TK), TPACK is “an understanding that emerges from interactions among content, pedagogy, and technology knowledge” (Koehler et al., 2013, p. 16). TPACK refers to the knowledge that teachers need in order to successfully integrate technology into the teaching process in any given subject area. In order to do so, teachers must be able to understand the complex interactions between the three core components of knowledge. The TPACK framework can be used in various ways to cultivate teachers’ competencies and facilitate technology integration in teaching. It can be incorporated in formal and informal teacher training, including pre-service and in-service. For instance, empirical research studies carried out with pre-service teachers (Çebi et al., 2022) and in-service teachers (Demeshkant et al., 2022) confirmed positive relationships between digital competencies and TPACK competencies. And while pre-service teachers have been advancing in the TPACK-deep subdimensions, they have been employing their skills in information and data literacy, communication and collaboration, content production, safety, and problem-solving (Çebi et al., 2022). Although TPACK alone, when incorporated into teacher training, has positive effects on teachers’ digital competencies and technology integration into teaching,

62

5 Fostering Digital Competence in Teachers: A Review of Existing …

other frameworks like DigComp or DigCompEdu could also be used to supplement TPACK. It is important to stress that simply integrating digital technologies into the classroom will not automatically result in higher-quality teaching. Digital technologies should not be considered separate, or apart from the overall teaching process; they must be capably and effectively incorporated into it. Aside from the benefits of using TPACK for teachers’ pre-service and in-service training, the framework is useful in practice because it provides instructors with concrete guidelines for incorporating technology into lessons. Whether used daily or only occasionally, TPACK can significantly improve the efficacy of technology integration and teaching quality.

5.6 The SAMR Framework for Technology Integration Even though digital technologies have been widely used for several decades, some scholars argue that in many educational systems, classroom materials have changed little and are still traditional (Dautbaši´c & Be´cirovi´c, 2022). The incorporation of digital technologies into a classroom while retaining traditionally designed lessons will not yield revolutionary changes in teaching outcomes. In addition to the emphasis on incorporating digital technologies into the educational process, digital pedagogy prioritizes the importance of designing lessons and assignments that are appealing to students, reflect real-life issues, and correspond to the needs of the academic subject itself as well as those of students and society. The SAMR framework provides a model for integrating technology in the teaching process (Puentedura, 2006). It includes the different levels of selection, integration, and evaluation of digital technologies in teaching. The abbreviation “SAMR” stands for substitution, augmentation, modification, and redefinition (Fig. 5.4). This framework, which can be used in a variety of academic disciplines, is intended to help teachers effectively design, develop, and present digital content, particularly for complex concepts. The framework’s objective is to transform the curriculum through technology (Schad et al., 2021) and to enable and motivate teachers to incorporate digital technology into classroom instruction in order to improve lesson quality (Romrell et al., 2014). The first level of SAMR, the substitution level, involves the replacement of manual teaching tools with digital tools (Alivi, 2019), meaning the use of digital instead of analog technology. However, this substitution “generates no functional change” (Hamilton et al., 2016). To illustrate this idea using the example of learning a foreign language: instead of using a textbook in which pronunciation is transcribed, the teacher first uses digital tools that allow the student to read only. At the next augmentation level, the student is allowed to read, listen, and practice the pronunciation of foreign words or phrases with the help of technology. At the modification level, technology integration implies a significant redesign of an assignment (Hamilton et al., 2016, p. 3). At this level, the teacher could for instance create technology-supported quizzes that help students better master the grammar rules of a foreign language.

5.6 The SAMR Framework for Technology Integration

63

Fig. 5.4 The SAMR framework for technology integration (Adapted from: Puentedura, 2014)

The fourth, or redefinition level, involves developing new assignments that cannot be designed using analog teaching tools. When learning a foreign language, this might require students to record video conversations that apply specific grammar rules. The SAMR framework enables teachers to assess how to most effectively incorporate technology into their lessons as it increasingly permeates the educational process, both in school-based equipment and student-owned devices (Hilton, 2016, p. 69). According to Puentedura (2014), a teacher’s goal should be to build a SAMR ladder associated with Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy, implying that both frameworks suggest the transition from basic to highest level knowledge acquisition (Fig. 5.4). The first two levels of the SAMR framework, substitution and augmentation, correspond to the first three levels of Bloom’s taxonomy, namely remember, understand, and apply; the third and fourth levels of the SAMR, modification and redefinition, correspond to the levels analyze, evaluate, and create (Puentedura, 2014). It is important to emphasize that pairing SAMR and Bloom’s Taxonomy is not always necessary, but it may bring the best results when a) teachers are motivated to change teaching practices in order to integrate digital technologies in teaching; and b) when there is “a clean app flow designed to move through the tasks, that is as simple as possible, avoiding needless complexity”; this might be, for example, the transfer of “work products” from one application used by the teacher to another (Puentedura, 2014, para. 6).

64

5 Fostering Digital Competence in Teachers: A Review of Existing …

SAMR is similar to a toolbox: the goal is to select the most appropriate tool for teaching. Yet it is also a way to reflect on technology integration by considering several crucial questions: ● How can my lessons be improved using technology? ● How can I engage and empower students through technology? ● How can online learning more closely resemble authentic, real-world learning? (Terada, 2020, Going beyond SAMR, para. 2) Although SAMR aims to transform the curriculum through technology and enable and motivate teachers to incorporate digital technology into their classroom, it has great potential to significantly improve teachers’ and students’ digital competencies. This makes SAMR an excellent framework with which to cultivate digital and pedagogical competencies during pre-service and in-service teacher training. Moreover, when teachers use SAMR for their daily lessons, it improves their own digital skills and competencies: in this case, the adage “practice makes perfect” holds true as teachers gain valuable and vital experience by using SAMR in the design and development of digital teaching content as well as in teaching processes. In a similar vein, Stommel (2013) maintains that to become digital pedagogy experts, educators themselves must keep experiencing, questioning, and remaining open to new ways of engaging with the world. SAMR can assist teachers in analyzing their own instructional practices and help them reflect on ways to improve them, for example by redesigning instructional materials. This can lead to a variety of desirable learning outcomes, including, but not limited to, improved critical thinking and problemsolving skills for students, and enhanced digital competence on the part of both students and teachers.

5.7 Conclusion Successful digital pedagogy requires teachers to be digitally literate and in possession of a variety of competencies which enable the effective incorporation of digital technology into teaching and learning. However, research shows that there are many obstacles to overcome in realizing the full potential of digital pedagogy in the classroom. Appropriate policies and strategies must be implemented to address the challenge of ensuring digital competence among teachers. These include educational policies which are regularly updated to reflect the pace of technological change. Equally crucial is the integration of digital competence development in pre-service and in-service training programs. Yet cultivating and maintaining digital competence is a life-long task. As role models, teachers must be sufficiently digitally literate to teach effectively in the digital age, and to cultivate and strengthen digital competencies in their students. The most valuable frameworks for developing teachers’ digital competence and successfully integrating digital technologies into teaching are DigCompEdu, UNESCO ICT CFT, TPACK, and SAMR. Augmenting these established frameworks

References

65

are others which may also significantly contribute to the development of teachers’ digital competence and the efficacy of technology use in the teaching and learning process. However, the advantages and disadvantages of each of these models should be carefully considered. Some frameworks have been faulted as overly complex, too concerned with descriptive measurement, or lacking clarity in definitions of key domains. Yet these models, and in particular TPACK and SAMR, have been shown to be effective and constructive guides that enable teachers to better incorporate digital technologies in their daily teaching practice. What is more, the active and frequent application of these frameworks in the classroom ensures that instructors themselves remain up to date—“learning by doing” while at the same time incorporating digital technologies to impart the fundamentals of digital competence. Research in the field of digital technologies in education is undertheorized. There is clear need for further research in this emerging field to assess the efficacy of current approaches, and to submit strategies that might improve the development of teachers’ digital competencies and teaching practices in a technology-mediated educational environment. Future research should pay particular attention to evaluating the effects of various frameworks for developing digital competency: in pre-service and inservice training, in the classroom and other educational contexts, across diverse academic disciplines, and according to varying instructor experience levels.

References Alarcón, R., del Jiménez, E., & P., & Vicente-Yagüe, M. I. de. (2020). Development and validation of the DIGIGLO, a tool for assessing the digital competence of educators. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(6), 2407–2421. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12919 Alivi, J. (2019). A review of Tpack and Samr models: How should language teachers adopt technology? Journal of English for Academic and Specific Purposes, 2(2), 1. https://doi.org/10.18860/ jeasp.v2i2.7944 Al-Khalidi, I. (2021). Examining teachers’ beliefs on developing a digital pedagogical framework based on the SAMR model for undergraduate english language learning. International Journal of English Language Education, 9(1), 106. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijele.v9i1.18306 ALL DIGITAL WEEKS. (2022, November 7). https://www.alldigitalweek.eu/ ˇ Be´cirovi´c, S., Brdarevi´c-Celjo, A., & Deli´c, H. (2021). The use of digital technology in foreign language learning. SN Social Sciences, 1(10), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-021-00254-y Cabero-Almenara, J., Romero-Tena, R., & Palacios-Rodríguez, A. (2020). Evaluation of teacher digital competence frameworks through expert judgement: The use of the expert competence coefficient. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 9(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/ 10.7821/naer.2020.7.578 Cabero-Almenara, J., Gutiérrez-Castillo, J.-J., Palacios-Rodríguez, A., & Barroso-Osuna, J. (2020). Development of the teacher digital competence validation of DigCompEdu check-in questionnaire in the University Context of Andalusia (Spain). Sustainability, 12(15), Article 15. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su12156094 Çebi, A., Bahçekapılı Özdemir, T., Reiso˘glu, ˙I, & Çolak, C. (2022). From digital competences to technology integration: Re-formation of pre-service teachers’ knowledge and understanding. International Journal of Educational Research, 113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2022.101965

66

5 Fostering Digital Competence in Teachers: A Review of Existing …

Dautbaši´c, A., & Be´cirovi´c, S. (2022). Teacher and student experiences in online classes during COVID-19 pandemic in Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia. MAP Social Sciences, 2(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.53880/2744-2454.2022.2.1.9 Demeshkant, N., Trusz, S., & Potyrała, K. (2022). Interrelationship between levels of digital competences and technological, pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK): A preliminary study with polish academic teachers. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1475939X.2022.2092547 Falloon, G. (2020). From digital literacy to digital competence: The teacher digital competency (TDC) framework. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 2449–2472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09767-4 Guðmundsdóttir, G., & Hatlevik, O. (2020). “I just Google it” -Developing professional digital competence and preparing student teachers to exercise responsible ICT use. Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education (NJCIE), 4(3), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie. 3752 Hamilton, E. R., Rosenberg, J. M., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) Model: A critical review and suggestions for its use. TechTrends, 60(5), 433–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0091-y Hilton, J. T. (2016). A case study of the application of SAMR and TPACK for reflection on technology integration into two social studies classrooms. The Social Studies, 107(2), 68–73. https:// doi.org/10.1080/00377996.2015.1124376 Howell, J. (2012). Teaching with ICT: Digital pedagogies for collaboration and creativity. Oxford University Press. Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70. Koehler, M., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)? Journal of Education, 193(3), 13–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741319300303 Liesa-Orús, M., Latorre-Cosculluela, C., Vázquez-Toledo, S., & Sierra-Sánchez, V. (2020). The technological challenge facing higher education professors: Perceptions of ICT tools for developing 21st century skills. Sustainability, 12(13), Article 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/su1213 5339 Martín, S., Cabezas-González, M., & García-Valcárcel, A. (2020). Psychometric analysis of a test to assess the digital competence of compulsory education students. Revista Electronica De Investigacion y Evaluacion Educativa, 26(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.7203/relieve.26.2.17611 Pettersson, F. (2018). On the issues of digital competence in educational contexts—A review of literature. Education and Information Technologies, 23(3), 1005–1021. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10639-017-9649-3 Puentedura, R. R. (2006). Transformation, Technology, and Education. http://hippasus.com/resour ces/tte/ Puentedura, R. R. (2014, September 24). SAMR and bloom’s taxonomy: Assembling the puzzle. Common Sense Education. https://www.commonsense.org/education/articles/samr-and-bloomstaxonomy-assembling-the-puzzle Redecker, C., & Punie, Y. (2017). European framework for the digital competence of educators: DigCompEdu. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/159770 Romrell, D., Kidder, L., & Wood, E. (2014). The SAMR model as a framework for evaluating mLearning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 18(2). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v18 i2.435 Schad, M. L., Greene, M. D., & Jones, M. (2021). A review of theory, theoretical and conceptual frameworks in educational technology. International Journal on E-Learning, 20(2), 187–198. Schmidt-Crawford, D., Baran, E., Thompson, A., Mishra, P., Koehler, M., & Seob, S. (2009). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2009.10782544

References

67

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004 Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22. Spante, M., Hashemi, S. S., Lundin, M., & Algers, A. (2018). Digital competence and digital literacy in higher education research: Systematic review of concept use. Cogent Education, 5(1), 1519143. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2018.1519143 Stommel, J. (2013, March 5). Decoding digital pedagogy, pt. 2: (Un)Mapping the Terrain. Hybrid Pedagogy. https://hybridpedagogy.org/decoding-digital-pedagogy-pt-2-unmapping-the-terrain/ Terada, Y. (2020). A powerful model for understanding good tech integration. Edutopia. https:// www.edutopia.org/article/powerful-model-understanding-good-tech-integration Tømte, C. (2015). Educating teachers for the new millennium?—Teacher training, ICT and digital competence. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 4, 138–154. Tondeur, J., Roblin, N. P., van Braak, J., Voogt, J., & Prestridge, S. (2017). Preparing beginning teachers for technology integration in education: Ready for take-off? Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(2), 157–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2016.1193556 UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers: Version 3. (2018). United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Valdmane, L., Zari¸na, S., Badjanova, J., Iliško, D., & Petrova, M. (2020). Empowering digital and media literacy of primary school teachers in Latvia. Edulearn20 Proceedings, 4022–4029. https:// doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2020.1087

Chapter 6

The Use of Open Educational Resources (OER) in Digital Pedagogy

6.1 Introduction The cost of education has increased significantly as educational systems have been digitalized. Governments, schools, parents, and students must allocate significant amounts of money to ensure access to the digital technologies and resources required for quality teaching and learning. While digital tools can help teachers develop and use teaching materials of high quality, many educators lack the time, experience, competencies, or appropriate digital technologies to do so effectively. In the digital era, it is thus crucial to provide digital educational resources to those who need them in teaching and learning. These resources must be widely available, licensed, and free to all. The Open Educational Resources (OER) concept introduced in 2002 addresses this need. The relevance of OER has increased since its adoption thanks to the many advantages and benefits it offers. Digital pedagogy involves the use of OERbased teaching methods, and gives special consideration to the design, development, sharing, and use of OER in online, face-to-face, and hybrid classrooms. OER resources may be utilized for free by anybody at any time, and anywhere in the world. These publicly-licensed materials may be adapted and redistributed at little or no cost. The OER books, lectures, and self-learning curricula available on the Internet are digital assets with the potential to offer equitable access to collective knowledge, and to allow people all over the world to participate in high-quality education (White Paper, 2013). For educators, OER are available in various formats, from homework assignments to textbooks, and even entire curricula. OER are available for all stages of education, from kindergarten to college (Wiley et al., 2012). An expanding body of research describes the practice and the benefits of using OER in college courses (Hollister & Patton, 2021). Because of its transformational impact, the design and development of OER is gaining popularity as a way to establish new teaching methodologies (Mazzucato & Kic-Drgas, 2021). Even while its merits have been debated within the field in recent years, the OER concept has become an educational movement. Many approaches have been © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. Be´cirovi´c, Digital Pedagogy, SpringerBriefs in Open and Distance Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-0444-0_6

69

70

6 The Use of Open Educational Resources (OER) in Digital Pedagogy

established to assist instructors and students in creating and effectively utilizing OER. In practice, OER emphasize involvement and co-creation: instructors utilize OER instructional resources and include their students in the creation and development OER; students use OER to study, carry out assignments, conduct research, and for a variety of other tasks and projects. The fact that OER permits open access, reuse, adaption, and redistribution at little or no cost is a compelling advantage, especially for institutions working with limited budgets and resources. Digital pedagogues create, use, and distribute OER as instructional and learning resources when cultivating digital competencies in their students. By drawing on OER and the unrestricted access to the resources and materials it provides, digital pedagogy thus has the potential to democratize education and revolutionize the educational experience. It empowers instructors and students to develop and use OER in constructive ways in order to achieve the desired learning outcomes. Given the centrality of OER to digital pedagogy, this chapter provides an overview of OER before delving into its benefits for both instructors and students. It delineates challenges to the effective use of OER, and techniques for its practical application in teaching and learning.

6.2 What is OER? In 2002, UNESCO formed a team of scholars, mostly from emerging regions, to evaluate a technological advancement: the OpenCourseWare (OCW) initiative of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) (D’Antoni, 2009). The final declaration of UNESCO’s Forum on the Impact of Open Courseware for Higher Education in Developing Countries stated that having come to an acceptable conclusion, the group members expressed their satisfaction with the outcome and their desire to create universal educational resources that would, in the future, mobilize the whole international community of educators (UNESCO, 2002). The working group recommended naming these universal educational resources “Open Educational Resources,” in short “OER,” while proposing other alternatives such as “open courseware, open learning resources, and open teaching/learning resources” (UNESCO, 2002, p. 24). While several definitions of OER exist, each reflects the same notion. Drawing on the “4R” principles of reuse, redistribute, revise, and remix proposed by Hilton et al. (2010), Creative Commons defines OER as “teaching, learning, and research materials that are either (a) in the public domain or (b) licensed in a manner that provides everyone with free and perpetual permission to engage in the 5R activities which are listed below: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Retain—make, own, and control a copy of the resource Reuse—use your original, revised, or remixed copy of the resource publicly Revise—edit, adapt, and modify your copy of the resource Remix—combine your original or revised copy of the resource with other existing material to create something new

6.2 What is OER?

71

5. Redistribute—share copies of your original, revised, or remixed copy of the resource with others.” (Open Education, 2021, para. 1) In contrast to MOOC or Moodle courses, OER is described as static; accessible at any time; does not require an assessment procedure to participate; does not award certificates; and is suitable for individual self-study (without tutoring) (Open Educational Resources (OER), 2021a). OER is capable of fulfilling the needs of students, instructors, and self-learners alike. Moreover, OER is protected by intellectual property licenses which allow it to be shared, distributed, reused, adapted, or mixed. OER resources are stored within OER repositories and organized by language, title, author, grade level, creation date, and domain (Open Educational Resources (OER), 2021b). The long-established notion of “open pedagogy” has been applied in a number of educational contexts, notably in connection with OER. In this regard, Wiley and Hilton (2018) suggested an expanded new concept “OER-enabled pedagogy” defined as “the set of teaching and learning practices that are only possible or practical in the context of the 5R permissions, which are characteristics of OER” (p. 135). Wiley’s and Hilton’s (2018) concept of OER-enabled pedagogy, “only possible” in the context of OER’s 5R permissions, presents an important branch of digital pedagogy. The development of OER is primarily a response to the rising costs of university education (Hollister & Patton, 2021). Projects such as Khan Academy, MIT OpenCourseWare, and the (U.S.) state of Washington’s Open Course Library are bringing OER to the public’s attention (Wiley et al., 2012). OER may include curricula, syllabi, textbooks, lesson plans, learning modules, course design templates, lecture notes, lab experiments, assignments, simulations, exams, projects, discussion prompts, apps, audio and video content, library guides, animations, as well as any other tools and materials available to the public, under a free and open license to facilitate access to knowledge. According to the OECD (2007), OER can be classified into three types: ● Learning content: Full courses, courseware, content modules, learning objects, collections and journals. ● Tools: Software to support the development, use, reuse and delivery of learning content, including searching and organization of content, content and learning management systems, content development tools, and online learning communities. ● Implementation resources: Intellectual property licenses to promote open publishing of materials, design principles of best practice, and localize content. (pp. 30–31) OER can provide learning opportunities to a diverse spectrum of students, and non-traditional ones in particular (DiSanto et al., 2019). Despite the fact that OER is a relatively new movement with only two decades of history, implications and challenges for educational systems and institutions, students, and instructors have been identified, and significant projects in a variety of settings have been initiated (D’Antoni, 2009). Numerous governmental and non-governmental institutions around the world are investing in the design, development, and distribution of OER.

72

6 The Use of Open Educational Resources (OER) in Digital Pedagogy

For instance, in 2003, the Chinese Ministry of Education invested significant sums in Open Courseware (OCW). Funding was made available from ministries, provincial and local governments, and institutes; by 2011, 24,446 OCW resource units had been made available online (Hu et al., 2015). According to Hollister and Patton (2021) “in 2017, New York State included a $4 million investment in the State University of New York’s (SUNY’s) open educational resources (OERs) programing for the fiscal year 2018” and “in 2018, New York State renewed its $4 million investment in SUNY’s OER programing for the fiscal year 2019, and the UB Libraries received another grant of $42,000 from SOS” (pp. 1–2). Another major supporter of OER is the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, which in 2021 awarded 49 new grants, supported 179 active grantees, and awarded USD $20 million to its grant recipients (Open Education, 2021). With the support of similar grants, a number of other valuable OER repositories have been established, including: ● The Open Education Consortium—includes 243 institutions in 44 countries sharing OER in 19 languages (The Open Education Consortium, n.d.). ● The Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning and Online Teaching (MERLOT)—provides 96,841 resources, has 189,296 registered members and 4,353 member institutions (MERLOT, 2021). ● OER Commons—a repository for approximately 50,000 OER materials of high quality, including, but not limited to, entire college courses, interactive minilessons and simulations, adaptions of previous open work, open textbooks, as well as K-12 lesson plans, worksheets, and activities (OER Commons, 2021). Stenger (2018) has also compiled a list of the most valuable OER for those seeking the best resources to help them accomplish their academic goals or support their students. These include MIT OpenCourseWare; Lumen Learning; Khan Academy; MERLOT; OER Commons; OpenStax; Academic Earth; Learningpod; Open Culture; and Open Learning Initiative. Proposals have been made to encourage policy change which mandates that all government-funded educational resources are open-access and publicly-licensed. Such initiatives could greatly lower the costs of education for all: students and their families, self-learners, instructors, schools, and universities. Additionally, such initiatives would offer equitable access to educational resources and ensure a high-quality education for all citizens, regardless of their economic status or place of residence.

6.3 The Benefits of Using OER The cost of education has risen significantly over the past few decades. Tuition and living expenses for students, particularly housing, have gone up, as have the prices of textbooks and other learning materials. These costs are now augmented by the costs associated with digital technologies that have become essential for the educational process in the digital era. All of the aforementioned factors contribute to educational

6.3 The Benefits of Using OER

73

inequality and the digital divide. As digital pedagogues, educators cannot alone reduce the burden of these costs in a significant way. Yet their use of OER may contribute to lowering costs as it evolves and becomes more central to education. OER in fact enables cost reductions for students, parents, and educational institutions. Concrete indicators of savings are provided by data from diverse institutions and across various time periods. To illustrate, one 2016 evaluation of data related to OER and cost saving indicated that in Canada, the University of British Columbia’s BCcampus Open Textbook Project resulted in savings to students of over USD $350,000 in first two years of the program; since then, savings have “surpassed $13 million”; students enrolled in Introductory Physics course saved $90,000 in one year (Munro et al., 2016, para. 5). Another example is provided by the University of California. In its first year, the UC Davis ChemWiki program replaced traditional textbooks with OER materials, thereby helping its students on four US campuses to save $500,000 (Munro et al., 2016, para. 5). Moreover, along with ensuring equal access to educational resources, OER enables savings to be invested in various educational projects that may enhance teaching and research processes. In addition to cost savings, OER can also ensure equal access to educational resources. This is in fact one of the most important achievements made possible by the emergence of OER in the modern era (Hu et al., 2015). As a global initiative, OER was founded on the universal human right of access to quality education. By enabling nearly anyone to access, translate, and adapt educational resources whose use had traditionally been restricted to students at prestigious universities, OER can jumpstart professions and economic growth in underdeveloped places (White Paper, 2013). Research in fact points to a strong support among instructors across a wide variety of disciplines for OER adoption (Hollister & Patton, 2021), as OER are perceived to provide solutions for preserving the quality of educational materials while at the same time significantly reducing the cost of education. Digital pedagogy helps instructors incorporate OER successfully into their online, face-to-face, and hybrid classrooms. It assists instructors in designing, developing, editing, and remixing educational resources in order to share these with students, colleagues at their own institution, and at other institutions as well. Some of the benefits of OER in implementing digital pedagogy include: ● Access to Learning Material—OER are available to all at any time, from any location, and on various devices. ● Cost Saving—Because OER are free, using them instead of standard textbooks or course packs can significantly lower the expenses of teaching and learning resources. ● Class materials supplementation—Instructors are not limited to just one resource when teaching. OER can be a supplement to textbooks as well as other teaching materials. Moreover, instructors can use video materials, exercises, assignments, etc., to enable students to process teaching content as efficiently as possible. ● Improved resources continuously—OER may be upgraded quickly by users’ direct editing. Instructors can adapt and adjust existing OER to their needs. Furthermore, they can make the modified OER available for use by others.

74

6 The Use of Open Educational Resources (OER) in Digital Pedagogy

● Rapid circulation—OER can be disseminated broadly with little or no expense. Furthermore, OER may be shared far more quickly than printed books and supplementary teaching materials. This is especially significant, since certain learning resources must be made available to students and educators on a timely basis. Digital pedagogy aids instructors by offering effective approaches to engage students in the design and development of OER. In practice, this has the potential to improve students’ digital literacy, competencies, and critical thinking skills; it enables deeper and more systematic comprehension of educational materials; and it may facilitate improved integration of learning materials and the application of related principles. Based on a systematic literature review, Mazzucato and Kic-Drgas (2021), proposed the following key principles of OER-integrated learning: ● Promote lifelong learning opportunities which encompass education and training. ● Encourage independent and critical thinking through the learner-centered learning process. ● Encourage flexible learning—allow learners to make their own decision on where, when, what and how they learn. ● Encourage reflective practice through and from experience towards gaining new insights of self and practice. ● Encourage internalization of the learning experience, anchoring concepts and knowledge to real life problems and scenarios. ● Encourage contextualization of prior learning, prior experience, and demonstrated competencies to develop what is needed to adjust to the situation. ● Promote collaboration, increasing the interaction and communication amongst all involved in the development. ● Support personalized, self-regulated learning. (Benefits and advantages of introducing OERs development as part of blended learning path, para. 1) In the implementation of digital pedagogy, the use of OER offers numerous additional benefits. In flipped classrooms, using OER may increase student confidence, satisfaction, enthusiasm, engagement, and performance (DiSanto et al., 2019). Additionally, by incorporating the design and development of OER into the education process, the overall quality of the learning experience is enhanced through the utilization of a learner-centered, self-directed, peer-to-peer, and collaborative learning environment (Mazzucato & Kic-Drgas, 2021). Among students, OER may have positive effects on intrinsic motivation; cognitive, behavioral, and emotional engagement; and on a sense of responsibility, and assertiveness.

6.4 Impediments to OER Adoption OER research activity has intensified and increased, yet most studies have been conducted in economically developed countries, and have focused on OER creation and policy development; only few studies focus on OER usage in economically

6.4 Impediments to OER Adoption

75

developing countries (Hu et al., 2015). Research findings indicate that a variety of obstacles must be overcome in order for quality OER to be developed and implemented effectively in digital pedagogy, and that these obstacles differ from region to region. Some educational systems have recognized the value and significance of OER and have been able to establish OER platforms which contain extensive repositories of digital teaching and learning content, and boast large numbers of users. Here, the primary challenge is to raise the funds necessary to maintain such platforms and develop new OER. However, educational systems in economically underdeveloped, or developing, countries face other specific challenges. Here, the critical shortage of digital technologies in such systems hinders the implementation of digital pedagogy and the use of OER. Because English is the primary language used in OER, overcoming the language hurdle is another challenge in implementing digital pedagogy. To this end, the UNESCO’s Institute for Information Technologies in Education (IITE) has initiated its own OER programs to encourage non-English-speaking countries to join the OER movement (Hu et al., 2015). Educators may show hesitation towards OER for pedagogical reasons. For example, teachers may be reluctant to use OER as a teaching and learning resource because the materials were created by other teachers, and may not align with their own pedagogical objectives. The IITE points to multiple barriers impeding the broader uptake of OER: ● National and institutional strategies for the informatization of education are mainly oriented towards infrastructure and seldom encourage the development of educational content. ● Educators (and others) lack awareness about the availability of OER and the opportunities it provides. ● Most people are not familiar with intellectual property rights (IPR); moreover, national IPR regulations are currently incompatible with open licenses. ● Emerging pedagogical approaches that use OER in countries that are more advanced in accepting and using OER have yet to be adopted by educators and higher education institutions. ● Quality assessment and assurance provisions for “kite-marking” OER as being academically and/or pedagogically sound do not exist. ● The reward/encouragement system for introducing OER into educational practice is non-existent at educational institutions, and the provision of educational content is not considered during instructors’ performance evaluation. (Badarch et al., 2012, p. 31) Among educators, there are two major types of barriers hindering adoption and effective use of OER. The first type relates to technological accessibility issues, over which teachers and students have little or no control. The second type of barrier refers to attitudes towards OER held by instructors and their students. These barriers have prevented the widespread acceptance and use of OER in many countries. Reasons offered for low rates of OER use include:

76

6 The Use of Open Educational Resources (OER) in Digital Pedagogy

● OER adoption and use not encouraged by policymakers (government, institutional) or the general educational culture ● Preference for conventional instructional methods ● Risk aversion and/or reluctance to try new things ● Cultural mindset equating cost with quality; the belief that freeware is by definition inferior ● Teachers may prefer to rely on their own knowledge creation and dissemination rather than use OER ● Lack of OER access due to technology-related issues such as insufficient connectivity, hardware and/or software ● Teachers may lack competencies in using, modifying and/or creating new OER ● Language gap: OER materials are available primarily in English and not translated to other languages ● Locating and accessing OER can be difficult for both teachers and students ● Quality of many OER materials is poor ● OER materials are often offered in PDF format, which cannot be easily changed and adapted to the respective pedagogical and/or cultural context ● OER fail to offer good design and suitable graphics with which to illustrate content for teaching and learning ● OER materials may be quickly obsolete ● OER materials are rarely supplemented in the same way that conventional textbook packages are (e.g. lesson-ready assignments, exercises, banks of exam questions, etc.). Despite OER’s existing limitations and flaws, digital pedagogues are expected to use them more, because using OER is more efficient than creating something from scratch, particularly when high-quality resources are easily accessible, publicly available (Bates, 2019), and adaptable for various needs. However, specific steps must be taken in order for OER to be more widely used. These include developing positive teacher attitudes; raising awareness of OER benefits; developing OER quality standards; providing grants for OER development; initiating collaboration among experts from various institutions and countries in OER development; ensuring that OER is promoted in a commensurate way; and providing institutional support for the adoption and use of OER. Furthermore, according to Wiley and Hilton (2018), digital pedagogues may be motivated to adopt OER through best-practice examples of OER-enabled pedagogy; once digital pedagogues recognize the benefits of open pedagogy, they will be considerably more likely to increase OER use. Likewise, more rapid adoption of OER would significantly improve the quality and affordability of education globally (Wiley & Hilton, 2018).

6.5 How to Use OER

77

6.5 How to Use OER OER facilitate systemic change in education by involving digital pedagogues and students in new, participatory ways to design and develop teaching and learning resources. However, according to DiSanto et al. (2019), the move away from forprofit textbooks does not end with the adaption, acceptance, or provision of openaccess resources; it must also include comprehensive support from diverse institutional stakeholders. At the very least, this should include extensive professional development for academic and library faculty regarding: 1. how to review and revise OERs after their initial implementation; 2. training students to be actively engaged in their learning; 3. partnering with library and academic faculty to grow, sustain and expand an OER initiative; and 4. defining academic freedom and accessibility through an OER lens. (DiSanto et al., 2019, p. 227) Many OER materials are available to instructors and students. In some instances, they are already suitable for use in implementing digital pedagogy and do not require adaption or editing. On the other hand, it is common for digital pedagogues to need to change, modify or re-purpose OER to suit their own requirements. Because the quality of available OER materials varies, instructors should carefully assess them before adopting and incorporating them into digital pedagogy. The following criteria should be considered when evaluating OER (Fig. 6.1): Fig. 6.1 OER evaluation criteria

Quality

Accessibility

Adaptability

OER Evaluation Criteria Cultural Relevance

Comprehensiveness

Longevity

78

6 The Use of Open Educational Resources (OER) in Digital Pedagogy

● Quality (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

OER content covers the module OER is beneficial to both digital pedagogues and students OER is accurate and unbiased Pedagogical strategies of OER are effective OER is appropriate for the education level of the student

● Adaptability (a) The OER license allows for modification and adaption (b) OER file format allows for editing and additions ● Accessibility (a) Students and digital pedagogues have rapid and unrestricted access to OER (b) Through the interoperability of third-party reading programs, OER is accessible to students with impairments (c) The technical quality of OER is acceptable (clear visuals, high production values) ● Comprehensiveness (a) (b) (c) (d)

OER adequately covers the subject area OER areas are well-categorized and presented logically and clearly OER is internally consistent in terms of language and structure Guidelines, exercises, and supplemental material are straightforward and understandable

● Cultural Relevance (a) OER is neither culturally insensitive nor disrespectful in any manner (b) OER examples include people of many races, nationalities, and backgrounds ● Longevity (a) The most recent version of OER has been uploaded (b) The URL for the OER is still valid (c) The OER has been designed so that any modifications will be reasonably simple to apply. The above criteria may help digital pedagogues select OER with the best match for their own objectives. Furthermore, these criteria may be helpful in designing, developing, and tailoring OER to the needs of students. Moreover, as the number of OER increases, it is more likely that digital pedagogies and learners will be able to identify adequate teaching and learning resources suitable to their specific educational circumstances. Bates (2019) suggests the following strategies for effective OER usage:

6.6 Conclusion

79

● Take OER selectively from elsewhere, and incorporate or adapt them into your own courses; ● Create your own digital resources for your own teaching, and make them available to others […]; ● Build a course around OER, where students have to find content to solve problems, write reports or do research on a topic […]; ● Take a whole course from OER, then build student activities and assessment and provide learner support for the course. (p. 385) Students at all levels may use OER to support any type of learning. OER are especially beneficial when physical attendance is not possible at classes or praxis-based teaching sessions which are vital to mastering complex content. During the pandemic, for instance, students frequently utilized Khan Academy and MIT’s OpenCourseWare (OCW) to master challenging learning materials for courses such as calculus, statistics, linear algebra, and physics. Along with using OER to teach students how to learn, digital pedagogues should be able to teach students how to adapt and modify OER when completing school assignments. Even more, digital pedagogues should encourage students to design and share their own OER with others. This helps students cultivate problem-solving skills, critical thinking, communication and collaborative skills, creativity, and gain self-confidence. The digital pedagogue’s role becomes increasingly important when students design, adapt, and use OER to construct knowledge: the digital pedagogue guides and mentors students instead of offering their own solutions, or imposing their own ideas, meanings, and understandings on them.

6.6 Conclusion At its core, the notion of OER addresses the need to provide free educational resources which are licensed and available to all. Introduced in 2002, OER has been one of the most significant educational developments of the twenty-first century. Its popularity has grown rapidly thanks to its specific advantages and relevance in teaching and learning. As the significant benefits to be gained when using OER in digital pedagogy become clear, its use will also increase, as will the quality of the overall OER offer. While several varying definitions of OER exist, they are founded on the same idea: OER are educational resources that are freely available in the public domain under an open license. OER allow for the retention, reuse, revision, remixing, and redistribution by others. OER may include curricula, syllabi, textbooks, lesson plans, learning modules, course design templates, lecture notes, presentations, lab experiments, assignments, simulations, exams, projects, discussion prompts, audio, videos, apps, library guides, animations, and more. Although numerous governmental and non-governmental organizations have made significant investments in the design, development, maintenance, and distribution of OER on a global scale, there is a clear need to increase such investments,

80

6 The Use of Open Educational Resources (OER) in Digital Pedagogy

particularly in non-Western countries. Many OER repositories have been established, including The Open Education Consortium, MERLOT, and OER Commons. Support and backing for existing OER organizations must be boosted, and new collections established, particularly in non-speaking English countries. Non-native speakers of English—whether teachers or students—require OER in greater breadth and depth across a variety of academic fields. Barriers hindering the broader uptake and implementation of OER in digital pedagogy must be removed. Educational policymakers and institutions must evaluate, then create and implement strategies for removing the obstacles for using OER in teaching and learning. Educators should take care to thoroughly assess existing OER materials as to their suitability before integrating them into classroom instruction. Incorporating OER in the implementation of digital pedagogy enhances the quality of the overall learning experience, whether instruction takes place in person, online, or in hybrid form. In addition to encouraging students to use OER by establishing a learner-centered, self-directed, peer-to-peer, and collaborative learning environment, digital pedagogues should instruct them to modify and develop new OER for various benefits. Although research has already demonstrated the positive effects of using OER on various aspects of student development, there is need for further research in the field. Quantitative and qualitative research should be conducted to investigate the impacts of using OER at various educational levels on a variety of constructs, including students’ cognitive, social, and emotional development as well as academic achievement. Because most OER-related research has been conducted in Western countries, future research should also be carried out in economically developing ones to determine which specific barriers must be removed to facilitate the development and use of OER in these places.

References Badarch, D., Knyazeva, S., & Lane, A. (2012). Introducing OER—Opportunities and challenges: The case of the commonwealth of independent states and Baltic states. In J. Glennie, K. Harley, N. Butcher, & T. van Wyk (Eds.), Open educational resources and change in higher education: Reflections from practice (pp. 27–39). Commonwealth of Learning. Bates, A. W. (Tony). (2019). Teaching in a digital age (2nd ed.). Tony Bates Associates Ltd. https:// opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/ D’Antoni, S. (2009). Open educational resources: Reviewing initiatives and issues. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 24(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/026805108 02625443 DiSanto, J. M., Cummings-Clay, D., Mitchell, S., & Ford, M. (2019). Beyond saving money: Engaging multiple stakeholders is a key to OER success. The International Journal of Open Educational Resources, 2(1), 227–238. Hilton, J., Wiley, D., Stein, J., & Johnson, A. (2010). The four ‘R’s of openness and ALMS analysis: Frameworks for open educational resources. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 25(1), 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680510903482132

References

81

Hollister, C. V., & Patton, J. (2021). Faculty perceptions of an OER stipend program. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2021.2000452 Hu, E., Li, Y., Li, J., & Huang, W.-H. (2015). Open educational resources (OER) usage and barriers: A study from Zhejiang University. China. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(6), 957–974. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9398-1 Mazzucato, A., & Kic-Drgas, J. (2021, October 5). Develop OERs for technology enhanced learning. Proccedings of the second workshop on technology enhanced learning environments for blended education. The Italian E-Learning Conference 2021. MERLOT. (2021). https://www.merlot.org/merlot/# Munro, D., Omassi, J., & Yano, B. (2016). Step One: What are OER, why are they important, and what are the barriers to adoption? https://opentextbc.ca/studenttoolkit/chapter/step-one-whatare-oer/ OECD. (2007). Giving knowledge for free: The emergence of open educational resources. OECD Centre for Educational Research and Innovation. https://www.oecd.org/education/ceri/givingkno wledgeforfreetheemergenceofopeneducationalresources.htm OER Commons. (2021). OER Commons. https://www.oercommons.org/ Open Educational Resources (OER). (2021a). Université Catholique de Louvain. Open Educational Resources (OER). (2021b). Hewlett Foundation. https://hewlett.org/strategy/ open-education/ Stenger, M. (2018, October 22). 7 ways to teach digital literacy | Tips and tricks for educators. InformED. https://www.opencolleges.edu.au/informed/edtech-integration/7-ways-teach-digitalliteracy/ The Open Education Consortium. (n.d.). Retrieved December 19, 2021, from https://www.oecons ortium.org/ UNESCO. (2002). Forum on the impact of open courseware for higher education in developing countries. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000128515 White Paper: Open Educational Resources. (2013). The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. https://hewlett.org/library/white-paper-open-educational-resources/ Wiley, D., Cable, G., & Louis, S. (2012). Dramatically bringing down the cost of education with OER. Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/dramatically-bri nging-down-the-cost-of-education-with-oer/ Wiley, D., & Hilton, J. (2018). Defining OER-enabled pedagogy. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(4). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i4.3601

Chapter 7

Privacy and Personal Data Protection in Digital Pedagogy

7.1 Introduction The exponential growth of digital technologies has created opportunities for virtual networking and content circulation. Privacy is regarded as a crucial issue in various domains (Chignell et al., 2003), including education. Users of digital technologies deliberately or unknowingly leave tracks on their social media accounts, web pages, and gaming platforms; they carry out various transactions, thereby storing their personal data on diverse databases and cloud platforms. Various activities conducted in online settings result in the creation of digital identities connected with actions taken by users, resulting in the formation of a digital footprint (Surmelioglu & Seferoglu, 2019, p. 48). This allows for the potential misuse of personal data and may even lead to criminal acts. In the wake of the rapid growth and use of digital technologies, including in business, healthcare, and education, governments and citizens are increasingly concerned about privacy-related matters (Haque et al., 2021). One of the key activities of educational institutions is processing and storing personal data of students, as well as parents, teachers, and other parties. Of the laws and regulations enacted to protect privacy and personal data, the best known and most significant among them is the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which is used in the European Union (EU) and the European Economic Area (EEA). While many other countries and regions have enacted their own legislation governing privacy and personal data protection, most share identical or at least similar concepts and provisions, and all share the same goal, as the GDPR: to protect privacy and personal data. Thus, while this chapter focuses on the GDPR in implementing digital pedagogy, the ideas presented within may be helpful to instructors, students, parents, and decision-makers located both inside and outside the EU and EEA. Because many educational institutions are becoming more digital-focused, there is a huge risk of violations of personal data and privacy. Many school administrators, teachers, and students are even unaware of the need and obligation to protect © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. Be´cirovi´c, Digital Pedagogy, SpringerBriefs in Open and Distance Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-0444-0_7

83

84

7 Privacy and Personal Data Protection in Digital Pedagogy

Fig. 7.1 GDPR in the School Context

personal data and privacy. The growing digitalization of education necessitates the development of privacy and personal data protection awareness, knowledge, and competencies among educational administration, instructors, students, parents, and others involved in the educational process. As a relatively new academic discipline, digital pedagogy must provide strategies that will enable quality technologymediated education while ensuring complete privacy and personal data protection. GDPR may aid digital pedagogy in developing strategies to ensure data protection in all educational operations. Considering that GDPR is the most widely used document on privacy and personal data protection, this chapter provides a brief description of it and then discusses how digital pedagogy can integrate it into educational processes, beginning with school administration and continuing with strategies for instructors, students, and parents (Fig. 7.1).

7.2 What is GDPR? The GDPR, as one of the most important documents on data security, was designed to protect people’s fundamental rights and freedoms, specifically their right to personal data protection (European Commission, 2016). Published in April 2016 and entering into force on May 25th , 2018, after a two-year transition period, it represents a

7.3 GDPR and School Administration

85

“replacement of the EU’s archaic data protection directive in 1995, later reserved for the UK’s information and data protection law in 1998” (Haque et al., 2021, p. 50594). A significant share of crucial principles from the Data Protection Act (DPA) that was adopted in 1998 is retained in the GDPR, while changes were made to it pertaining to the use of personal data (Haque et al., 2021). The GDPR protects the personal data and privacy of EU and EEA citizens and regulates information transfer outside of the aforementioned regions (Guðmundsdóttir & Hatlevik, 2020). The EU is utilizing the GDPR to harmonize privacy laws and ensure that users regain control of their data (Haque et al., 2021). It is integrated into the legislation of the EU and the EEA member states. However, legislation in most other countries also includes privacy and personal data protection regulations; hence, the guidelines and principles of the GDPR can be associated with the privacy and personal data protection regulations of non-EU countries. As a result of GDPR adoption, new laws and regulations include new requests for the control and processing of personal data and compliance with privacy rights. Article 30(1) of the GDPR requires the designation of a controller who will monitor information processing and create a report that includes processing activity records (European Commission, 2016). With the introduction of the GDPR, the responsibilities associated with processing and maintaining personal data have become much more demanding and stringent (Lovell & Foy, 2018). The GDPR mandates the proper storage and protection of personal data and privacy, which presents a challenge for a variety of sectors, including the education sector. Educational institutions in the EU and EEA are obliged to follow GDPRmandated procedures when dealing with personal data and privacy. Any data or information that identifies an individual and could cause harm or discomfort if lost or misplaced is considered personal data (Gover, 2016, p. 4). In order to comply with the GDPR, all organizations involved in personal processing data must have adequate procedures in place for information management. Educational institutions process a variety of personal data of their students and staff as well as parents and other partner organizations. Considering that one of the primary objectives of the GDPR is the protection of personal data, educational institutions are of course compelled to take measures to protect personal data and privacy.

7.3 GDPR and School Administration Digitalization has a significant impact on school management. Educational policies aim to align the performance of educational institutions with the latest standards, and require such institutions to prepare both instructors and students to face modern challenges effectively (Be´cirovi´c & Akbarov, 2016). Like most other organizations in various sectors, schools collect, process, and store data about students and their parents, as well as alumni, employees, partners, and others affiliated with the school. The GDPR imposes various restrictions on educational institutions related to the processing of personal data, including a restriction on the type of personal data that

86

7 Privacy and Personal Data Protection in Digital Pedagogy

the institutions are authorized to process (GDPR Basics for Educational Institutions, n.d.). The educational approaches to implementing digital pedagogy differ significantly from traditional approaches, particularly regarding privacy and data protection. The conventional approach taken by school administrations, in which data is made public or semi-public, does not adequately protect personal data. Furthermore, school administrations are often inadequately informed and trained to employ approaches that protect private information and overall privacy and prevent data misuse. It is also worth noting that, aside from the risk of inadvertent disclosure of personal information, there are other ways in which data may be leaked: cyber assaults, data theft via particular apps and software, or unintentional loss (i.e., a situation in which a school official leaves behind a laptop or a memory card on a plane, bus, or train). It is absolutely essential to ensure that personal data is stored only on equipment used in schools and protected with strong passwords; data stored on portable devices, such as memory cards, should be password-protected and encrypted (A Brief Guide to GDPR for Schools & Teachers, 2018). Concerning the restrictions and threats to privacy and personal data in technologyenhanced education, digital pedagogy must develop techniques that comply with GDPR while providing a high-quality educational experience. Thus, implementing digital pedagogy requires educational administration to develop and implement strategies for complying with GDPR regulations. Likewise, according to Gover (2016), any business or organization, including in the education field, that collects or uses personal data is required to ensure that the data they collect is: ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Used fairly and lawfully Used for limited, specifically stated purposes Used in a way that is adequate, relevant and not excessive Is accurate Kept for no longer than is absolutely necessary Handled according to people’s data protection rights Kept safe and secure Not transferred outside the UK without adequate protection. (p. 3)

In implementing digital pedagogy, privacy and personal data could be abused in a variety of situations. Schools collect, process, and store students’ personal data (e.g., name, surname, parents’ names, address, date, place of birth, ID number), data about their learning performance, participation in various competitions, projects, extracurricular activities, etc., with all of them requiring complete protection. The following data fall into a specific category of sensitive data that are of greatest concern to educational institutions: ● ● ● ●

Biometric data (e.g., fingerprints, photos); Religious beliefs (for example, whether a student opts out of religion classes); Health (e.g., allergies, conditions); or Dietary requirements which may indicate religious affiliation or health status (A Brief Guide to GDPR for Schools & Teachers, 2018, para. 3).

7.3 GDPR and School Administration

87

According to Markovi´c et al. (2019), higher education is also engaged in collecting the following: personal data about past, current, and prospective students; personal data about past, current, and potential employees; and other personal data related to co-workers on projects, initiatives, and other activities (p. 151). Besides the above mentioned data, schools also process and store photographs of students, employees, parents, steering board members, partners, and others. It is important to keep in mind that educational institutions are public entities responsible for collecting and processing personal data, all of which are governed by public regulation. Nevertheless, educational administrations must adopt approaches to ensure that personal data is protected and should not be disclosed without the owner’s consent, regardless if the owner is a student, parent, or associate. In implementing digital pedagogy, the strategies of school administration to protect personal data and privacy must be aligned with GDPR in the EU and the EEA. Moreover, such strategies in non-EU and EEA countries should be consistent with relevant privacy and data protection regulations that are in place in those countries. The first step is the institutional nomination of persons in charge of ensuring that the processing of personal data complies with the GDPR. The GDPR underlines the special importance of two individuals or entities who have specific legal obligations in the protection of personal information: 1. The data controller—determines the means and purposes of data processing. 2. The data processor—processes data on behalf of the controller (A Brief Guide to GDPR for Schools & Teachers, 2018). Educational institutions are typically data controllers, whereas the role of a data processor is performed by the affiliates who are involved in data processing and who signed a data processing agreement with a clearly defined process for protection of personal information (A Brief Guide to GDPR for Schools & Teachers, 2018). Data processors include all those involved in data processing, such as online platform providers, companies hired to take photographs of students, and any other partner organizations with which educational institutions cooperate. Since implementing digital pedagogy requires collecting and processing students’ personal data, educational institutions must therefore acquaint students and parents with how they intend to use, process, archive, and protect personal data. Moreover, Markovi´c et al. (2019) note that higher educational institutions are responsible for informing their students about the following details related to their personal information: ● Which data are collected; ● The basis for collecting and processing the data (legal obligation, consent of the data owner and other legitimate reasons); ● How the data are collected; ● The purpose of data collection and how the information will be used and processed; ● How the data will be stored; ● How long the data will be stored; ● Who is able to access the data;

88

7 Privacy and Personal Data Protection in Digital Pedagogy

● Students’ rights with regard to the terms of data collection; ● When certain data are to be deleted or destroyed. (p. 155) To successfully implement digital pedagogy, educational institutions must provide adequate data protection training for their employees, including instructors and administrators. They need to acquire adequate knowledge and develop specific competencies and awareness of the GDPR, all of which will assist them in ensuring privacy and personal data protection. One of the relevant examples is Hackney Education, which has developed a framework for GDPR compliance in schools, the Hackney Learning Trust Framework for Compliance: 8 Key Tasks. The model entails eight key tasks that must be completed to ensure compliance: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Appoint a Data Protection Officer (DPO); Complete an Information Asset Register and information audit; Review and update your Privacy Notice; Review and update arrangements with 3rd party data processors; Review and develop internal procedures and policies; Review your Subject Access procedures; Review your data breach management procedures; and Embed Privacy by Design in your school. (GDPR Support for Schools, 2018, para. 2)

The model includes the following tasks accompanied by additional clarifications: introduction to GDPR compliance framework; GDPR guidance—appointing a DPO; GDPR guidance—information asset register and schools retention schedule; reviewing and updating your privacy notice; reviewing arrangements with third-party data processors; template information sharing policy; and schools data protection policy (GDPR Support for Schools, 2018). Educational institutions implementing digital pedagogy may use this model as an example of good practice in protecting privacy and personal data.

7.4 GDPR and Teachers’ Practices School administration and teaching staff are frequently unaware of and under-trained in the area of personal data and privacy protection. Many instructors mistakenly believe that the GDPR is solely the responsibility of school administration, despite the fact that they also process the personal data of students, colleagues, and third parties. Instructor error, mishandling of data, or simple inattentiveness may result in privacy and data security violations. A breach of personal data can have severe consequences in some situations. It is important to highlight that personal data refers not only to formal documents but also to any written records made manually and other “recorded facts—in fact, anything held in a formal or informal filing system” (Gover, 2016, p. 4).

7.4 GDPR and Teachers’ Practices

89

Gover (2017, p. 5) emphasizes that almost any piece of information held by a school concerning a single student can be considered personal data and provides detailed guidelines for teachers regarding personal data protection in the following situations: taking attendance, marking book/lesson plan folders, pupils’ work/classroom displays, and pupils’ photos. However, teachers’ experiences show that privacy and personal data are frequently violated. There are numerous examples of teachers unwittingly violating GDPR provisions, such as posting all student exam results on a bulletin board, or using digital technologies to share other students’ exam results. Another example is sharing group files with parents on social media platforms to enable all parents access to all children’s grades; this has provoked a parental revolt over the unlawful sharing of their children’s personal data. Furthermore, it is not uncommon for teachers to publicly share images, names, email addresses, and other information related to their students and colleagues. Such actions contravene the spirit of the law and may result in abuse and unwanted acts. There is a demonstrated need to improve teachers’ digital literacy and digital competencies, and enhance awareness and knowledge about how to protect privacy and personal data. One of the trending challenges of personal data protection faced by instructors is protecting personal data during online lectures. In implementing digital pedagogy, instructors are recommended to fully use the technology provided by the school, such as laptops, memory discs, email addresses, etc. Furthermore, they should not share devices that contain students’ personal data with other household members (Taylor, 2020). When holding online classes, particularly when using various devices in their home settings, digital pedagogues are more vulnerable to personal data theft or inadvertent data sharing, which has potential to harm both students and instructors. When using the video option during an online lecture, instructors should not record the lecture without the consent of all participants. Instructors should also remind students that members of their households should not be included in the video (Taylor, 2020). There are also numerous instructor complaints about strangers joining and even disrupting their online classes (for example, on the Google Meet platform) or having portions of their lectures recorded without their consent; teachers have subsequently been exposed to ridicule after such materials have appeared on social media. Educational institutions, especially higher education institutions, use ICT solutions to improve educational and research activities and improve administrative process efficiency, ranging from curriculum development and modification to facility management (Tsilionis et al., 2021). Thus, to successfully implement digital pedagogy, educational institutions must integrate regulations to protect privacy and personal data into their internal rules and procedures, and ensure training that will enable instructors to follow the privacy and data protection regulations. Moreover, there is a need to integrate GDPR into teacher training programs. Digital pedagogues must attend pre-service and in-service training to learn and build awareness on protecting the privacy and personal data of students, their colleagues, and third parties. Eastment (2018) underlines that since they handle a significant amount of personal data, teachers must be aware of certain information and the steps they must take to protect it. Critical GDPR-related changes for teachers include:

90

7 Privacy and Personal Data Protection in Digital Pedagogy

● Introducing new systems: if you want to introduce a new piece of subject-specific software for example, you will need to inform your school’s Data Protection Officer (DPO) in order to make sure that it is done compliantly. ● Reporting a breach: you must understand what constitutes a data breach and if you suspect one has occurred, report it to your DPO. (Eastment, 2018, para. 2) Thus, successful digital pedagogy implementation requires teachers’ knowledge, awareness, competency, and action to protect privacy and personal data. Digital pedagogues must raise awareness and teach their students to protect personal data regardless of the data owner, whether it be classmates, teachers, or other individuals they work with.

7.5 GDPR and Students Educational institutions must select and appoint a DPO whose job is to monitor the compliance of the school’s personal data protection procedures within the GDPR; provide training; and conduct audits and a variety of other actions related to the GDPR that entail personal data protection (A Brief Guide to GDPR for Schools & Teachers, 2018). The majority of students do not understand what personal data is, why it needs to be protected, or the risks associated with personal data breaches. Thus schools, parents or guardians, and third parties should take care to avoid violating the principles enshrined in the GDPR. Article 38 of the GDPR treats the protection of students’ personal data in the following manner: Children merit specific protection with regard to their personal data, as they may be less aware of the risks, consequences and safeguards concerned and their rights in relation to the processing of personal data. Such specific protection should, in particular, apply to the use of personal data of children for the purposes of marketing or creating personality or user profiles and the collection of personal data with regard to children when using services offered directly to a child. (European Commission, 2016, art. 38)

According to Article 8(1) of the GDPR, students can give consent when they turn 16. Up until the age of 16, parents or guardians need to give consent for the processing of their children’s data, whereas after the age of 16, the students themselves are in a position to give consent for processing. EU member states can lower this age limit to 13. Thus, up until the age of 13, parents or guardians in England need to give consent for the processing of their children’s personal data, whereas the students can themselves give permission for the processing of personal data after the age of 13. In Scotland, on the other hand, after the students turn 12, they are considered mature enough to take due account of their own data protection rights (What Rights Do Children Have?, 2021). Children and GDPR (2018) provides the following recommendations on processing students’ data (for detailed and complete guidelines which are regularly updated, see the website https://ico.org.uk): ● Children need particular protection when you are collecting and processing their personal data because they may be less aware of the risks involved.

7.5 GDPR and Students

91

● If you process children’s personal data then you should think about the need to protect them from the outset, and design your systems and processes with this in mind. ● Compliance with the data protection principles and in particular fairness should be central to all your processing of students’ personal data. ● Students merit specific protection when you use their personal data for marketing purposes or creating personality or user profiles. ● You should not usually make decisions based solely on automated processing about students if this will have a legal or similarly significant effect on them. ● You should write clear privacy notices for students so that they are able to understand what will happen to their personal data, and what rights they have. ● Students have the same rights as adults over their personal data. These include the rights to access their personal data; request rectification; object to processing and have their personal data erased. ● An individual’s right to erasure is particularly relevant if they gave their consent to processing when they were a child. (p. 1) University-level students can give their own consent for the processing of personal data. However, research shows that they are insufficiently aware and inadequately acquainted with the principles of the GDPR and the risks associated with personal processing data. Moreover, teens use more digital technology than previously estimated, leaving significantly larger digital footprints than adults; it is thus critical to develop a greater awareness of digital footprints among them (Surmelioglu & Seferoglu, 2019). Yet students and adolescents are not only the subjects of data processing: they can also be the perpetrators of unauthorized sharing and processing of others’ personal information. According to empirical research on university-level students, two fundamental issues arise as a result of students’ misunderstanding or ignorance of the GDPR’s fundamental concepts: 1. Students aren’t aware of the use of their personal data by others; they don’t know who can access them, whether they are used for unwanted purposes, whether they are available to other students and the public, if they are used for promotional activities of the HEI; 2. Students aren’t aware that other students’ data are protected; they may want to see the tests results of other students, their own test results after the expiration of test keeping date, or other students’ activity data, like how certain students voted on some issue. (Markovi´c et al., 2019, p. 155) Students may share private data and violate privacy in a variety of ways, both knowingly and unknowingly. Furthermore, there are numerous ways in which private data can be stolen as a result of their recklessness. Likewise, students may be at risk when they are online regardless of their role, whether as victims (experiencing abuse, theft, or inappropriate content) or as actors (if they are involved in certain activities that may cause undesirable consequences). Thus, Guðmundsdóttir and Hatlevik (2020) claim that young people may be exposed to spam, promotional pitches, or

92

7 Privacy and Personal Data Protection in Digital Pedagogy

objectionable content as recipients. As users, they may be tracked, bullied, invited to meet strangers, or experience unsolicited contact from others. Young people may also be perpetrators and engage in illegal copying, reuse, and creation of unsuitable material (Guðmundsdóttir & Hatlevik, 2020, p. 40). On the other side, a survey conducted by Park (2013) shows that a large number of young Facebook users are aware of and concerned about potential privacy threats. Digital technologies are inherently suited for modifying and sharing various data. There are various examples of personal data misuse among students, particularly online. One of the examples is creating closed or semi-public groups on social media platforms. They share other people’s personal information in these groups, create memes, and sometimes ridicule people they interact with, such as professors, students, and other individuals. One recent example involved a group of IT students who took screenshots during online lectures, modified them and then uploaded them to an Instagram semi-public group. This resulted in the ridicule of lecturers and inappropriate comments about them in the posts. Another example is making memes from images of instructors obtained from social media profiles. Despite their long exposure to information technologies and demonstration of certain competencies in digital technology use, these examples indicate that the aforementioned students have significant gaps in their digital literacy, knowledge, and awareness of the GDPR. Additionally, the above mentioned examples emphasize the urgency of teaching students how to protect privacy and personal data. Digital literacy and digital citizenship imply digital technologies’ ethical and moral use while protecting and respecting other individuals’ privacy and personal data. Thus, teaching students’ digital literacy and digital competencies includes teaching them the protection of privacy and personal data. Digital pedagogy necessitates that teacher training curricula incorporate the GDPR, as teachers should acquire awareness, knowledge, and competencies in personal data protection and contribute to such development in their students. The conscientious use of digital technologies should be particularly emphasized during their training because students and teens are exposed to an online risk “which may be identified by three keywords: content, contact and conduct” (Guðmundsdóttir & Hatlevik, 2020, p. 40), and the type of risk depends on the role of online users. When teaching students GDPR, digital pedagogues can use various online resources such as TeachPrivacy, twinkle, and HFL Education. They offer a plethora of digital tools that can help teachers train students in the field of GDPR. Additionally, the aforementioned resources contain training tools for teachers, parents, and administrative personnel.

7.6 GDPR and Parents/Guardians The GDPR stipulates that parents or guardians have the right to know which specific types of information schools collect about their students, how such information is processed and used, and how such information is safeguarded. The GDPR Article

7.6 GDPR and Parents/Guardians

93

8 (1) covers the general conditions pertaining to children’s consent with respect to information safeguarding and processing: Where the child is below the age of 16 years, such processing shall be lawful only if and to the extent that consent is given or authorized by the holder of parental responsibility for the child. Member States may provide by law for a lower age for those purposes provided that such lower age is not below 13 years. (General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), 2018, art. 8)

Schools are required to assist parents or legal guardians in two ways: informing them about processing their children’s personal data and training them on how to protect the personal data of students or teachers they receive from school or obtain them by attending school events that allow them to get it. The first step is the appointment of a data controller whose role is to prepare a “privacy notice” or “fair processing notices” for parents. A privacy notice includes information about which data is collected and how it is used and safeguarded. Because students do not yet understand data privacy and lack awareness of the risks, parents or guardians are generally assigned the care of protecting their children’s privacy and personal data. However, this does not mean that students are without rights. If the child consents, if the child lacks the necessary understanding to exercise these rights independently, or if it is in the child’s best interests, parents should be allowed to act on their behalf (What Rights Do Children Have?, 2021). Accordingly, in specific instances where students are deemed incompetent and do not understand data protection principles, their rights should be transferred to a parent or a guardian. The second step is training parents on how to protect personal data and privacy. Because they receive official documents from the school and attend school events that allow them to obtain data that is supposed to be protected, they should be taught how to deal with such data. For example, parents have the right to photograph their students or shoot videos during certain events if these images and videos will only be used for personal purposes (Gover, 2016). In certain situations, for instance, due to requests made by other parents, the school may deny parents the right to photograph and videotape certain events; if this is the case, it is to be communicated clearly prior to the event (Gover, 2016). As a result, successful implementation of digital pedagogy necessitates educational administration and instructors to make parents aware of how to deal with privacy and personal data. Various workshops and seminars may help the parents in developing awareness and knowledge about personal data and privacy protection. Additionally, instructors may inform parents how to protect privacy during regular meetings. Making posters, booklets, and guides with detailed information posted on school websites and sending the links to parents could be an effective method of increasing parental awareness and knowledge about protecting privacy and personal data.

94

7 Privacy and Personal Data Protection in Digital Pedagogy

7.7 Conclusion The rapid development of digital technologies has enabled the swift establishment of connections and content sharing in the virtual world. Yet it has also enabled and facilitated privacy violations and data misuse and theft. Thus, the GDPR is designed by the European Commission to protect fundamental rights and freedoms, in particular rights to the protection of privacy and personal data. It protects EU and EEA citizens’ personal data and privacy and regulates the transfer of information outside these regions. With the GDPR, the EU aims to standardize privacy regulations and return data ownership to its owners. Even though the GDPR is incorporated into EU law, the vast majority of other countries also contain personal data and privacy protection provisions in their laws; therefore, GDPR guidelines and principles can be related to personal data and privacy protection provisions in educational systems in non-EU countries as well. All organizations that process personal data, including educational institutions, must adopt appropriate information management procedures in place. Educational institutions process various types of personal data of students, employees, parents, and others with whom they cooperate. They must apply appropriate measures to protect the personal data and privacy of students, instructors, and all others whose data they process and are obliged to comply with the requirements of the GDPR. This compliance applies first to the activities of the school administration, then to the activities of teachers, students, and parents. Hence, educational institutions are required to appoint a controller to oversee data processing and create reports that include records of personal data processing. Because of the many examples of teachers unknowingly violating GDPR provisions, particularly in virtual environments, successful implementation of digital pedagogy necessitates the inclusion of privacy and personal data protection training in teachers’ preparation curricula. In addition, a series of in-service seminars and workshops should be held to increase instructors’ awareness, knowledge, and competencies in privacy and personal data protection and in teaching students how to do so. Moreover, young people are avid users of digital technologies and leave larger digital footprints than adults. This highlights the importance and need for digital pedagogy to increase students’ awareness and knowledge about the potential consequences of leaving digital footprints and violating privacy and personal data. According to the GDPR provisions, students become lawful when they turn 16. Up until the age of 16, parents or guardians must give consent to process their data, but at 16 or older, students give consent themselves. Educational institutions should inform parents or legal guardians what kind of information the school collects about their children, how the data is processed and used, and how it is stored. Furthermore, school administration and teachers should inform parents/guardians about the privacy and data protection regulations and train them to protect all personal data they receive from the school or obtain at various school events. Students at the university level can consent to the processing of their data. However, university students are not necessarily aware of or sufficiently familiar

References

95

with the principles of the GDPR and the risks of personal data processing. Moreover, students may be exposed to online risk as victims of inappropriate content, abuse, and theft. Therefore, digital pedagogues must teach students how to use the Internet safely while also protecting their own privacy and personal data as well as the privacy and personal data of others. There is a dearth of studies on privacy and data protection in education, especially in relation to GDPR, which was introduced only a few years ago. Given that it is now much easier to violate privacy and personal data than it was previously due to the rapid spread of digital technologies and accelerated digitalization, research at the local and regional levels is required to determine the extent and ways in which privacy and personal data are most frequently violated and to adopt measures to eliminate or prevent these actions. Such studies should include school administration, teachers, students, and parents. In addition, research should be focused on determining if the education of teachers and students adequately imparts knowledge and increases their awareness and competencies of protecting the privacy and personal data.

References A brief guide to GDPR for schools and teachers. (2018). SchoolEducationGateway. https://www. schooleducationgateway.eu/en/pub/resources/tutorials/brief-gdpr-guide-for-schools.htm Be´cirovi´c, S., & Akbarov, A. (2016). Talent development through familial environment. International Journal of Social and Educational Innovation (IJSEIro), 3(5), 7–24. Chignell, M., Gwizdka, J., & Quan-Haase, A. (2003). The Privacy Attitudes Questionnaire (PAQ): Initial development and validation. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings, 47, 1326–1330. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120304701102 Children and the GDPR. (2018). ICO—Information Commissioner’s Office. European Commission. (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation). Official Journal of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/ eli/reg/2016/679/oj Eastment, R. (2018). GDPR—what do teachers need to know? Firefly. https://fireflylearning.com/ blog/gdpr-what-do-teachers-need-to-know GDPR Basics for Educational Institutions. (n.d.). Retrieved April 17, 2021, from https://www.edu risksolutions.org/blogs/?Id=3768 General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). (2018). General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). https://gdpr-info.eu/ Gover, I. (2016). An essential guide to data security for teachers. Elim. Guðmundsdóttir, G., & Hatlevik, O. (2020). “I just Google it” -Developing professional digital competence and preparing student teachers to exercise responsible ICT use. Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education (NJCIE), 4(3), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie. 3752 Haque, A. B., Islam, A. K. M. N., Hyrynsalmi, S., Naqvi, B., & Smolander, K. (2021). GDPR compliant blockchains–A systematic literature review. IEEE Access, 9, 50593–50606. https:// doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3069877 Lovell, M., & Foy, M. A. (2018). General Data Protection Regulation May 2018 (GDPR). Bone & Joint 360, 7(4), 41–42. https://doi.org/10.1302/2048-0105.74.360622

96

7 Privacy and Personal Data Protection in Digital Pedagogy

Markovi´c, M. G., Debeljak, S., & Kadoi´c, N. (2019). Preparing students for the era of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). TEM Journal, 8(1), 150–156. https://doi.org/10.18421/TEM 81-21 Park, Y. J. (2013). Digital literacy and privacy behavior online. Communication Research, 40(2), 215–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211418338 Surmelioglu, Y., & Seferoglu, S. S. (2019). An examination of digital footprint awareness and digital experiences of higher education students. World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues, 11(1), 48–64. https://doi.org/10.18844/wjet.v11i1.4009 Taylor, L. (2020). GDPR, data protection and remote learning. https://www.headteacher-update. com/best-practice-article/gdpr-data-protection-and-remote-learning-lockdown-coronavirus-1/ 228582/ Tsilionis, K., Chagniot, A., & Wautelet, Y. (2021). Achieving business and IT alignment in higher education institutions using conceptual modeling: A GDPR implementation project as case study. In A. Visvizi, M. D. Lytras, & N. R. Aljohani (Eds.), Research and innovation forum 2020 (pp. 355–374). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62066-0_27 What rights do children have? (2021, January 1). ICO. https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guideto-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/children-and-the-ukgdpr/what-rights-do-children-have/

Chapter 8

Fostering Student Engagement in Implementing Digital Pedagogy

8.1 Introduction Over the last two decades, a growing body of research shows the importance of student engagement for academic achievement. Student engagement is an important factor in a variety of issues, including delinquency, depression, drop-out rates, alienation, and overall success (Fredricks et al., 2016). One of the most significant challenges teachers face is a lack of student engagement in the physical classroom, an issue that is exacerbated in a virtual learning environment. However, the advancement of digital technologies and the growth of digital pedagogy provide new opportunities for teachers and students. The use of technology in teaching and learning has piqued the interest of academics and researchers in recent years (Redecker & Punie, 2017). The models of technology integration into the digital learning environment can be classified into three general categories: learning (a) about technology, (b) from technology, or (c) with technology (Schrader, 2008, p. 457). As teachers and researchers examine educational technology, a fourth category could be added to the above: learning in technology, which views technology as a setting for interaction rather than a medium or tool (Schrader, 2008). The online learning environment provides a context for different types of interactions, such as between students and instructors, students and other students, students and teaching/learning content, and instructors and teaching/learning content. Experts agree on the complexity and multidimensionality of student engagement in the learning and teaching process (Bedenlier et al., 2020; Schindler et al., 2017). It is assumed that student engagement is malleable, responsive to contextual factors, and adaptable to environmental changes (Fredricks et al., 2004, p. 59). However, teachers often have a limited understanding of the impact of online pedagogy on student engagement (Lawrence et al., 2019). Moreover, student engagement and connection to teaching content in the virtual learning environment is in general a crucial issue (Akter & Iqbal, 2020). © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. Be´cirovi´c, Digital Pedagogy, SpringerBriefs in Open and Distance Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-0444-0_8

97

98

8 Fostering Student Engagement in Implementing Digital Pedagogy

In order for digital technologies to be used qualitatively and efficiently in the teaching process, understanding how they can increase student engagement is becoming increasingly important within university education (Bedenlier et al., 2020, p. 126), and indeed at levels. In general, the following factors influence student engagement: teacher factors, school factors, student factors, family and community factors, and curriculum and resource factors (Kwok, 2020). Moreover, the kind and effectiveness of student engagement in implementing digital pedagogy is significantly affected by teachers’ and students’ digital competencies. The engagement of students in traditional classrooms has been extensively researched and discussed (Hamzi´c & Be´cirovi´c, 2021). However, considering the rapid digital transformation of education in recent years at all levels, there is a need to provide strategies that can maximize students’ potential through the use of educational technologies in the “new normal.” Accordingly, digital pedagogy is concerned with new strategies for student engagement that can aid instructors and learners achieve educational purposes that are significantly different from just a few decades ago. This chapter defines student engagement in digital pedagogy before delving into the various challenges and barriers that instructors and students face, and the approaches that digital pedagogy provides to instructors for successful student behavioral, affective, and cognitive engagement.

8.2 What is Student Engagement in Digital Pedagogy When teachers empower students by encouraging active participation and stimulating various kinds of engagement, they are more likely to develop positive self-esteem, self-confidence, and self-efficacy. Additionally, this teaching approach may motivate students to invest more effort and energy into their learning and, as a result, reduce dropout rates and improve academic performance. Because it is a vast and complex issue, many different approaches to defining student engagement exist. Bedenlier et al. (2020) provide a very comprehensive definition: Student engagement is the energy and effort that students employ within their learning community, observable via any number of behavioral, cognitive, or affective indicators across a continuum. It is shaped by a range of structural and internal influences, including the complex interplay of relationships, learning activities, and the learning environment (p. 3).

Student engagement in the virtual learning environment is vital for various reasons. Students learn best when they are effectively involved. Kennedy (2020) points out that student engagement in online learning settings is a complex issue, and he elaborates on it using the following three perspectives: 1. An interaction perspective on student engagement in online learning, 2. An interactivity perspective on student engagement in online learning, and 3. A learning design perspective on student engagement.

8.2 What is Student Engagement in Digital Pedagogy

99

Student engagement in a digital pedagogy is the activity and effort students devote to learning and acquiring various skills and competencies by utilizing digital learning resources and tools. The effective use of digital technologies in the classroom can lead to increased student engagement or participation during instruction, the development of higher-order thinking skills, self-regulation and self-efficacy, cooperative learning, and the formation of a school community (Bond, 2020; Schindler et al., 2017). Moreover, student engagement is associated with persistence, retention, and achievement (Bedenlier et al., 2020). In contrast, non-engagement or low levels of student engagement in online learning result in boredom, alienation, low achievement, and higher drop-out rates (from class or school) (De La Tour, 2021). The manner and the purpose of engagement in implementing digital pedagogy are highly important because students sometimes misuse technology during classes. According to Bergdahl et al. (2020), low achievers spend more time utilizing digital technology than high achievers, but they do it for purposes other than learning. Kennedy (2020) provides the following tips to teachers that can help them engage students in online teaching: ● Promote three types of interaction online: teacher-learner, learner-learner, and learner-content interactions; ● Don’t stop at behavioural engagement; think about designing online tasks and activities that can promote cognitive engagement; ● Build on teacher-centred learning designs and think about designing and implementing student-centred learning designs at either the task or subject level; ● It is hard to ‘see’ engagement online, but by using a range of measures and metrics you can get a sense of it. (p. 5) The multifaceted nature of student engagement includes three dimensions: behavioral, affective, and cognitive engagement (Fredricks et al., 2004). Practitioners and researchers broadly accept this three dimensional framework (Fig. 8.1) of student engagement and provide further elaboration. Each of these dimensions has several indicators that illustrate the student’s level of engagement (Table 8.1) or non-engagement in the teaching process (Bedenlier et al., 2020; Bond, 2020). In a systematic review of previous studies, Bedenlier et al. (2020) found that “positive interactions with peers/teachers, participation/involvement, learning from peers, confidence, enjoyment, and achievement” are the six most frequently cited facets of engagement across the three dimensions (p. 328). Although the framework mentioned above is widely accepted among academics, there is no obvious distinction between its three dimensions because “everything influences everything else” (Tucker, 2019). The framework outlined above was used for elaborating student engagement in implementing digital pedagogy.

100

8 Fostering Student Engagement in Implementing Digital Pedagogy

Fig. 8.1 Conceptual framework of types and indicators of student engagement (adapted from: Schindler et al., 2017, p. 5) Table 8.1 Student engagement indicators (Bond, 2020) Behavioural engagement

Affective engagement

Cognitive engagement

Effort

Enthusiasm

Purposeful

Attention/focus

Sense of belonging

Integrating ideas

Time on task/staying on task

Satisfaction

Critical thinking

Study habits/accessing content Curiosity

Setting learning goals

Developing agency

Sense of wellbeing

Self-regulation

Attendance

Sense of connectedness

Operational reasoning

Interaction (peers, teacher, content, technology)

Positive attitude towards learning

Use of sophisticated learning strategies

Attempting

Sees relevance

Trying to understand

Homework completion

Interest

Reflection

Positive conduct

Vitality/zest

Focus/concentration

Action/initiation

Feeling appreciated

Deep learning

Participation/involvement

Manages expectations

Learning from peers

Asking teacher or peers for help

Pride

Follow through / care / thoroughness

Assuming responsibility

Excitement

Justifying decisions

Identifying opportunities/challenges

Enjoyment

Positive self-perceptions and self-efficacy

Developing multidisciplinary skills

Desire to do well

Preference for challenging tasks

Supporting and encouraging peers

Teaching self and peers

Interaction (peers, teacher, content, technology)

Positive perceptions of teacher support

Confidence

8.3 Behavioral Engagement

101

8.3 Behavioral Engagement There are three ways to define behavioral engagement: the first “entails positive conduct, such as following the rules and adhering to classroom norms, as well as the absence of disruptive behaviors such as skipping school and getting in trouble”; the second “concerns involvement in learning and academic tasks and includes behaviors such as effort, persistence, concentration, attention, asking questions, and contributing to class discussion”; and the last “involves participation in schoolrelated activities such as athletics or school governance” (Fredricks et al., 2004, p. 62). Behavioral engagement is the quantity and quality of dedication devoted to learning (Schindler et al., 2017). While all forms of student engagement are important, student engagement in academic tasks, typically carried out through a formal curriculum, is the most crucial aspect of the behavioral engagement. This engagement is vital for students’ academic success and dropout prevention. Additionally, behavioral engagement includes students’ participation in informal and extracurricular activities, which are important for developing social skills, motivation, as well as establishing and maintaining positive relationships between students themselves and between instructors and students. Even though the aspects of student engagement mentioned above refer to the physical classroom, they all may apply to online classes in similar ways. However, advanced technology offers more opportunities. Behavioral engagement in digital pedagogy refers to students’ efforts devoted to completing academic tasks in a technology-mediated educational environment. Interface manipulation actions such as clicking, navigating, submitting, and scrolling reflect behavioral engagement in a technology-mediated learning environment (Kennedy, 2020). Digital pedagogy deals with strategies for preventing disengagement and encouraging effective engagement in a technology-enhanced learning environment. Numerous platforms and software programs for continuous interaction between teachers and students, students among themselves, and with educational content are being developed, which may aid in the implementation of the aforementioned strategies. Teaching should be interesting, challenging, and motivating in order for students to be engaged. Behavioral engagement in implementing digital pedagogy is challenging. Even in the physical classroom, many teachers face difficulties engaging students; online teaching presents them with additional challenges, especially when they lack skills and experience in using advanced technologies. The lack of student engagement in online or physical classrooms will prevent students from mastering learning content or developing the necessary skills and abilities. Bedenlier et al. (2020) found that the most common dimension of student engagement is behavioral engagement, where participation/interaction/involvement was the most frequently mentioned aspect (52.4%, n = 22), which was especially prevalent in studies using website creation tools (particularly blogs) and mobile learning (75%). On the other side, males are more likely than females to report weekly computer operations (Ainley & Engers, 2007). The study among 1,618 U.S. college-level students revealed that they believe, based on their experience, that online learning is: 41% Better, 38%

102

8 Fostering Student Engagement in Implementing Digital Pedagogy

About the same, 15% Not as good, 4% I have not yet enrolled in any college-level online study, and 2% I have not enrolled in any college-level online study other than my online program (De La Tour, 2021). These results, in which 15% of the participants answered “Not as good” and 38% answered “About the same” (a full 53%), indicate that more effort and creativity are needed to behaviorally engage most students in an online learning environment. Teachers and students face various hurdles pertaining to online education (Minero, 2020; Peterson-Ahmad & Keeley, 2021). Sun et al. (2016) point out that “limited technical ability of users, feelings of isolation when learning, the difficulty in connecting with the instructor, a blur between class/work/personal life” are concerns in technology adoption in e-learning (p. 144). The following are the most important concerns for successful behavioral engagement in implementing digital pedagogy: ● Lack of adequate technology, including hardware, Internet connection, licensed software and apps ● Insufficient instructors and students’ digital literacy and competencies ● Lack of instructors’ pedagogical competencies ● Using technology for non-educational purposes ● Large classes size ● Unfavorable attitudes towards technology use in the classroom and ● Minimalistic and superficial engagement. Access to digital technologies and the stability of online platforms and internet connections are critical for student engagement in digital pedagogy. Many students, particularly in developing countries, do not have access to a stable and fast Internet connection, which affects both their overall ability to participate and the quality of their participation; for example, having too many participants in a video conference degrades the quality of the Internet connection and class participation. An additional barrier is students using technology in class for non-educational purposes, such as social networking, text messages, emailing, etc. Moreover, as Kennedy (2020) highlighted, many online classes require only behavioral and relatively superficial engagement: Admittedly, some online subject sites are intentionally prepared to ask students to simply access material, watch a couple of videos, and download articles to read later, offline. This represents a minimalist, almost ‘correspondence education’, approach to online learning and does not really reflect a subject site that provides students with a deeply engaging online learning experience. (p. 2)

Teachers struggle to engage students also due to time constraints in large classes. Any unnecessary increase in teacher engagement might reduce student behavioral engagement, reflecting in their academic success and the competencies they are expected to acquire. Furthermore, overly long lectures can be boring, demotivate students and decrease their behavioral engagement. Student behavioral disengagement indicators are procrastination, half-heartedness, mental withdrawal, absence, giving up, lack of focus/attention, state of burnout/exhaustion, poor conduct, restlessness, distractedness, unpreparedness and task incompletion (Bond, 2020). The

8.3 Behavioral Engagement

103

most common is half-hearted task completion, especially when it comes to the use of social networking tools. In affective disengagement, frustration most often occurs; in cognitive disengagement cases, the most common indicator is avoidance, followed by opposition/rejection and pressure (Bedenlier et al., 2020). These barriers can be effectively overcome by utilizing pedagogical, content, and technological knowledge and employing appropriate teaching strategies. Digital literacy and competency, as well as pedagogical skills and content knowledge, are prerequisites for designing quality instructional units and are required for teachers to engage students effectively in the implementation of digital pedagogy. In addition, digital skills are associated with digital creation, proactive use of digital technologies, and satisfaction with the teachers’ use of IT (Bergdahl et al., 2020). However, student behavioral engagement in digital environments depends not only on teachers’ digital competencies but also on their own. The research shows statistically significant correlations between students’ digital skills and engagement in technology-enhanced learning, and that students who possess high levels of digital skills are more engaged (Bergdahl et al., 2020). There are a number of approaches that digital pedagogues may find useful for student behavioral engagement. Various digital tools such as educational apps, social networks, text-based tools, assessment tools, instructional videos, LMS, and Moodle can help them prepare course content that captures and keeps students’ attention and enhances their interest and engagement. Digital pedagogues should utilize suitable digital tools and resources and implement the necessary pedagogical strategies to enhance behavioral engagement. Otherwise, teaching will be uninteresting and disengaging, and students may feel disconnected, alone, uninvolved. If that’s the case, students may process course content only superficially, with poor learning results. The following techniques could be used for students’ behavioral engagement in the implementation of digital pedagogy: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) j) k) l) m) n)

Online quizzes Gamification Animated responses Virtual reality Cooperative learning Interactive courses Flipping the classroom Web-conferencing Online Fishbowl Online brainstorming Virtual gallery Online forum Think-pair-share Online Discussions.

As previously stated, there is no obvious distinction between the three aspects of student engagement, and “everything influences everything else,” so the list provided above can be used for behavioral engagement, as well as affective and cognitive

104

8 Fostering Student Engagement in Implementing Digital Pedagogy

engagement. Students may master course content much more effectively, qualitatively, and deeply if it is presented and elaborated by digital tools. Research conducted by Schindler et al. (2017) shows that “digital games, web-conferencing software, and Facebook had the most far-reaching effects across multiple types and indicators of student engagement, suggesting that technology should be considered a factor that influences student engagement” (p. 22). Similarly, Schindler et al. (2017) found that digital games have the greatest impact on student engagement, followed by web conferencing and Facebook.

8.4 Affective Engagement Meeting the emotional and personal needs of students is critical for their academic success as well as for their positive conduct. Their emotional intelligence (EQ) is more important for success than intelligence quotient (IQ). Affective engagement refers to students’ affective responses during teaching activities and may include “interest, boredom, happiness, sadness, and anxiety” (Fredricks et al., 2004, p. 63). Furthermore, affective engagement is related to students’ attitudes, feelings, and emotional connections with teaching content, teachers, and classmates. It also involves phenomena such as whether or not a student likes their school, teacher, subject, or a particular teaching area. Similarly, affective engagement may include both positive and negative responses to specific actions of teachers, schoolmates, and school administration. It affects connections with the institution and the willingness and motivation to participate in certain school activities (Wallace-Spurgin, 2020). This type of engagement is also known as emotional engagement. The fast growth of information technology has directly impacted educational systems, transforming conventional patterns of practice into modern ones in which digitalization has become the foundation for all school operations. That rapid digitalization poses challenges and concerns. Particular difficulties and challenges arose during the rapid digitalization of educational systems in the course of the coronavirus pandemic. In many countries, educational systems had to transform teaching from physical classrooms into blended and/or online modes at all educational levels, from primary to higher education. Apart from difficulties with technical equipment, many teachers have not received the training that would enable them to gain the digital competencies required for quality teaching, which necessitate affective, behavioral, and cognitively engaging students. In a face-to-face classroom, teachers can relatively easily register the emotions of students and adjust their teaching approaches to meet students’ emotional and personal needs. In online teaching, these opportunities are reduced, particularly in large classes and when cameras are disabled. Furthermore, some students are introverted or have developmental issues, which creates an additional challenge for their engagement, particularly in the affective area. Thus, affective engagement can be very distinct and demanding in implementing digital pedagogy.

8.4 Affective Engagement

105

Empirical research studies confirm the existence of serious flaws and challenges in engaging students in the online environment. Indicators of student affective disengagement are boredom, anger, dislike, disinterest, sadness, self-blame, disappointment, frustration, being overwhelmed, and lack of confidence (Bond, 2020), and the five most commonly cited affective disengagement facets are frustration, disappointment, worry/anxiety, avoidance, and half-heartedness/task incompletion (Bedenlier et al., 2020). In order for students to be engaged in implementing digital pedagogy, instructors must possess a proficient knowledge of the content they teach, exceptional abilities to use digital technologies, and pedagogical skills. If digital technologies are not used effectively or if proper digital tools are not selected, they may promote students’ disengagement and hinder learning. Furthermore, if students are not fully or sufficiently engaged in online classrooms, they will suffer boredom, isolation, and loneliness, which will result in low achievement, dropout rate increases, and social and personal concerns. Although online learning during the coronavirus pandemic demonstrated that students could achieve even greater academic success, this success may not always be replicated when they return to the physical classroom. This might indicate issues with online assessment methods or possible manipulations distorting results. In contrast, when digital pedagogues actively and effectively involve students and allow them to express their knowledge, attitudes, and opinions, teaching then becomes interesting, and students express positive emotions. Besides the positive impacts of affective engagement on students’ academic success, it may also positively influence their self-confidence, self-esteem, self-perception, and self-regulation. Moreover, positive affective engagement may enhance students’ motivation, persistence, and aid in establishing and maintaining positive relationships with peers and instructors. Personal, social, familial, and contextual factors, as well as relationships and interactions with peers and instructors, are highly important for affective engagement. As for the teaching approaches, various strategies may be employed to efficiently increase students’ affective engagement in implementing digital pedagogy. Quality and timely feedback, connection with previously learned content or real-life issues, students’ cognitive engagement, discussion, making emotional bonds with teaching content, using games, social networks, interesting learning clips or photos, stories, etc., are just some of the strategies that digital pedagogues use may use to affectively engage students. Moreover, students’ affective engagement increases with the increasing cognitive engagement of teachers and their “well-articulated posts” (Pilotti et al., 2017, p. 150). Similarly, increased cognitive engagement in instructor-student interactions in synchronous and forum activities positively impacts students’ affective engagement (Daher et al., 2021). The research shows that synchronous lectures, forums and assignments appear to have more positive than negative effects on students’ affective engagement in online classes. Also, as the cognitive engagement in the student–teacher and student-content interactions increases in synchronous classes, student positive affective engagement increases (Daher et al., 2021). When implementing digital pedagogy, various approaches supported by digital tools could be used to establish students’ positive affective engagement (listed in the section above). The empirical study showed that digital games, web-conferencing

106

8 Fostering Student Engagement in Implementing Digital Pedagogy

and Facebook have the strongest effects on all types of student engagement (affective, behavioral and cognitive), while research findings for blogs, wikis, and Twitter are less conclusive (Kwok, 2020). By effectively using digital tools, digital pedagogues can increase student affective engagement, build professional and peer networks, and develop skills for the effective employment of digital technology (Dragseth, 2020) and provide positive interaction and enjoyment (Bedenlier et al., 2020; Yaman & Be´cirovi´c, 2016). The research shows that when students are qualitatively engaged, they enjoy participating in virtual learning environments, which may result in various valuable learning outcomes. Bedenlier, et al. (2020) discovered that educational technologies have a positive effect on 11 different facets of emotional engagement, where “positive interactions with peers/teachers were by far the most cited affective facet (57.1%, n = 24) and the highest overall, with enthusiasm an important factor in developing trust within group work situations” (p. 332). Furthermore, empirical research in the field of arts and humanities shows that the most common indicator of affective engagement is positive interactions with peers/teachers, while it is “seldom reported when studies used assessment tools or m-Learning” (Bedenlier et al., 2020). Positive interactions with peers/teachers are also confirmed in other studies as a common affective engagement indicator in implementing digital pedagogy. Students form connections and collaborate with other students, and they are frequently allowed to use multiple sources when working on tasks, which may boost their affective engagement, motivation, and improve their academic achievement.

8.5 Cognitive Engagement Cognitive engagement primarily refers to the mental effort students invest in understanding and mastering the teaching content and acquiring specific skills and competencies. It includes intrinsic motivation, persistence, information processing, higherorder thinking, problem-solving, self-regulation, and self-monitoring. Cognitive engagement promotes deep cognitive content processing as opposed to shallow and superficial, which results in content memorization. The cognitive domain of engagement includes the following categories: content engagement, critical engagement, ontask engagement, self-regulated learning, self-engagement and substantive engagement (Kearney & Maakrun, 2020). Likewise, it supports mastery of teaching content, especially complex, and may contribute to the development of critical thinking, problem-solving, social skills, and self-regulated learning. In implementing digital pedagogy, teachers often face difficulties in using digital tools meaningfully and, ultimately, cognitively engaging students. During online classes, sometimes students might be behaviorally engaged but not cognitively, which may negatively affect their academic success. Based on UNESCO data from May 2020, 98.6% of the student population attended classes remotely (Chiu, 2021) using various digital platforms, e.g., Zoom, Google Meet, Webex, and Microsoft Teams. A prevalent problem in such forms of education was student engagement, particularly

8.5 Cognitive Engagement

107

the cognitive one. The mental presence, i.e., students’ attention in online lectures, was deficient, and teachers were trying to find ways to actively and effectively engage them in the teaching process, which is, in fact, expected to be convenient in faceto-face instruction. The key barrier to effective student engagement was the lack of instructors’ competencies and experience in teaching online, which was abruptly and suddenly introduced due to the corona pandemic. Thus training on how to utilize digital technologies has been and continues to be critical because any technology use that is not supported by effective and informed pedagogy can leave students feeling overwhelmed and disengaged from learning (Bedenlier et al., 2020, p. 126). Cognitive engagement in digital pedagogy is complex and requires adequate class design and preparation. In doing so, instructors face various barriers, usually contextrelated. Indicators of student cognitive disengagement are aimlessness, unwillingness, apathy, helplessness, resignation, avoidance, and pressure (Bond, 2020). The frequent barrier is that students do not always use technology predominantly for learning and performing school assignments. Within the context of their intended use, a problem with attention arises. There are numerous instances in which students who are required to use laptops in class devote considerable time to social networks or other distracting activities. Kearney and Maakrun (2020) also noted that universitylevel students might frequently multitask, which impairs concentration and cognitive attention. Therefore, multitasking hinders their cognitive engagement, focus on teaching material, and relational reasoning. The ultimate result may be academic underperformance. For this reason, some teachers frequently forbid the use of laptops during in-person classes. Yet this approach is questionable. Some instructors advocate for students to develop self-regulation and self-regulated learning. In online teaching, this issue is often even more troubling. If students multitask during faceto-face classroom instruction, they do it even more in the online classroom; attention and focus are even weaker. Teachers can address this problem by requesting that students turn on their cameras during class, engaging them with thoughtful questions or other relevant and meaningful tasks. Class size challenges quality students’ cognitive engagement in implementing digital pedagogy. Cognitive and behavioral student engagement decreases (e.g., length and depth of discussion) with increased class size, while affective engagement decreases with the instructor’s longer narratives (Pilotti et al., 2017). This problem takes on a new dimension if the class includes challenging students requiring additional effort and attention. Hence, policymakers should systematically consider and resolve these issues by ensuring optimal teaching and learning conditions in which all students must be efficiently engaged through meaningful learning activities. In implementing digital pedagogy, cognitive engagement plays a critical role and implies psychological investment. It is more difficult to achieve than the other two types of student engagement. On the other hand, all advantages that digital technologies bring should not be used in a way such that it impedes students’ higherorder thinking and problem-solving skills and other cognitive and metacognitive processes. Technologies should be used to enhance learning and acquiring knowledge and various skills and competencies. For example, if guided properly, expert video tutorials, online discussions, quizzes, using social media, online collaborative work,

108

8 Fostering Student Engagement in Implementing Digital Pedagogy

and various other strategies can assist students in deep learning and enhance cognitive engagement far more efficiently than traditional learning tools. However, the same could be used in a manner requiring only superficial learning. Thus, the role of digital pedagogues and the strategies they employ are crucial. Cognitive engagement in online learning environments is “reflected by students thinking about and working through the learning material at a deeper level” (Kennedy, 2020, p. 2). It includes forethought and a willingness to make the necessary effort to understand complex concepts and master specific skills (Wallace-Spurgin, 2020). The tools and techniques listed and discussed in the “behavioral engagement” section can also be used for cognitive and affective engagement. Even though there is no clear cut between the three types of student engagement and that “everything influences everything else,” there are methods whose effects are proved by empirical studies that may specifically foster each aspect of student engagement dominantly. Likewise, the research conducted by Casimiro (2016) indicated that the type of discussion questions, the quality of learner answers, and the learning community were the most effective in encouraging cognitive involvement. Moreover, student cognitive engagement in an online classes will be fostered optimally if they: 1. integrate active learning environments with authentic learning tasks; 2. foster a personal connection with the class (teacher-student as well as student– student); and 3. facilitate the process of learning in an online environment. (Bart, 2009, para. 6) Cognitive engagement in implementing digital pedagogy necessitates establishing quality networks and collaboration, particularly for complex tasks and projects requiring teamwork to be successfully completed. In this regard, social media is particularly important because it “increases student engagement, builds students’ professional and peer networks, and develops their social media skills” (Dragseth, 2020, p. 1). Moreover, by using social media for learning purposes, students are more cognitively than affectively engaged, and research showed that “the most often identified facet was learning with peers, which occurred especially when studies used website creation tools and learning software” (Bedenlier et al., 2020, p. 136). Accordingly, cooperative learning should be promoted and encouraged by digital pedagogues in a way that improves cognitive engagement and yields a range of advantageous learning outcomes.

8.6 Conclusion Student engagement entails investing effort to comprehend, master, and acquire knowledge as well as specific competencies and skills, particularly those described in the curriculum. In implementing digital pedagogy, student engagement is a vital, complex, and multidimensional process. It can prevent students from dropping out

8.6 Conclusion

109

and increase their academic achievement. Furthermore, it can contribute to developing higher-order thinking, problem-solving, cooperative and social skills, selfregulation, self-efficacy, as well as creating a school community. Student engagement is associated with persistence, knowledge retention, collaboration, and success. Yet engaging students is one of teachers’ most significant challenges in the physical classroom. These challenges are exacerbated in digital pedagogy due to various factors affecting students’ attentiveness and focus. Student engagement in a digital pedagogy is the activity and effort that students devote to learning and acquiring various skills and abilities by utilizing digital learning tools and resources. The framework for student engagement, developed by Fredricks et al. (2004), and widely accepted by practitioners and scholars, comprises three dimensions of student engagement: behavioral, affective, and cognitive. Behavioral engagement in digital pedagogy is students’ efforts devoted to completing academic tasks in a technology-mediated educational environment. Affective engagement refers to students’ emotional responses throughout educational activities and it may include interest, boredom, happiness, sadness, and anxiety. On the other hand, cognitive engagement refers primarily to the mental effort made by the student to learn and master the teaching content and encompasses motivation, persistence, information processing, self-regulation, and self-monitoring. Student engagement is influenced by multiple factors such as teacher, school, student, family, community, curriculum and resources. Each dimension of student engagement includes several indicators that show students’ level of engagement or disengagement in the teaching process. These indicators may help digital pedagogues overcome engagement barriers and develop teaching strategies to support students’ learning and development. Positive interactions with peers/teachers, participation/involvement, learning from peers, confidence, enjoyment, and achievement are the six most frequently cited facets of engagement across the three dimensions. Student disengagement leads to boredom and alienation, as well as lower achievement and increased drop-out rates. The five most common disengagement facets are frustration, disappointment, worry/anxiety, avoidance, and task incompletion. Teachers often have a limited understanding of the impact of digital pedagogy on student engagement. In order to effectively engage students in implementing digital pedagogy, instructors must have a good understanding of digital technologies, be skilled in their use, and be experts in their academic fields, as well as having excellent pedagogical competencies. Some useful student engagement strategies that they may employ in a teaching process are interactive courses, online quizzes, gamification, cooperative learning, and flipped classrooms. Web conferencing, social networks, Moodle, LMS, Kahoot, and others, are digital tools that can assist digital pedagogues in effectively engaging students. Although there are several empirical studies on the effects of various instructors’ strategies and digital tools on three types of student engagement, due to rapid technological advancements and varying levels of digitalization in different countries, there is a need for ongoing evaluation and assessment of the influence of the above-mentioned strategies and tools on students’ learning outcomes. Furthermore, the research is limited to a few academic fields and does not include all levels of

110

8 Fostering Student Engagement in Implementing Digital Pedagogy

education. There is a need to expand such research across a wide range of academic disciplines and across all levels of education.

References Ainley, J., & Engers, L. (2007). Student use of, and engagement with, information technology. Digital learning Research, 1–10. Akter, B., & Iqbal, A. (2020, January 5). Technogagement: Enhancing student engagement through edTech tools. UNIVERSITY CARNIVAL on e-LEARNING (IUCEL), Malaysia. Bart, M. (2009, April 6). Building student engagement in online courses. Faculty focus | higher Ed teaching & learning. https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/online-education/online-studentengagement/building-student-engagement-in-online-courses/ Bedenlier, S., Bond, M., Buntins, K., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). Facilitating student engagement through educational technology in higher education: A systematic review in the field of arts and humanities. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(4), 126–150. https:// doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5477 Bergdahl, N., Nouri, J., & Fors, U. (2020). Disengagement, engagement and digital skills in technology-enhanced learning. Education and Information Technologies, 25(2), 957–983. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09998-w Bond, M. (2020). Facilitating student engagement through educational technology: Current research, practices and perspectives [Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg]. https://doi. org/10.13140/RG.2.2.24728.75524 Casimiro, L. T. (2016). Cognitive engagement in online intercultural interactions: Beyond analytics. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 6(6), 441–447. https://doi.org/ 10.7763/IJIET.2016.V6.729 Chiu, T. K. F. (2021, April 9). Understanding how online teaching facilitates student engagement during school closure. Daher, W., Sabbah, K., & Abuzant, M. (2021). Affective engagement of higher education students in an online course. Emerging Science Journal, 5(4), Article 4. Dragseth, M. R. (2020). Building student engagement through social media. Journal of Political Science Education, 16(2), 243–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2018.1550421 De La Tour, K. (2021, February 12). How to boost student engagement in online learning [+Infographic]. Explore the ELearning World with Us. https://www.ispringsolutions.com/blog/studentengagement-in-online-learning Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/ 10.3102/00346543074001059 Fredricks, J. A., Filsecker, M., & Lawson, M. A. (2016). Student engagement, context, and adjustment: Addressing definitional, measurement, and methodological issues. Learning and Instruction, 43, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.02.002 Hamzi´c, U., & Be´cirovi´c, S. (2021). Twice-Exceptional, Half-Noticed: The recognition issues of gifted students with learning disabilities. MAP Social Sciences, 1(1), 13–22. https://doi.org/10. 53880/2744-2454.2021.1.1.13 Kearney, S., & Maakrun, J. (2020). Let’s get engaged: The nexus between digital technologies, engagement and learning. Education Sciences, 10(12), Article 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsc i10120357 Kennedy, G. (2020). What is student engagement in online learning … and how do I know when it is there? Melbourne CSHE, 6. Kwok, J. (2020, February 7). How education technology improves student engagement. ACC Blog. https://www.acc.edu.au/blog/technology-improves-student-engagement/

References

111

Lawrence, J., Brown, A., Redmond, P., & Basson, M. (2019). Engaging the disengaged: Exploring the use of course-specific learning analytics and nudging to enhance online student engagement. Student Success, 10(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.5204/ssj.v10i2.1295 Minero, E. (2020). 8 Strategies to improve participation in your virtual classroom. Edutopia. https:// www.edutopia.org/article/8-strategies-improve-participation-your-virtual-classroom Peterson-Ahmad, M. B., & Keeley, R. G. (2021, January 27). Five ways to engage students in an online learning environment | Faculty focus. Faculty focus | Higher Ed teaching & learning. https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/online-education/online-course-del ivery-and-instruction/five-ways-to-engage-students-in-an-online-learning-environment/ Pilotti, M., Anderson, S., Hardy, P., Murphy, P., & Vincent, P. (2017). Factors related to cognitive, emotional, and behavioral engagement in the online asynchronous classroom. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 29(1), 145–153. Redecker, C., & Punie, Y. (2017). European framework for the digital competence of educators: DigCompEdu. Publications office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/159770 Schindler, L. A., Burkholder, G. J., Morad, O. A., & Marsh, C. (2017). Computer-based technology and student engagement: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0063-0 Schrader, P. G. (2008). Learning in technology: Reconceptualizing immersive environments. AACE Journal, 16(4), 457–475. Sun, S., Lee, P., Lee, A., & Law, R. (2016). Perception of attributes and readiness for educational technology: Hospitality management students’ perspectives. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 28(3), 142–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/10963758.2016.1189832 Tucker, C. (2019, December 17). Learner engagement: Behavioral, cognitive, & affective. Experiencing ELearning. https://www.christytuckerlearning.com/learner-engagement-behavioral-cog nitive-affective/ Wallace-Spurgin, M. (2020). Implementing technology: Measuring student cognitive engagement. International Journal of Technology in Education, 3(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijte. v3i1.13 Yaman, A., & Be´cirovi´c, S. (2016). Learning english and media. Literacy, 2(6), 4.

Chapter 9

Fostering Multicultural Education Through Digital Pedagogy

9.1 Introduction Almost every context in contemporary society is influenced by cultural diversity. The mixing of cultures occurs as people move from one place to another for various reasons, including conflicts and better or higher-paying jobs. Education is also a frequent reason for leaving one’s homeland. Individuals seeking a better and higher-quality education leave their home country and relocate to culturally distinct regions. In addition to the aforementioned traditional ways of cultural mixing, digital technologies also enable the mixing of cultures and create a multicultural virtual environment, an occurrence that has been steadily increasing. Multicultural education has long been a focus of educational research. It is related to global education, which emerged during the 1960s, and is a “curriculum designed to prepare young people to live in an increasingly problematic and interconnected world” (Gaudelli, 2006, p. 102). Since the emergence of global education, multicultural education has been a hot topic in physical classrooms and continues to be with the emergence of virtual learning environments. Multicultural education is an idea or movement that fights discrimination, segregation, inequality, and injustice. It promotes educational approaches that ensure that everyone, regardless of culture, ethnicity, skin color, race, religion, gender, or other characteristics, has equal access to education and chances for success. Many international institutions were founded in direct reaction to the aforementioned global ˇ 2018). They pay special attention to educaconcerns (Be´cirovi´c & Brdarevi´c-Celjo, tion, particularly in the area of human rights, social justice, equal educational opportunities, and cultural diversity. Since 1948, several such institutions have adopted a number of documents that provide guidelines for multicultural education. Significant portions of these documents have been adopted by the United Nations, UNESCO, the OSCE, and the Council of Europe. While these texts are usually well known to lawyers and policymakers, teachers and students are less familiar with them and their provisions. The foundation of most international documents on multicultural © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. Be´cirovi´c, Digital Pedagogy, SpringerBriefs in Open and Distance Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-0444-0_9

113

114

9 Fostering Multicultural Education Through Digital Pedagogy

education is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in which article 26 deals with the rights to education, and paragraph 2 refers to multicultural education: “Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, art. 26). Multicultural education aims to ensure equality, social justice, and respect for human rights and eliminate all forms of injustice, discrimination, segregation, xenophobia, sexism, prejudice, and stereotypes. Societal concerns such as discrimination, segregation, and stereotypes based on skin color, religion, ethnic origin, language, gender, socioeconomic status, and other factors keep this topic relevant. Addressing these issues should be a top priority for educational systems at all levels across the globe. However, many educational authorities only formally regulate issues of cultural diversity without systematically eliminating stereotypes and ensuring equal conditions and opportunities for all students. In contemporary education, students come into contact with culturally different people more easily and quickly than ever before. With the advent of advanced technologies, the previously existing time and physical constraints for establishing contacts, networks, and collaborations with those who are culturally different and located in different parts of the world have been removed. Just as it was necessary to create strategies for multicultural education in the physical learning environment, there is an even greater need to develop methods to assist instructors in fostering students’ multicultural competencies in implementing digital pedagogy. Although multicultural education has a long tradition, most educational policies, school practices, programs, and literature dealing with this type of education seem more interested in appreciating the joys of multiculturalism or studying cultures than they are concerned with inequality and social injustice (Gorski, 2009). Ferdig et al. (2007) affirm the importance of multicultural education, but point out that the accountability for how it happens and who is responsible for it is less clear and that this matter becomes even more complex when technologies are involved. Accordingly, authentic multicultural education can only be achieved through systematic and comprehensive school reform that includes “the identification and elimination of racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, and other inequitable distributions of privilege and power” (Gorski, 2009, p. 348). As technology-mediated education is constantly growing, systematic and comprehensive school reform inevitably includes multicultural education in implementing digital pedagogy. This chapter discusses the challenges of multicultural education in implementing digital pedagogy and how the use of digital technologies may facilitate multicultural education.

9.2 The Use of Digital Technology to Facilitate Multicultural Education

115

9.2 The Use of Digital Technology to Facilitate Multicultural Education Multicultural education entails preparing students to live in a free and democratic society. It helps students transcend their cultural boundaries and gain the knowledge, attitudes, and experiences needed to function effectively in public discourse with people who are culturally different from themselves. It aims to promote acceptance of other cultures, or at the very least tolerance, by teaching about them (Gošovi´c et al., 2012). With the advent of digital technologies, the world is becoming increasingly interconnected and interdependent. The incorporation of information technology into the educational process became fundamental. There is growing interest in how digital technologies can support pedagogical and multicultural educational goals (McShay, 2005). Likewise, in a time of rapid cultural, political, economic, and social change, the need for intercultural education on a global level has never been greater (Resta & Laferrière, 2015). The power of information technologies can reinforce culture and redefine it at the same time (Simons, 2002). However, the mere installation of computers and the introduction of the Internet in classrooms will not solve the problems of inequality (Gorski, 2009) nor solve other challenges faced by multicultural education. Likewise, even though teachers, curricula, textbooks, and teaching materials are expected to promote cultural diversity, the opposite often happens in practice. Some students are discriminated against and segregated because of their differences; this can have worrisome implications for both students and society as a whole. Multicultural education in the implementation of digital pedagogy is inevitable. Digital pedagogy assists instructors with approaches to prevent discrimination and segregation, counteract prejudices and stereotypes, and promote multicultural values. Digital pedagogues must promote respect and acceptance of cultural diversity. Physical classrooms provide opportunities for communication, collaboration, and other forms of interaction that can, if properly guided, contribute to the development of multicultural sensitivity, intelligence, and competencies (Polz & Be´cirovi´c, 2022). Online teaching often involves students from different parts of the world. Although physical classrooms are usually rich in various forms of diversity, online classrooms are becoming a meeting place for students from different countries, cultures, ethnicities, races, religions, sexual orientations, attitudes, and beliefs. However, on a larger scale, instructors must consider how virtual spaces alter our perceptions of culture, schools, and classrooms; how media and technology shape and redraw borders (e.g., political, cultural, social, educational, economic); and how these changes affect multicultural interactions (Chamberlin-Quinlisk, 2013, p. 130). Yet simply interacting with those who are culturally different does not always contribute to the development of multicultural competencies. The role of digital pedagogues and the teaching methods they apply is crucial. Thus, digital pedagogues must work on the development of multicultural values in students, which are essential for effective participation in multicultural settings, virtual and physical.

116

9 Fostering Multicultural Education Through Digital Pedagogy

Digital inequality and intercultural education have become concerns in the emerging knowledge-based society (Resta & Laferrière, 2015). As digital technologies advance, multicultural education is taking on a new dimension. The rapid development of digital technologies affects “the delivery of intercultural education both academic and applied, as well as other cultural services” (Simons, 2002, p. 157). Considering that new technologies enable fast and efficient communication and cooperation among people from different geographical areas, they also provide opportunities to promote multicultural respect and reduce and eliminate cultural divisions and exclusions. Moreover, widespread use of videoconferencing, social networks, learning management systems, as well as other global digital platforms help remove boundaries in international cooperation and strengthen individual faculty in creating rich technology-mediated multicultural educational settings (Roberts & MonroeBaillargeon, 2012, p. 39). Digital pedagogues who successfully integrate technologies into the teaching process have the opportunity to create virtual multicultural learning communities (Roberts & Monroe-Baillargeon, 2012) and contribute to the development of multicultural sensitivity, intelligence, and the competencies of their students. There are many challenges and barriers to multicultural education in implementing digital pedagogy. One of the crucial barriers is digital exclusion. Due to the digital divide, many students do not have equal access to technology and are deprived of virtual multicultural experiences. Thus, indigenous peoples in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia–Pacific regions, as well as other regions in the world are at a disadvantage due to the following: ● Lack of basic infrastructure including electricity, computer hardware, and software; ● High cost of technology; ● Limited budget allocations for IT maintenance and life-cycle; ● Lack of technology training and support; ● Shortage of teachers with IT skills; ● Dominance of English and other non-indigenous languages on the Internet. (Resta & Laferrière, 2015, p. 148) Digital inequities are the primary concern at the intersection of multicultural education and instructional technology (Gorski, 2009). They cause a lack of opportunities for multicultural education, and policymakers should be concerned about the issue. Digital exclusion and the digital divide negatively impact the quality of education because they lead to inequities in schooling, thus endangering equal chances for success for all students. There are a variety of ways that digital pedagogy may support multicultural education. One of the useful models for teacher training for multicultural education using digital technologies is McShay’s (2005) Double Infusion Model (Fig. 9.1). According to this model, the teacher education curriculum must include courses on multicultural education and studies on the use of technologies in the teaching process. Such an approach to teacher education would promote teachers’ multicultural and digital competencies. In addition, McShay (2005) points out that the Double Infusion Model

9.2 The Use of Digital Technology to Facilitate Multicultural Education

117

invites future teachers to explore how cultural identity, values, and behaviors relate to three overlapping areas of knowledge: knowledge of self , knowledge of others, and knowledge of community/society. In educating future teachers, the goal should be to create a learning experience that allows them to explore each domain of knowledge while learning about the usage of technology or critical intercultural education within their courses (McShay, 2005, p. 434). In the implementation of digital pedagogy, students don’t just attend online lectures. Technology-enabled multicultural education can be critical for engaging them during the teaching process (e.g., engaging them to work on cultural artifacts such as music and ethnic portals) (Hossain & Aydin, 2011). They receive a variety of assignments from digital pedagogues and cooperate using digital tools that can result in a variety of positive learning outcomes, including multicultural competencies. An experimental study by Fuentes Cabrera et al. (2020) compared traditionally and flipped teaching approaches and determined that the effect of the traditional methodology on developing intercultural competencies in students has been demonstrated to be less effective in terms of student motivation and that utilizing the flipped classroom approach would benefit students’ attainment, enhancing their motivation and decreasing their anxiety. The use of blogs may also aid in the development of multicultural competencies. The research study Fostering Connections Between Multicultural Education and Technology: Incorporating Weblogs Into Preservice

Fig. 9.1 Double infusion model, adapted from (McShay, 2005)

118

9 Fostering Multicultural Education Through Digital Pedagogy

Teacher Education, conducted by Wassell and Crouch (2008), shows that the use of blogs can undoubtedly enrich multicultural education courses within the curriculum of teacher education. Moreover, pre-service instructors who used blogs were able to achieve multiple instructional goals at the same time: ● ● ● ●

Engage with essential questions in critical multicultural education; Connect theoretical and popular texts and/or practice; Encourage dialogue among the class community; and Use a form of instructional technology that can be adapted to their teaching in the future. (Wassell & Crouch, 2008, p. 225)

Digital pedagogy enables instructors to effectively use advanced technology and the application of multicultural education strategies to create a learning environment in which students feel safe and welcomed, regardless of where they come from, where they live, and regardless of their other differences. Such instructional approaches also boost educational institutions’ competitiveness in the higher education market. Therefore, technology-facilitated multicultural education is also an important tool in student recruitment in higher education, which is becoming ever more competitive (Roberts & Monroe-Baillargeon, 2012).

9.3 Online Collaborative Learning as a Facilitator of Multicultural Experience Multicultural education helps students to participate in creating a civic culture that contributes to the common good (Be´cirovi´c, 2012). This type of education accepts and supports all kinds of diversity in all areas of human life. It promotes the idea that all students, regardless of their gender, sexual orientation, social class, ethnic or racial affiliation, or religion, should have equal chances to learn (Banks, 2014), progress, and succeed. Multicultural education also helps students gain the experience needed to participate in social activities integral to democratic nations (Banks, 1994), and it brings numerous benefits to individuals and society. According to Nieto (Nieto, 2017), since the emergence of multicultural education in the United States, both schools and society have undergone tremendous transformations. In the past, the only way to benefit from a multicultural experience and crosscultural exchange was to travel abroad. However, experts have recently discussed the importance of using technology to address diverse ways for students from various cultural backgrounds and geographical regions to gain the necessary academic knowledge and aptitudes (Marshall, 2001). There is a need to create “a growing international collaboration of tech-savvy professors and technologists” who are willing to reach across borders and create technology-mediated multicultural settings (Roberts & Monroe-Baillargeon, 2012, p. 45). Educational systems need to educate global and digital citizens. The demand for the ability to develop quality communication and cooperation with culturally diverse

9.3 Online Collaborative Learning as a Facilitator of Multicultural Experience

119

people grows in tandem with the rise of globalization. Digital technologies enable quick and easy contact and facilitate various forms of communication and collaborations with peers, professors, or experts (mentors) in the field of interest. Furthermore, digital technologies enable the efficient exchange of knowledge, experience, and ideas among students from different parts of the world, as well as the expression of personal opinions on social networks, blogs, and other platforms. In addition, through videoconferencing or the use of other web platforms to collaborate, students from diverse cultural backgrounds can overcome prejudices and stereotypes, form a healthy self-image, and cultivate positive relationships with students from different geographical areas (Marshall, 2001). Thus, digital pedagogy enables virtual multicultural experiences and encourages effective and productive collaboration between students and instructors located in different parts of the world. Digital pedagogues can use information technologies to build a virtual multicultural learning classroom in which they can engage students in a variety of ways to collaborate on various school assignments and projects. Companies engaged in the development of digital platforms strive to create user-friendly tools, i.e., enable the applications of platforms in a simple, convenient, and efficient way. Software applications such as Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Webex, and Google Meet enable the formation of virtual student groups from diverse geographic and cultural backgrounds, allowing teachers to engage them in collaboration on a variety of school assignments and fostering multicultural collaboration and experience. Empirical research confirms the potential of digital pedagogy to foster multicultural education in online educational settings. Hossain and Aydin (2011) conducted a study titled A Web 2.0-based collaborative model for multicultural education, in which they systematically analyzed the use of Web 2.0 technologies in the promotion of multicultural values. The results of their research indicate that using Web 2.0 technology to teach intercultural content allows students to familiarize themselves with other cultures throughout the world and promotes a greater understanding of all peoples. Moreover, technology-based multicultural studies can contribute to the development of knowledge, attitudes, and skills required for effective functioning in cross-cultural societies (Hossain & Aydin, 2011, p. 127). However, enabling a multicultural experience does not in itself bring about multicultural competencies. If students are not given clear instructions, if respect for all forms of diversity is not promoted, and if the negative effects of stereotypes, prejudices and other behaviors that degrade others are not clearly elaborated, digital technologies can also be used to cover up activities that are contrary to the values of multiculturalism. In this context, teacher preparation for multicultural education with the assistance of digital technologies is crucial. Curricula for digital pedagogy must adequately address digital technology, multicultural education, and the intersection of these factors. Multicultural education and digital equity are crucial requirements for applying digital pedagogy. In addition to the benefits provided by digital technologies for multicultural education, there are challenges for collaborative learning and fostering multicultural experiences. The digital divide, exclusion, and inequality are key challenges. The level of digitalization of a specific ethnic community is a limiting element of communication and dialogue (Ivlev et al., 2020). Many students and instructors

120

9 Fostering Multicultural Education Through Digital Pedagogy

do not have access to the advanced technologies required for quality teaching and learning in the digital age. On some occasions, the problem is access to hardware; in others, licensed software, and in some others, both. Due to such limitations, students are frequently required to share computers in some regions. Computer sharing, i.e., working on a project on the same computer, provides an opportunity to monitor interpersonal relationships (Gorski, 2009), and such activities with competent instructor guidance can facilitate the multicultural experience and cooperation and contribute to developing multicultural competencies. However, they also represent limitations due to insufficient access to technologies, e.g., in online learning, students are located in different places and cannot share computers. Digital inequality and exclusion contribute to a knowledge divide and limit opportunities for multicultural experience: establishing intercultural connections, communication, and understanding (Resta & Laferrière, 2015). Additional challenges for collaborative learning and facilitating multicultural experience in digital pedagogy include “limited bandwidth, cultural, language, and time zone differences” (Roberts & Monroe-Baillargeon, 2012, p. 43). However, these and other challenges can be effectively addressed through the collaboration of various institutions and enthusiastic professionals in developing appropriate education policies, supporting digital equality, developing quality curricula, and ensuring adequate teacher training.

9.4 Conclusion With the advent of digital technologies, the world is becoming increasingly interconnected and interdependent. Multicultural education is taking on new dimensions in the digital age. Advanced technologies enable quick and effective communication, collaboration, and a multicultural experience. Digital pedagogy facilitates the effective integration of digital technologies into the teaching process to create virtual multicultural learning communities that can contribute to developing multicultural sensitivity, intelligence, and competencies among students. However, simply installing computers and introducing the Internet into schools will not solve the problems of inequality, discrimination, racism, and xenophobia, nor will it solve other challenges faced by multicultural education. Furthermore, just exposing students to a multicultural setting does not develop multicultural sensitivity, intelligence, or competencies in them. Hence, digital pedagogues must adequately address widespread inequality, discrimination, racism, xenophobia, segregation, and stereotypes based on race, religion, ethnicity, language, gender, and socioeconomic status. Moreover, they have to do so at all levels, in all forms of education, and in all geographical areas. If respect for all forms of diversity is not promoted, and if students are not aware of the negative implications of stereotypes, prejudices, and other activities that degrade others, the use of digital technologies might conceal actions that are opposed to multiculturalism’s values. Although physical classrooms are usually rich in various forms of cultural diversity, online classrooms enable even greater mixing of cultures and become a meeting

References

121

place for students from different countries, cultures, ethnicities, races, religions, sexual orientations, attitudes, and beliefs. The use of social networks and videoconferencing tools such as Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Webex, Google Meet, and other global platforms blurs territorial boundaries, enables multicultural collaboration, and creates rich virtual learning environments. One of the effective approaches of digital pedagogy to eliminating prejudices and discrimination and fostering multicultural competencies is establishing collaboration on various projects and assignments between students in the virtual learning environment. Such strategies in implementing digital pedagogy attract and keep students at the educational institution and increase such institutions’ competitiveness in the education market. Digital pedagogy offers various possibilities that may assist instructors in establishing effective collaboration in online settings. In this regard, the role of the instructor and curricula are vital. Digital pedagogues are required to promote respect, understanding, tolerance, and acceptance of culturally diverse individuals. In order to do so, curricula for teachers’ education must include training that will enable them to foster the development of students’ multicultural sensitivity, intelligence, and competencies through teaching in the implementation of digital pedagogy. Moreover, pre-service teacher preparation programs must include adequate coverage of digital technology, multicultural education, and the intersection between them. Equally important, in-service teacher training should incorporate multicultural education in the virtual learning environment. Similarly, the successful implementation of digital pedagogy requires that the curriculum for various school courses incorporate culturally responsive content that would foster multicultural competencies and enable students to communicate and collaborate successfully with those who are culturally different. Since multicultural education is an emerging field in digital pedagogy, there is a considerable need for empirical research to examine current practices and propose approaches that will further enhance multicultural education. The effects of digital teaching and learning materials, OER, virtual classrooms, and various teaching tools, methods, and styles on multicultural sensitivity, competencies, and intelligence should be key themes for further research in this emerging area.

References Banks, J. (1994). Multiethnic education. Allyn & Bacon. Banks, J. (2014). Introduction to multicultural education (5th ed.). Pearson. https://www.pearson. com/content/one-dot-com/one-dot-com/us/en/higher-education/program.html Be´cirovi´c, S. (2012). The role of intercultural education in fostering cross-cultural understanding. Epiphany, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.21533/epiphany.v5i1.49 ˇ Be´cirovi´c, S., & Brdarevi´c-Celjo, A. (2018). Exploring and assessing cross-cultural sensitivity in Bosnian tertiary education: Is there a real promise of harmonious coexistence? European Journal of Contemporary Education, 7(2), 244–256. https://doi.org/10.13187/ejced.2018.2.244 Chamberlin-Quinlisk, C. (2013). Media, technology, and intercultural education. Intercultural Education, 24(4), 297–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2013.813656

122

9 Fostering Multicultural Education Through Digital Pedagogy

Ferdig, R. E., Coutts, J., DiPietro, J., Lok, B., & Davis, N. (2007). Innovative technologies for multicultural education needs. Multicultural Education & Technology Journal, 1(1), 47–63. https:// doi.org/10.1108/17504970710745201 Fuentes Cabrera, A., Parra-González, M. E., López Belmonte, J., & Segura-Robles, A. (2020). Educational potentials of flipped learning in intercultural education as a transversal resource in adolescents. Religions, 11(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11010053 Gaudelli, W. (2006). Convergence of technology and diversity: Experiences of two beginning teachers in web-based distance learning for global/multicultural education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(1), 97–116. Gorski, P. C. (2009). Insisting on digital equity: Reframing the dominant discourse on multicultural education and technology. Urban Education, 44(3), 348–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/004208590 8318712 Gošovi´c, R., Mrse, S., Jerotijevic, M., Petrovic, D., & Tomic, V. (2012). Vodiˇc za unapredenje interkulturalnog obrazovanje. Grupa MOST i Fond za otvoreno društvo. Beograd. Hossain, M., & Aydin, H. (2011). A web 2.0-based collaborative model for multicultural education. Multicultural Education & Technology Journal, 5(2), 116–128. https://doi.org/10.1108/175049 71111142655 Ivlev, V. Y., Inozemtsev, V. A., & Ivleva, M. L. (2020). Intercultural communication and dialogue of ethnic cultures in the context of digitalization of society (pp. 320–326). https://doi.org/10.2991/ assehr.k.201215.353 Marshall, P. L. (2001). Multicultural education and technology: Perfect pair or odd couple? ERIC Digest. ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education, American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED460129 McShay, J. (2005). Double infusion: Toward a process of articulation between critical multicultural education and technology education in a teacher preparation program. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education (CITE Journal), 4(4), 429–445. Nieto, S. (2017). Re-imagining multicultural education: New visions, new possibilities. Multicultural Education Review, 9(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/2005615X.2016.1276671 Polz, E., & Be´cirovi´c, S. (2022). Competency-based teaching and learning. MAP. https://mapub. org/books/competency-based-teaching-and-learning/ Resta, P., & Laferrière, T. (2015). Digital equity and intercultural education. Education and Information Technologies, 20(4), 743–756. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9419-z Roberts, G. O., & Monroe-Baillargeon, A. (2012). The academy is flat: Using technology to create authentic multicultural education. International Journal of Educational Reform, 21(1), 39–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/105678791202100103 Simons, G. F. (2002). Intercultural education at the crossroads of commerce: The intercultural challenges of electronic technology in a diverse Europe. Intercultural Education, 13(2), 157–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675980220128988 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (1948). United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/ universal-declaration-of-human-rights Wassell, B., & Crouch, C. (2008). Fostering connections between multicultural education and technology: Incorporating weblogs into preservice teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(2), 211–232.

Chapter 10

Challenges and Barriers for Effective Integration of Technologies into Teaching and Learning

10.1 Introduction As information technologies continue to evolve, their use in education increases. Using digital tools in the classroom is a way to find new answers to questions about how, where, and when people learn. Using digital technologies in the teaching process can also help teachers become more than knowledge communicators: they can strengthen the teacher’s role as co-creator of knowledge, coach, mentor, and evaluator (Janssen, 2020). Despite this growing uptake, however, there are serious challenges to widespread use (Bai & Lo, 2018; Hamutoglu, 2021; Nagel, 2013), because integrating digital technologies into teaching is not an individual activity (Castro-Guzmán, 2021). Incorporating digital technologies into the teaching process entails both individual teacher responsibility (internal factors) and institutional responsibility (external factors), and primarily relates to educational institution management. Barriers to integrating digital technologies into the teaching process are classified into first-order and second-order barriers: first-order barriers refer to external factors such as resources, support, and training; second-order barriers refer to barriers that are internal to teachers, and include their personal attitudes, self-confidence, and beliefs about integrating digital technologies into the teaching process (Ardıç, 2021; Basarmak & Hamutoglu, 2020; Francom, 2020; Hamutoglu, 2021; Tosunta¸s et al., 2019). Research conducted by Hamutoglu (2021) indicates that internal barriers (opinions, attitudes, and self-confidence) have a direct and significant negative effect on perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, as well as attitude and behavioral intention of technology use, while external barriers statistically have no direct effect on the acceptance of technology by teachers. Experts often use the same or similar categories to classify the challenges to integration of digital technologies into teaching, but these are also sometimes described in different ways. Upon review of previous studies such as Castro-Guzmán (2021), Francom (2020), Hew and Brush (2007), Nagel (2013), and Turugare and Rudhumbu © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. Be´cirovi´c, Digital Pedagogy, SpringerBriefs in Open and Distance Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-0444-0_10

123

124

10 Challenges and Barriers for Effective Integration of Technologies …

(2020), the following tend to be the most frequent challenges and concerns teachers experience when integrating new technology and digital media into the classroom: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

Access to technology tools and resources, Institutional and administrative support, Misusing technology, Attitudes and beliefs, Delivering informal learning, Technical support, Knowledge, competencies and professional development, Assessment, MOOCs and other new models for schooling, Time to prepare for technology integration, Protecting students’ safety on the internet, Class size, Failures of personalized learning, Other people or groups not willing to use technology, System of norms and regulations and Culture and Resistance to change.

Administrative support and teachers’ professional development play key roles in successfully integrating digital technologies into teaching (Durff & Carter, 2019). Teachers’ professional development can contribute to eliminating internal barriers, while most external barriers can be eliminated by providing necessary resources. In order to successfully implement digital pedagogy, the barriers mentioned above, along with any others, must be overcome. This chapter addresses the challenges and barriers to the effective use of digital technologies in implementing digital pedagogy and possible ways to overcome these obstacles.

10.2 Reasons Why Teachers May Struggle to Use Technology in the Classroom Using digital technologies in teaching in an effective way requires support, motivation, relevant knowledge, skills, competencies, and access to necessary technologies. Even though some countries have allocated substantial resources for the effective integration of digital technology into teaching and learning, many teachers are still grappling with the disruptions that digital resources can cause, the negative impact of technology on their work, and the inefficient use of technology (Hyndman, 2018). Furthermore, many pre-service teachers believe that the adoption of new technology will be a future teaching hurdle. Hyndman (2018) lists ten reasons why teachers may struggle when using new technologies in the classroom: 1. 2.

Introduced technology is not always preferred Differing device capabilities and instructions

10.2 Reasons Why Teachers May Struggle to Use Technology in the Classroom

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

125

It’s easy for students to be distracted Technology can affect lesson time and flow Teachers need more professional development Not everyone has technology at home Teachers need to protect students Not all teachers “believe” in using technology Lack of adequate ICT support, infrastructure, or time Tensions between students and teachers.

Time constraints also impede the incorporation of digital tools into the educational process. In fact, the lack of time to plan and prepare for integrating digital technologies into teaching is a major issue (Bai & Lo, 2018; Francom, 2020; Tosunta¸s et al., 2019). Teachers are accustomed to using the traditional teaching tools they were taught and often want to maintain the status quo. As a matter of fact, they tend to imitate their own teachers. They may often prefer to keep using the same teaching materials and approaches they have used for years. Yet implementing digital pedagogy necessitates adaptation, change, and the creation of digital teaching materials from scratch. This is not a simple process, but rather a very complex one, requiring additional effort, new pedagogical skills, and effective use of digital technologies. One illustrative example is creating video materials for teaching. Teachers cannot always find existing videos suitable for specific teaching units on the Internet. In order for a teacher to create their own video content, they must not only expend more effort, they must also possess the technical skills to create, edit, and upload video material to learning platforms. Cultural and social factors also challenge the effective integration of digital technologies into teaching (Castro-Guzmán, 2021). The context affects teachers’ willingness to change their practices from traditional approaches to those supported by digital technologies. Overcoming this barrier requires appropriate policy and leadership, as well as support that includes providing resources and proper training. Another reason why teachers struggle to integrate technology into teaching is insufficient administrative and technical support. Educational institutions often face difficulties in providing appropriate devices and software, so teachers are left to fend for themselves in providing the necessary digital tools to implement digital pedagogy. Class size and national testing also influence effective implementation (Izmirli & Kirmaci, 2017). Classes with a smaller number of students (up to 20) enable more efficient use of digital technologies than classes attended by a larger number of students. Moreover, class size is an important element in budgeting for the provision of digital technologies. So it follows that providing modern technologies in schools with fewer students is easier.

126

10 Challenges and Barriers for Effective Integration of Technologies …

10.3 Lack of Access to Technology as a Barrier to Successful Technology Integration into Education Although the use of digital technologies in education has increased significantly in recent years around the globe, the problems and challenges of integrating them into teaching differ from country to country. Research confirms that the use of digital technologies in the teaching process increases student achievement, fills achievement gaps, increases motivation, improves access to information, and facilitates communication between students and teachers (Davies & West, 2014; Tosunta¸s et al., 2019). However, in many educational institutions, instructors face challenges with regard to accessing digital technologies, possessing the knowledge and abilities to use them effectively, and receiving adequate administrative and technical support (Bai & Lo, 2018; Basarmak & Hamutoglu, 2020; Francom, 2020). Research conducted in Hong Kong confirms that resource availability, specifically the lack of technology, are the most commonly reported barrier to integrating digital technologies into teaching (Bai & Lo, 2018, p. 294). Financial support for equipping educational institutions with digital technologies is critical. It is impossible to achieve significant educational results, i.e., to prepare students for life outside of school, if teachers and students cannot access or use digital technologies in the teaching and learning process. This digital divide generates many other negative consequences as well. Inadequate national and institutional policies for technology integration will result in the failure of technology adoption and integration into education (Be´cirovi´c & Dervi´c, 2022; Tosunta¸s et al., 2019). Technological support influences not only integration possibilities but also teachers’ attitudes, motivation, and readiness to use digital technologies in the classroom. Hébert et al. (2021) found that while an educational administration might enthusiastically endorse the integration of digital technologies into teaching, it may be that it “fails to address systemic barriers that make implementation difficult or even impossible” (p. 14). Furthermore, they emphasize that so-called Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) programs may be cost-effective but are not feasible in areas where parents cannot buy electronics (Hébert et al., 2021, p. 14). Research also shows that teachers working in smaller communities experience even more difficulty accessing technology than teachers working in larger communities (Francom, 2020). Hew and Brush (2007) point out that technology availability, as well as certain resources, such as time and technical support, are the most common barriers to the effective integration of digital technologies into the teaching process. Another problem related to integration is that some educational institutions provide inferior, low-cost technology and equipment that cannot adequately respond to modern education needs (Bai & Lo, 2018). A study conducted in 2021 by Hébert et al. (2021) in Ontario, shows that 70% of teachers have difficulty accessing technologies, while almost half have a problem loading appropriate software applications. The coronavirus pandemic has exposed the inequities caused by the digital divide. In his paper “How COVID-19 exposed challenges for technology in education,” Janssen (2020) cites global OECD data showing “that half of the students kept out

10.4 Teachers’ Professional Development as Prerequisite for Effective …

127

of the classroom by COVID-19 (close to 800 million students) do not have access to a household computer, 43% (some 700 million students) even have no Internet access at home, and about 56 million students live in locations that are not served by mobile networks” (Janssen, 2020, para. 9). One of the widespread challenges to the effective integration of digital technologies is technical support to teachers. Learning platforms, hardware, routers for Internet connections, and software applications should be checked regularly (Bai & Lo, 2018; Hamutoglu, 2021). The difference between the operating platforms found on students’ personal devices and those used by teachers in school is also a challenge; hence teachers are expected to explain, for instance, how certain software works in both Windows and MAC OSX, Android and IOS, etc. (Hyndman, 2018). In order to successfully overcome such barriers, it is necessary to provide grants for educational institutions, which could use them to procure the necessary equipment and thus meet the conditions for teaching in accordance with the modern needs of the labor market. Since a significant number of teachers and students do not have personal computers or Internet access at home, the idea of “one-to-one computing initiatives” has been developed. This entails providing each student with a computer or laptop and access to the Internet, both at school and at home. Grants are also required for the implementation of this initiative (Davies & West, 2014). Ideas like “Close the Gap,” “an international social enterprise that aims to bridge the digital divide by offering high-quality, pre-owned computers donated by European companies to educational, medical, and social projects in developing and emerging countries” (Close The Gap, 2021, para. 1) can also reduce the digital divide and contribute to the digitalization of education systems.

10.4 Teachers’ Professional Development as Prerequisite for Effective Technology Integration Since contemporary teaching cannot meet the needs of students and society without integrating information technologies, providing cutting-edge digital tools is a fundamental requirement for successful technology integration and quality education. Likewise, students cannot be adequately prepared for life after school and the current labor market demands unless they receive a quality education. However, integrating digital resources into teaching and learning is challenging for teachers. Providing modern technologies to them and students does not always substantially increase learning because learning also depends on other factors (Davies & West, 2014; Francisco et al., 2022). The successful integration of information technologies in teaching is a slow, difficult, often problematic, and long-term process (Ardıç, 2021; Tosunta¸s et al., 2019). Therefore, the effective use of digital technologies in the teaching process should be a focus of all education systems at all levels and all types of education.

128

10 Challenges and Barriers for Effective Integration of Technologies …

There are positive and negative attitudes towards the integration of technologies that determine teachers’ actions (Castro-Guzmán, 2021). It is not uncommon for some teachers to oppose the introduction of new technologies in teaching for various reasons. Hyndman (2018) claims that some teachers would prefer not to use new digital technologies, and that these are not always the answer to their teaching challenges. Ardıç (2021) also confirms that internal barriers (attitudes, self-confidence, and beliefs) have a negative impact on technology integration in teaching. Teachers may often feel anxious and insecure when using them (Tosunta¸s et al., 2019). They may simply want to maintain the status quo or be hesitant to try out new digital technologies. Although many governments are investing in the digitalization of education systems, many educators struggle with the disruption of new technologies and the negative impact of technology integration on their work (Hyndman, 2018). They struggle with heavy workloads, and lack of sufficient time to prepare digital teaching material. In addition, they are unlikely to use technology if they do not see the benefits (Bai & Lo, 2018). This sometimes leads to conflict, because those teachers who hold positive attitudes and integrate technology into teaching violate the comfort zone of those who have negative attitudes and do not integrate technology into the teaching process. Key barriers to the effective integration of digital technologies into teaching are the inadequate training of teachers (Hébert et al., 2021), lack of knowledge and competencies (Bai & Lo, 2018; Castro-Guzmán, 2021; Hew & Brush, 2007), and differing attitudes toward their use. Many teachers do not have positive attitudes, awareness, experience, or skills to use advanced technologies efficiently in the teaching process. Even students (digital natives) may sometimes use digital technologies more ably than their teachers (digital immigrants). In the future, the situation will likely be similar. Some students will always use more ably and more diverse and newer information technologies than their instructors, especially when teachers are not always willing or able to learn how to use these in teaching practice. Research conducted by Francom (2020) confirms that, over time, training and technical support are the most common challenges to successfully integrating digital technologies into the teaching process. The quality and effective use of advanced technology has the potential to restructure teaching and learning. Professional development for teachers is crucial to understanding the effects of the proliferation and use of modern technology in implementing digital pedagogy. Hence, there are different professional teachers’ development approaches for successfully integrating digital technologies into the teaching process. Davies and West (2014) highlight three that appear to be most supported by research evidence: (a) Developing technological skills; (b) Increasing support through collaborative environments; and (c) Providing increased mentoring. (p. 11) Developing positive attitudes, values, and awareness should be added to the three approaches mentioned above for the professional development of teachers. They are essential for the effective and successful integration of educational technologies into

10.4 Teachers’ Professional Development as Prerequisite for Effective …

129

the teaching process (Bai & Lo, 2018; Basarmak & Hamutoglu, 2020; Turugare & Rudhumbu, 2020), because when teachers have positive attitudes towards integration they easily adapt and integrate them into teaching (Ardıç, 2021; Castro-Guzmán, 2021). Teaching in the modern age necessitates positive attitudes in educators toward technology integration, as well as the adoption of new pedagogical approaches and the ability to use them effectively in implementing digital pedagogy. Therefore, teacher education curricula must include the development of positive attitudes for using modern technologies proficiently and effectively. Training teachers to use technologies in the teaching process will form positive attitudes about their integration (Castro-Guzmán, 2021), even if there is insufficient financial support to provide all necessary digital tools. Furthermore, training can encourage instructors to expand their knowledge of effective digital technology use through non-formal and lifelong education, and increase efforts to provide digital tools on their own if they do not get it from the institutions where they teach, all in accordance with their capacities. Besides developing positive attitudes, teacher training must include knowledge, competencies and skills for successful technology integration into teaching. Such training should be an essential part of teacher pre-service and in-service training. The frameworks such as DIGCOMPEDU, ICT CFT, TPACK and SAMR are the most valuable for both pre-service and in-service teachers’ training. In such training, teachers should adopt strategies for lifelong learning due to the rapid advances in digital technologies and the need for knowledge and competencies to use them in the classroom. According to Lemoine et al. (2020), “being adaptable in a dynamic world, knowing how to ‘learn how to learn’, will be one of the most important assets any educator can have to be successful in the application and utilization of technology for enhanced student learning” (p. 85). One of the effective strategies for teachers’ professional development is learning from colleagues. Experienced instructors may effectively model classes, as well as mentor less experienced colleagues, for successful technology integration and implementation of digital pedagogy. Support from educational authorities is also important for teachers’ professional development and effective technology integration in the classroom. Educational leaders must be aware of the need to adopt a favorable attitude toward introduction of digital technologies into instruction. They must also have the expertise and experience to digitalize the educational institution they manage. Their knowledge, experience, and abilities should aid in developing a suitable culture, conducive environment, and digitalization strategy. In summary, educational authorities are expected to provide the necessary hardware and software, in-service training tailored to teachers’ individual needs, and to promote, encourage and support instructors in the integration of technologies into teaching and learning.

130

10 Challenges and Barriers for Effective Integration of Technologies …

10.5 Misusing Technology The use of digital technologies in the teaching and learning processes has numerous advantages. However, once certain preconditions and support have been provided, modern technologies are sometimes used in educational institutions for purposes for which they are not intended. Digital technologies’ rapid changes and habituation bring numerous risks, including “various kinds of mental disorders” (Neborsky et al., 2020, p. 396). The risk of misusing digital technologies relates both to teachers and students. Among teachers, the most common examples of misuse of digital tools include falsification, unauthorized help, plagiarism, fraudulence, delinquency, as well as copyright and privacy infringement (Davies & West, 2014). As for students, these include using digital technologies during class for social networking, gaming, surfing the Internet, as well as sharing and sending messages and emails, and violating privacy and personal data. In misusing technologies, students are occasionally called “digital rebels” (for accessing social media and texting); “cyber wanderers” (for immersing themselves in virtual games); but also “eLearning pioneers” (for learning online during classes) (Hyndman, 2018). Yet there are other forms of technology misuse among students, the most prevalent being cheating when completing assignments and projects, or during testing, particularly online. During the COVID19 pandemic, they employed a wide range of methods to cheat on examinations: searching for answers on websites, misusing teaching materials created by teachers, misusing textbooks, misusing notes, and more. It was not uncommon for students to provide other, more successful students access to their own online platform to do their exams. Price lists for taking online university tests for others have even emerged. Another type of technology misuse is infringing on students’ safety. There are two typical ways in which student safety may be jeopardized. The first is when students seek out and/or access websites or platforms with detrimental or undesirable content. The second is when they are exposed to online predators, cyberbullying, or hackers. There are a variety of methods that could be used to prevent technology misuse. Teachers’ pre-service and in-service training has a critical role. Besides developing their digital literacy and competencies, they must be trained to know and be aware that technologies must only be used for positive, ethical, and legal purposes. Moreover, teachers are role models to students, and their academic integrity will be reflected in their students’ integrity in terms of technology use. So, in order to teach students how to use digital devices properly, they must provide positive patterns to their students. In addition, various instructional approaches should be used to prevent students from misusing digital tools. Schools need to constantly raise awareness and train students in the appropriate use of technology to prevent abuse and ensure that technologies in place are used positively and ethically. Ensuring student safety in online settings is critical. From a technical standpoint, there is much that can be done to prevent the misuse of digital technology and ensure student safety in the online environment. Educational institutions may use specific tools to prevent the misuse of technologies, including blocking virtual private networks (VPNs) and accessing incognito browser modes via USB devices.

10.6 Conclusion

131

This would limit the ability of students to browse the Internet, access gaming and social media accounts, or generally use their devices and social networks at inappropriate times (GoGuardian Team, 2019). Adopting appropriate rules and regulations at various levels may also aid in preventing technology misuse among students and instructors.

10.6 Conclusion Integrating technologies into education is a joint rather than an individual endeavor. It involves policymakers, educational management, teachers, parents, and students. Despite the increased use of digital technologies in teaching and learning, there are still serious challenges and barriers which must be adequately addressed and overcome in order to implement digital pedagogy successfully. The most common issues for successfully integrating digital technology into the teaching and learning process include access to technology, knowledge, competencies, administrative support, time, cultural and social factors, class size, norms, attitudes, testing, technical support, and limiting misuse of technologies. The challenges and barriers associated with effectively integrating digital technologies into the teaching process are unique to each country, institution, teacher, course or subject. Some barriers pertain to the technologies themselves, while others pertain to education leaders, teachers, and students. There is no single approach or strategy that can be universally implemented across all countries, institutions, teachers, and courses to overcome these barriers. It is necessary to first identify the challenges and barriers that impede the effective use of digital technologies in education before they can be adequately addressed. There are several strategies that should be considered to overcome barriers to successful technology use in implementing digital pedagogy: a) Adoption of national, regional, and institutional policies and strategies for integrating technology into teaching and learning processes, b) Ensuring financial support, access to adequate hardware and software, and continuous technical support c) Teachers’ pre-service and in-service training should include the development of awareness, positive values, attitudes, beliefs concerning technology integration in the classroom, as well as digital literacy and competencies d) Students’ training, which is expected to develop students’ digital literacy competencies, including ethical use of digital devices. They should be informed of the detrimental effects of various types of improper technology use. e) Creating an institutional vision, changing the culture, and creating a conducive environment for technology integration, f) Providing administrative support, including quality structuring and planning teaching processes. Instructors should have a sufficient amount of time to design

132

10 Challenges and Barriers for Effective Integration of Technologies …

and create digital teaching materials and should not be concerned with any external student testing that does not consider specific school characteristics. Management of educational institutions plays a critical role in the digitalization of education processes. It is expected to develop an adequate policy and strategy for integrating digital technology into education, as well as to provide the necessary hardware, software, technical support, and teacher training. Furthermore, in order to successfully integrate technology into the teaching process, educational management is expected to create a conducive environment and culture that recognizes the values of technology-mediated education. Internal barriers to the use of digital technologies in education will not be eliminated until external barriers have been removed. Ongoing teacher professional development must ensure that digital pedagogues are continuously equipped with new knowledge, competencies, and skills. One common problem in educating teachers on effective technology integration into the classroom is that the same training program is used for everyone; the specific needs and competence levels of individual teachers are rarely taken into account. Training must be differentiated and adjusted to the needs of the teachers with respect to the subject matter they teach, as well as their respective level of competencies in using educational technologies. Digital pedagogues and students also need constant technical support. They should not spend precious class time ensuring that teaching technologies function smoothly during classes. Given that the challenges of integrating digital technology into the teaching process differ by country, region, institution, academic discipline, and so on, future research directions should be differentiated as well. Thus, future research studies in this field should be local and regional, focusing on institutions, the academic field, teachers, and students to identify barriers to technology integration into teaching and learning, and the development of strategies to overcome them successfully.

References Ardıç, M. A. (2021). Three internal barriers to technology integration in education: Opinion, attitude and self-confidence. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 9(35), Article S1-May. https:// doi.org/10.34293/education.v9iS1-May.4004 Bai, B., & Lo, C. K. (2018). The barriers of technology integration in Hong Kong primary school English education: Preliminary findings and recommendations for future practices. International Journal of Languages, Literature and Linguistics, 4(4), 290–297. https://doi.org/10.18178/IJLLL. 2018.4.4.189 Basarmak, U., & Hamutoglu, N. B. (2020). Developing and validating a comprehensive scale to measure perceived barriers to technology integration. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science, 4(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijtes.v4i1.53 Be´cirovi´c, S., & Dervi´c, M. (2022). Students’ perspectives of digital transformation of higher education in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, n/a(n/a), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/isd2.12243

References

133

Castro-Guzmán, W. (2021). Challenges of professional development for technology integration in higher education. Cuadernos de Investigación Educativa, 12(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10. 18861/cied.2021.12.2.3090 Close The Gap. (2021, September 29). https://www.close-the-gap.org/who-we-are/mission Davies, R. S., & West, R. E. (2014). Technology integration in schools. In Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 841–853). Springer. https://lidtfoundations. pressbooks.com/chapter/tech-integration-from-bates/ Durff, L., & Carter, M. (2019). Overcoming second-order barriers to technology integration in K–5 schools. Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 9(1), 246–260. https://doi.org/10.5590/ JERAP.2019.09.1.18 Francom, G. M. (2020). Barriers to technology integration: A time-series survey study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2019.167 9055 Francisco, M. J., Jr, G. Q., Pasoc, M. G., Cruz, S. B. D., Antes, N., Santos, M. D., Abequibel, B., Deran, J. J., Ricohermoso, C., Estigoy, E., Sarona, J., Marcial, R., Rillo, R., A, E., & Be´cirovi´c, S. (2022). Learning during the pandemic: Factors contributing to academic stress among special needs education pre-service teachers. Specialusis Ugdymas, 1(43), 8057–8074. GoGuardian Team. (2019). Benefits and challenges of technology in the classroom. GoGuardian. https://www.goguardian.com/blog/learning/technology-in-the-classroom-importance-challe nges/ Hamutoglu, N. B. (2021). Testing the effects of technological barriers on high school teachers’ role in technology integration. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 16(1), Article 1. Hébert, C., Jenson, J., & Terzopoulos, T. (2021). “Access to technology is the major challenge”: Teacher perspectives on barriers to DGBL in K-12 classrooms. E-Learning and Digital Media, 18(3), 307–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753021995315 Hew, K., & Brush, T. A. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11423-0069022-5 Hyndman, B. (2018). Ten reasons teachers can struggle to use technology in the classroom. The Conversation. http://theconversation.com/ten-reasons-teachers-can-struggle-to-use-technologyin-the-classroom-101114 Izmirli, Ö. S., ¸ & Kirmaci, Ö. (2017). New barriers to technology integration. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 17(72), 147–166. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2017.72.8 Janssen, L. (2020, June 1). How COVID-19 exposed challenges for technology in education. G-STIC. https://www.gstic.org/inspiration/how-covid-19-has-exposed-the-challenges-fortechnology-in-education/ Lemoine, P. A., Waller, R. E., Garretson, C. J., & Richardson, M. D. (2020). Examining technology for teaching and learning. Journal of Education and Development, 4(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/ 10.20849/jed.v4i2.781 Nagel, D. (2013). 6 technology challenges facing education. The Journal: Transforming Education Through Technology. https://thejournal.com/articles/2013/06/04/6-technology-challengesfacing-education.aspx Neborsky, E. V., Boguslavsky, M. V., Ladyzhets, N. S., & Naumova, T. A. (2020). Digital transformation of higher education: International trends (pp. 393–398). https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr. k.200509.071 Tosunta¸s, S. ¸ B., Çubukçu, Z., & ˙Inc˙i, T. (2019). A holistic view to barriers to technology integration in education. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 10(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10. 17569/tojqi.613969 Turugare, M., & Rudhumbu, N. (2020). Integrating technology in teaching and learning in universities in Lesotho: Opportunities and challenges. Education and Information Technologies, 25(5), 3593–3612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10093-3

Index

A Abilities, 17, 22, 41 Access, 20, 43, 44, 69, 73, 77, 78 Administration, 57 Affective, 56, 98, 99, 103–109 Applications, 5, 44 Attitudes, 20, 27, 33, 41, 52

B Barrier, 5 Become digital, 33 Boundaries, 7, 18

C Challenges, 3, 5, 18, 53, 100 Changing, 16, 19, 22 Classroom(s), 5, 7, 18, 58 Collaboration, 7, 19, 41, 54 Collaborative learning, 74 Communication, xiii, 7, 15, 34, 54, 56 Competencies, 3, 39, 41 Confidence, 43, 52 Connections, 27, 43 Content, 22, 27 Context, 40, 51 Contribute to, 3 Costs of education, 69 Critical digital pedagogy, 6 Cross-cultural, 17 Culture, 46, 72 Curricula, 3, 17, 22 Curriculum, 40, 46

D Data protection, xiii, 2, 31, 35, 55, 83–95 Development, 15, 20, 25, 27, 32, 33, 39, 42, 47, 52–54, 58 Digital abilities, 32, 46 Digital age, 10, 19, 32 Digital competence, 26, 41, 42, 45, 47, 51, 52, 54, 55 Digital competency(ies), 3, 40, 41, 43, 45, 51, 53, 54, 64 Digital divide, 15 Digital Immigrants, 32 Digitalization, 1, 5, 43 Digital literacy, 25–30, 53 Digital media, 41 Digital teaching, 55 Digital technology(ies), 1, 4, 5, 10, 15, 17–20, 32, 35, 39–44, 46, 47, 51, 53, 56, 59, 62 Digital tools, 6, 20, 33, 43, 51, 58 Digital transformation, 3 Discrimination, 33 Distance learning, 16, 18, 20, 42

E Education, 1, 3–5, 7, 10, 16, 17, 20, 21, 25, 29, 41–44, 47, 51, 53, 54, 56 Educational experiences, 10 Educational systems, 5, 25 Education authorities, 16, 18, 22, 29, 42, 43 Education systems, 3 Educators, 18 Empirical research, 30 Enable, 17, 19, 43 Encourage, 17, 27

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. Be´cirovi´c, Digital Pedagogy, SpringerBriefs in Open and Distance Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-0444-0

135

136 Engagement, 7, 33, 54, 56, 74 Equality, 15 Evolving, 52 F Face-to-face, 5, 10, 58 Facilitates, 1, 3 Factors, 20 Fostering, 18, 31, 36, 40, 43, 51, 114, 119, 121 Freely available, 79 G Gender, 15, 17, 44 Globalization, 16 Goal, 30, 61 Governments, 69 H Higher levels of knowledge, 17 I Implementation, 16, 18, 20, 54 Influence, 16, 17 information technology(ies), 10, 22, 25, 54, 58, 61 Institutions, 7, 16, 18 Instructors, 5, 20, 73, 74 Integration, 5 Intellectual property, 71, 75 Interaction(s), 22, 59, 61 Interests, 4, 56 Internet, xiv, 4, 31, 33, 41, 43 Involvement, 45, 70, 74, 100 K Knowledge, 16, 22, 60, 61 L Learn/learning, 1, 3, 5–7, 10, 15, 16, 18–20, 26–28, 33, 40, 41, 51, 54, 58–60, 64, 100 Learning resources, 70 Lecturing, 19 License, 71, 79 M Management, 41, 58, 60

Index Modern digital technologies, 18 Motivation, 5, 7, 19, 20, 41, 43, 60 N Needs of students, 3, 19, 71 Networking, xiii, 3, 40, 83, 102, 103, 130 New knowledge, 18 New technologies, 16 O Online learning, 64 Online lectures, 5 Open education, 6, 8, 9 Open Educational Resources (OER), xiii, 2, 8, 46, 55, 57, 69–79 Open license, 79 Open pedagogy, 71, 76 Organizations, 3 P Parent expectations, 21 Parents, 30 Pedagogy, 1, 4–6, 9, 16, 19, 22, 25, 57, 58 Pedagogy expectations, 19 Performance evaluation, 20 Permanent professional training, 18, 23 Personal computer, 4 Perspectives, 51 Power relations, 16 Privacy, 34, 57 Problem solving, 54 Promote, 19 Properly equipped, 18 Public domain, 70, 79 Q Quality, 5, 19, 60 Quantity, 20 R Resources, xiii, 5, 16, 20, 23, 26, 27, 32, 33, 35, 42, 43, 54, 58, 69–74, 76, 77, 79 S School, 4, 19, 20, 22, 25, 28–30 Skills, and competencies, 10, 17 Social media, 29, 33 Social networks, 29, 32, 33 Social processes, 27

Index Society, 3, 17, 47 Student achievement, 55 Student expectations, 21 Students, 10 Success, 3, 33

T Tasks, 27, 63, 100 Teacher(s), 7, 10, 19, 22, 28, 42, 52, 53, 56, 60, 100 Teachers and students, 4, 53 Teaching and learning, 5, 9 Teaching and learning methods, 17, 22 Teaching process, 3, 4, 19, 43, 52 Teaching tools, 58, 63 Technological changes, 47

137 Technologies, xiii, 1, 3, 5–7, 16, 18–23, 27–29, 33, 41–43, 47, 51–53, 55–57, 59, 61, 62, 65 Technology integration, 62, 63 Textbooks, 19 The labor market, 16, 19, 40 The learning outcomes, 15 The needs of society, 17, 22 The teaching process, 5, 18, 27, 40, 42–44, 53, 57, 60, 62 The use of, 1, 18, 19, 23, 28, 41, 43, 52, 55, 60, 61 Tradition, 4 Train, 16, 32 Transformation, 2, 3, 6, 10 Transformed environment, 7 Transforming, 1