One of the things we’ve been working on lately is a set of digital literacy standards for students. These standards identify the skills and knowledge students need to be successful in our increasingly digital world.
Please review our draft standards and let us know what you think. Are we on the right track? Any other suggestions?
Tim et al. Nice work, but I’d like to throw another card on the table. Where is programming? There is a major push to reintroduce programming at all levels under the computational thinking banner. Starting with Papert et al all the way through to
ISTE http://www.iste.org/learn/computational-thinking
Google http://www.iste.org/learn/computational-thinking
Carnegie Mellon http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~CompThink/
We should be promoting a computational thinking strand that runs from atleast gr. 3/4 all the way to 12.
Good points, George. Programming is important both because it fosters logic and critical thinking skills, but also because it provides a basic understanding of what makes computers work and is an important and growing career area. As it is for ITC generally, it is challenging to decide where these topics should be addressed in the curriculum.
Computational Thinking, as defined by ISTE, is really just one more flavour of Critical Thinking, along with Creative Thinking, Reflective Thinking, Design Thinking and Problem Solving. Thinking is one of the three cross-curriculuar competencies the Ministry is currently co-creating with the field. Communication is another. Digital Literacy may or may not continue to be a sub-domain under Communication.
Google (I believe the link you meant to provide is http://www.google.com/edu/computational-thinking/index.html) and Carnegie Mellon focus on the more traditional programming and ICT view of Computational Thinking. Our Technology and Operations digital literacy compentency is a natural place to address these aspects of Computational Thinking, but we are also looking at the Applied Skills area and Mathematics, where programming and ICT have previously been located.
A grounding in the basics of computer operations, programming in the elementary years seems like a good idea. Developing computational thinking along with other forms of critical thinking throughout the grades makes sense, too. Providing interested students opportunities to learn more advanced computing/programming/app development skills in the later grades would cap it all off nicely.
What do others think?
Hello Dave the Moderator,
You wrote: I am not sure that the Ministry will ever be constructing an assessment framework around digital literacy standards, but the standards will certainly help teachers incorporate these considerations into their classroom assessments.
I believe research has shown that if you want teachers to change their practice then literacies related to all things digital in education actually needs to be focused on teaching and learning. What helps teachers “incorporate these consideration” is a belief or philosophy that these are important and professional development to support pedagogical change. Literacies are finite. Learning in continuous.change is constant. Learning is active and literacy is static.
Many of the standards mentioned in the draft have to do with online communities, emails, creation of websites and digital learning games, etc.
With the BC privacy and protection laws as they are, and the limitation for use of internet sites/ web 2.0 tools that are housed on servers outside of Canada, are there plans in place to make this feasible for teachers and students? For example, extra budgets to house platforms for blogs on secure school board servers, policies and procedures to make blogs, wikis, Twitter and Skype more accessible for students to use, a list of approved and secure sites that can be used and that fall within the laws, etc.
I am a BC-certified Teacher and have also worked in the K-12 educational technology field (U.S. and Canada) for many years. I’m glad to see that BC is working on a set of technology standards (essentially the NETS-S)! The thread below is interesting and I have a few comments/suggestions:
1) I like the term ‘digital literacy’ – it’s a current term (like ‘BYOD’ and ‘flipped classroom’) and certainly isn’t limited to English/Language Arts – cross-curricular integration of technology is, in my humble opinion, always preferable
2) The ISTE NETS-S were ‘refreshed’ in 2007 after extensive and rigorous review; however, they’re still challenging to measure (As an example, the Arizona Department of Education has done an excellent job of ‘drilling down’ and further articulating the standards with explanations and curriculum examples *refer to grade level implementation guides @ http://www.azed.gov/standards-practices/2009-technology-standard/)
3) The U.S. (varies from state to state) has been trying to implement these standards for well over a decade – some very successfully, others not…the challenges outlined below are far too real: lack of funding, lack of current computers and infrastructure to support these standards, lack of tech-savvy teachers to implement the standards, lack of leadership, lack of instructional time etc.
4) Why re-invent the wheel? Look to other states/provinces for resources that have already been developed (many of these are online and available for public consumption). There are also fee-based products (mostly, web-delivered) that have been developed specifically to assess and implement digital literacy standards
That’s all for now…thanks
If you check the research you will see it is associated with English and language Arts. It is one thing to have an opinion which I respect, it is another to make decisions without looking into the research and the more global picture.
see http://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco/themes/icts/
Information and Communication Technology (ICT) can contribute to universal access to education, equity in education, the delivery of quality learning and teaching, teachers’ professional development and more efficient education management, governance and administration.
UNESCO takes a holistic and comprehensive approach to promoting ICT in education. Access, inclusion and quality are among the main challenges they can address. The Organization’s Intersectoral Platform for ICT in education focuses on these issues through the joint work of three of its sectors: Communication & Information, Education and Science.
UNESCO’s global network of offices, institutes and partners provide Member States with resources for elaborating ICT in education policies, strategies and activities. In particular, the UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies in Education (IITE), based in Moscow, specializes in information exchange, research and training on the integration of ICT in education while UNESCO’s Bangkok office is strongly involved in ICT for Education in Asia and the Pacific.
hmmmm…I still disagree. I don’t disagree with your points regarding a global perspective on ICT (and associated definitions); however, I also think that ‘digital literacy’ is accurate and applies to the set of standards the Ministry is proposing – please refer to Wikipedia’s definition:
“Digital literacy is the ability to effectively and critically navigate, evaluate and create information using a range of digital technologies. It requires one ‘to recognize and use that power, to manipulate and transform digital media, to distribute pervasively, and to easily adapt them to new forms’.[1] Digital literacy does not replace traditional forms of literacy, it builds upon the foundation of traditional forms of literacy.[1] Digital literacy is the marrying of the two terms digital and literacy, however, it is much more than a combination of the two terms. Digital information is a symbolic representation of data, and literacy refers to the ability to read for knowledge, write coherently, and think critically about the written word.
Research around digital literacy is concerned with wider aspects associated with learning how to effectively find, use, summarize, evaluate, create, and communicate information while using digital technologies; not just being literate at using a computer.
Digital literacy encompasses all digital devices, such as computer hardware, software, the Internet, and cell phones. A person using these skills to interact with society may be called a digital citizen.”
Isn’t this the ultimate goal of adopting these standards?
Thanks for your comments and insights, AMT. The Ministry will soon be looking to identify existing resources to support digital literacy. If you know of any, please post them here or submit a list to Mark[dot]Hawkes[at]gov.bc.ca.
Thanks!
Who are the draft authors, btw? Authors are listed on the IRPs (but no one is credited on these drafts, although ‘experts’ are cited as the authors on the Ministry page) Thanks!
Design, develop, and test a digital learning game to demonstrate knowledge and skills related to curriculum content. (CT, CI)
PAR: With what software?!! This is pretty tough to achieve. Have you ever made a game yourself? I don’t think this is an appropriate skill for all people to learn to be digitally ‘literate’. Navigating through a challenging game is difficult enough when confronted with problem-based scenarios. I think critical review of contemporary games is more important, myself.
Create and publish an online art gallery with examples and commentary that demonstrate an understanding of different historical periods, cultures, and countries. (C, CI)
PAR: This is also appropriate for 7-9 (currently omitted from younger grades who study comp civ and world history)
Select digital tools or resources to use for a real-world task and justify the selection based on their efficiency and effectiveness. (C, CT, TC)
PAR: good
Employ curriculum-specific simulations to practice critical-thinking processes. (CT, CI)
PAR: Simulations? Do you mean online learning lessons?
Identify a complex global issue; develop a systematic plan of investigation, and present innovative sustainable solutions. (C, CT, CI)
PAR: I don’t see the connection to digital literacy specifically here so much as social studies curriculum
Analyze the capabilities and limitations of current and emerging technology resources and assess their potential to address personal, social, lifelong learning, and career needs. (CT, PR, SR, TC)
PAR: Nice
Design a Web site that meets accessibility requirements. (CI, PR, SR)
PAR: Accessibility? Do you mean navigability? Or password protection?
Model legal and ethical behaviours when using information and technology by properly selecting, acquiring, and citing resources. (C, CT, PR, SR)
PAR: Due diligence is good to state, but this is not so much digital literacy as what already is outlined in plagerism policy. Suggestion to omit and have a guideline which refers to plagerism policy instead.
Create media-rich presentations for other students on the appropriate and ethical use of digital tools and resources. (CI, PR, SR)
PAR: This looks like it will get boring so fast because of its narrow scope. Suggestion to change to something more open-ended, “Create media-rich presentations for other students on appropriate & ethical behaviour using digital tools & resources”.
Configure and troubleshoot hardware, software, and network systems to optimize their use for learning and productivity. (CT, TC)
PAR: What!?! This is the job for a specialized technist, not a student!! I am pretty saavy with tech but this is way out of the realm of knowledge needed to be digitally literate. If this is meant to be simpler, as “troubleshoot internet connections and understand how to set up a home network” it could be rephrased. I personally do not want students hacking into the school system year after year for homework. (What could possibly go wrong?
Our joint tech committee is working on a scope and sequence for K-5 tech literacy / ethics / safety. I will share this with them! Any idea on a timeline for when they get out of draft so we might avoid reinventing the wheel?
Hi Jarrod – I’ve spoken with one of my colleagues about this for you. His response is that the standards you see on the site have pretty well been settled on (mostly we are using the ISTE NETS ones) and you can safely go ahead and start working with those as they are now.
In addition to the standards, several other layers of detail and support materials are being developed, including profiles. No firm date has been set for release but he estimates by next Sept at the latest. Components will be posted for review on our site as they become available.
Hope this helps!
Great, thank you Mike.
You’re welcome. We’d certainly be interested in hearing more about your work as you move ahead, if you want to share. Please keep in touch!
Update foippa to allow for easier use of tools online. So much $ going down the drain while big districts build tools and little districts just don’t have the capacity.
I propose you change the label below from
eveloping Digital Literacy Standards” to educational technology standards or ICT education standards. At least then this discussion could deal with the substance rather than the packaging. It seems that everything has been determined and all this is is a way for the Ministry to say that people had input.
Personally, I do not like the phrase, “in order to participate effectively in society,” because this pre-supposes that you must be “plugged in” in order to participate effectively in society. Was Mother Teresa an effective contributor to society? Isn’t face-to-face communication more important than digital literacy? I find that the definition is not contextualized. I am a big fan of the bells and whistles tech can provide (and improved learning about and through tech), but Social Responsibility is the big umbrella framework that better defines our effectively participation in society. Being ‘plugged in’ is one way, among many, to participate effectively in society.
I hope that this curriculum document will not be an island unto itself but that it be viewed through the lens of multiple disciplines, language teachers, science teachers, artists, etc and that thoughtful feedback from people from multiple domains will flavour the writing of this document. The document will be richer for it.
If I were looking for a (non-political) focus group to explore these ideas through another lens, I might contact the Learning Through the Arts organization whose mandate it is to explore curricula through other media.
For an interesting list of social and digital literacies associated with social networking, see the table on page 26 of: Kids Online: A new research agenda for understanding social networking forums
http://www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/reports-38.html
Do you think these should be incorporated into the draft Digital Literacy Standards?
One thing that I think is missing from basically every school is the history of technology.
We are the tool using species on our planet and yet we rarely self-critique our use of tools, digital technology being one of them, and it is even rarer that k-12 students get a sense for the rich history of technology and how significantly these tools influence our society.
I’d call this course “Philosophy of Technology” and it would incorporate a lot of ideas, including a discussion about how language (and ways of thinking) are forms of technology. In terms of pedagogy, it is my opinion that philosophy especially is best taught through discussions.
The other benefit of this course is that it would not require students (or the school) to actually have any new technology (of course this would help – it is much easier to talk intelligently about a tool when you have it in front of you) to get started with it.
Some possible topics of discussion:
1. When and where is it appropriate to use our cell phones?
2. How should society change to accommodate this use of technology? How will it change?
3. Is there a limit to the benefits of technology? Can we look at various technologies and find the draw-backs to them?
Thanks for this idea, David. In terms of student maturity and cognitive development, any sense of where in the curriculum this might fit? Certain ethical questions could fit in a number of places, perhaps, but would the philosophical/social implications of folks like Vannevar Bush, Doug Engelbart, or Ted Nelson (to cite 20th century examples) be better handled by older students?
I wonder if anyone has created a local (B/AA) course like this?
History of Science and Technology covers this topic, and is often written in the style of History of Philosophy. It would fit in the modern eras covered by Socials 11 and History 12, though it is interesting to note that technology is covered in gr 8-10 but not at the senior levels. As a teacher candidate, I am designing my own curriculum to incorporate this important history for future classes.
Though I also suggest moving half the content of Socials 11 to Socials 10 to allow for more discussion of the contemporary era. History 12 should be the new Socials 11, and History 12 could become a selected topics course like SJ12.
I actually think the younger students could really get into a hist tech course. I would love to see gr 8 switched up a bit and into the seniors. It’s alot easier to talk about a cell phone to gr. 8s than explain why you are covering up naked pictures of the Renaissance. Give the art to the seniors.
Hi Tim,
Thanks for taking the time to respond to the comments here. I am teaching k-5 in the computer lab and co-teaching with iPads in the classroom. I am wondering about the place of “play” for k-5 in the digital literacy curriculum. I see students love to create and explore at no consequence. A space to create and re-create and co-create is readily provided for them in the digital world. It is a space to be successful, creative, and experience wonder. I see this as a way to engage learning.
Portions of the day in the classroom, decreasing from kindergarten, are “play” opportunities for primary students. It might be interesting to frame skills within a play component in the digital curriculum. Play can foster creativity, independence, self-motivation and resilience, and lead to student centered learning as well as inquiry based learning skills later. I would like to see “play” not only valued in schools as ways to achieve the curriculum, but stated in the curriculum. The word ‘play’ may help lower the threshold for teachers to begin to incorporate more digital tools and avenues in the class.
What do you think? Why cant we use the language of “play”
These are valuable observations, Mr. S. Many folks consider play to be the central activity of early childhood education and the approach of learning through play continues to thrive as a core curriculum approach. As children move into the primary grades play continues to be a valuable activity in creating optimal learning environments for children.
Play in primary grades challenges children and contributes to full array of competencies including communication, collaboration, critical thinking, social responsibility, personal responsibility and well-being.
The Ministry is paying close attention to the pedagogy of play and looking at ways that it can be considered in new curriculum designs, particularly in the primary grades.
I see from this that this is your “draft” version. What time frame are you expecting these standards to be implemented in? If it’s any time in the very near future, then my comment would be “you can’t be serious”.
Here are the issues that I know of at my daughter’s school which is in the Lower Mainland.
Logistics: Up until last year our school’s computer lab contained very old Mac’s that were no longer functioning properly. The PAC provided funds to purchase some new Mac’s (the computer teacher’s preference) and some laptops that could be used in the actual classrooms rather than a lab situation. Regardless of the location (lab or classroom), the children experience difficulty connecting to the internet, or if connected, lose the connection and have to log on again and they also experience long download times. The infrastructure is just not there to support what the school has now let alone adding more. The PAC also provided funding a couple of years ago for Smart Boards. Not every teacher has a Smart Board but those that do also experience the same issues. I cannot imagine what the difficulties would be if the school was located in another area of the province where the internet availability was not as good as the Lower Mainland.
Teaching: Not all teachers are knowledgeable about using technology in the classroom. That is only to be expected given the speed at which things are changing. Based on what was written in your draft, it appears as if you are expecting teachers to be integrating digital technology in their classrooms on an on-going basis – not just sending the children to the computer lab once a week as is done now. Do you have some sort of plan to assist teachers in upgrading their skills? In my daugher’s case, her grade 2 teacher didn’t want a Smart Board in her class and when I said I’d give her my e-mail address for communications, she said she’d rather use the phone “because I don’t get on the computer much.” My daughter’s 3rd grade teacher used the Smart Board in her classroom every day and created a classroom blog and blogs for the children to use. Now in the 4th grade, her teacher has a Smart Board in the class but has only used it twice since school started in September and although she will communicate by e-mail, she would prefer it if I phoned and left a message for her if I need to speak to her for some reason. So each of these 3 teachers had very different attitudes and comfort levels with technology. That would have to be addressed.
BYOD: I get the feeling that districts are looking at a BYOD policy in order to get students using technology in the classroom. Even with working full time and earning what I do, I have to say I would not be able to provide a device for my daughter. There are no I-pods or I-pads in my household. The cell phone I use is provided by my company and I don’t own a personal one. We don’t get newspapers delivered anymore and I cancelled the cablevision so we don’t watch TV anymore in an effort to keep expenses down. So what is the plan for students whose parents do not have the resources to buy the latest and greatest gadget for their kids?
As for the standards themselves, I just don’t see the need for some of what you’ve got there. Why do 8 to 11 year old’s need to “provide a media rich digital story based on a local event based on first-person interviews” or why do 11 to 15 year olds need to create “original animations or vidoes documenting school, community, or local events”? Teaching the children to type, teaching them about internet safety and ethics, teaching them about some of the most commonly used programs, teaching them about common applications such as cut, copy, paste, & shortcuts – all those I can see as good ideas but the other stuff to me is not necessary for every child to learn.
Bev, you raise many good points about implementation. Thinking behind the standards is not to describe what is already in place, but what should be possible and acceptable for all learners.
Your examples come from the profiles, which describe sample activities that could be done by students at various stages in various subjects. The standards themselves are more general, as listed in the first column of the Grid at http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/dist_learning/activitygrid.htm A standard for the profile activities you cited would be 2(b)”communicate information and ideas effectively to multiple audiences using a variety of media and formats”.
UNESCO has ICT standards that are used in a global context. ISTE has NETS the standards for evaluating the skills and knowledge students need to learn effectively and live productively in an increasingly global and digital world.
Why in the world has the BC Ministry of Education select a subject area domain term like Digital Literacy to establish these standards. Isn’t it already confusing enough? Are we really promoting literacy of 1s and 0s?
too bad!!
Thanks, dhk.
You’ve raised one of the many reasons this topic is here – is the label right? Do you have a preferred term?
A number of other titles for the standards were possible:
- Information and Communication Technology (ICT) standards
- Computer Literacy standards
- Educational Technology standards (especially since we’re pointing heavily to ISTE-NETS)
Pros and cons for each one, but the definition is more important, because it outlines the scope:
“the interest, attitude and ability of individuals to appropriately use digital technology and communication tools to access, manage, integrate, analyze and evaluate information, construct new knowledge, create and communicate with others in order to participate effectively in society”
Way more than 1s and 0s, but “digital” is still a common referent. CBC’s Spark is concerned with “your digital life”, for example, and it’s purview goes well beyond binary.
Is there a preferred term out there?
Is this a case of “a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet?”
I agree the definition is more important, but by selecting digital literacy you have privileged one subject area (English) and ignored the years of work and research being done in areas of educational technologies, technology literacies, ICT literacy, ICT Learning, learning technologies,and such.
ICT is still used and recognized in a global context. What about analogue forms of technology? Are these no longer appropriate for schools and education?
If you call a rose an anchor it might smell as sweet but will people know what you are talking about?
What does literacy mean? There are those who say it means to learn? Why not just call it learning. There are those who say it means to be able to read and write and have knowledge and skills in numeracy. Why not just say that. There are those who say it means all social practices. So, is everything a literacy? math literacy, science literacy, environmental literacy, music literacy…… The point is that when something means everything it basically means nothing.
Literacy is a social practice? This is a slippery slope or as some might say a slope of sliding signifiers. This trend in education of finding a new slogan such as “digital literacy” and ascribing meaning to it is as if it is new should be called out when it happens. Do we really have endless resources to throw at education here in BC? Yes that was a rhetorical question.
Lets call it what it is. Teaching, learning, ICT or educational technologies and get on with it.
Using the term standards raises yet another set of issues.
Well until my students all have access to reliable technology, none of this will happen.
Let’s see…
1) We have access to one open computer lab with the oldest computers in the school (take about 5 minutes to start up)
2) The internet is so slow in the school (because smartphones are all going all the time?) that I can’t even stream a video during class
3) The internet is so slow that it takes minutes for a webpage to load on library computers.
4) I spend minutes every day logging in and out of BCesis hoping that maybe it will work this time
5) Several students in every class have no access to computers outside of class (I think they are more likely to have a smartphone than a computer at home)
But these learning outcomes look great!
Wow. I have just looked at the standards for the grade levels I teach (our senior students) and my jaw dropped. These kids do not have the access to cmputers that can use MS Publisher without crashing. They have to wait minutes for search results and we are seriously considering asking them to become digitally literate? And where will the training come from for me to help them?
Bring your own device is just another way to further isolate students living in poverty, of which there are thousands in my district.
Those are good points, Maryah, and possibly a further reason not to specify them as prescribed outcomes. Standards serve different purposes, sometimes as minimal requirements, sometimes as expectations to which we strive. In a fluid environment, they might serve both purposes. In this case, if we believe that students should be able to use a publishing application for creative or communication purposes, then we should say so, but it’s not the same thing as saying students must use a publishing application. As expectations, we believe they would inform school and district investments in pedagogically appropriate tools. Or, should our standards only reflect what could be done with lowest common denominator technologies?
i like the digital literacy standards. I think there should also be a module on privacy, security and ethics of conduct online, encryption etc.
would be good to have a module on copyright and piracy.
Hi, Mom
Standard 6 includes this:
a. advocate and practice safe, legal, and responsible use of information and technology
All of the topics you mentioned fit in this standard.
BC has a free copyright course designed for teachers, details at http://www.bcerac.ca/services/training/courses/copyright-course.aspx#section1
Right at the beginning of this conversation, I’d like to note that the standards are based on the work of the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), specifically its National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) for students. For now, the Grid contains only the standards for which we seek feedback. Samples will come later, once the standards themselves are firm.
Having looked at the draft standards for Grades 6-9, most seem okay. #8 I would remove the word “multicultural”. While I agree with the idea, perhaps it mixes two separate goals (collaboration and multiculturalism) which will make mastery of the standard very difficult. Let the students focus on collaboration – it’s predictable that in some (many?) cases, multiculturalism will be added as a quick afterthought. Too be honest, we see this all the time when trying to add indigenous perspectives to science units. Again, while I may agree with the premise, I fear that it is handled in an inauthentic and likely dismissive manner. Standards should be things that we expect our kids to succeed at, they should not be a wish list.
I have two questions about these standards. How can we expect these standards to be practiced, demonstrated and assessed? There is a severe lack of access to devices which are suitable for creating digital content (ie computers). I think the BC Edplan is clear that it is depending upon a BYOD model, and it’s difficult to that succeeding in relation to these standards.
The second question about the added standards has to do with overburden. If we add many new standards, what standards are removed to make room? Professor Charles Ungerleider from UBC has commented on this, the idea that the number of expectations in public education are growing too great.
In response to your second question, the standards are not intended to be treated as curriculum outcomes, just as we wouldn’t have outcomes for using pens to write or behaving in the school playground. There may be instructional moments that occur to support effective use (don’t climb the swings, use respectful language). If we turn them into outcomes, there’s a corresponding expectation that they are assessed and reported out on. Rather, digital tools and skills become the means to demonstrate learning outcomes and competencies.
The other notion is that as other curriculum areas are developed with higher level outcomes, these standards assure curriculum teams that its ok to allow outcomes that are based on assumptions about digital skills at certain levels.
There would be opportunities within the “white space” for elective courses, explorations, or directed studies for which these standards could be a focus for interested students.
Regarding your first question, what we see in the province is that when districts make this a priority, they find ways to invest.
Thanks Tim.
I didn’t catch the difference between Standards and Curriculum Outcomes, thanks for the clarification. I am familiar with ISTE and NETS, and have no problem with trying to embody these standards within our student population.
I wonder, at this stage do we need to plan ahead on how we will track progress on the standards?
cheers
Hi Shmish – We are envisioning that the Digital Literacy Standards will be a tool that will help teachers inform their professional practice and a reason to incorporate digital competencies in classroom activities.
I am not sure that the Ministry will ever be constructing an assessment framework around digital literacy standards, but the standards will certainly help teachers incorporate these considerations into their classroom assessments.