The webinar opening the topic devoted to “online participation & digital literacies” suggested creating a map in the form of intersecting axes. We could mark on it how we use the Internet, divided into private and professional spheres. On opposite poles of the horizontal axis there were the markings „visitor” and „resident”, depending on how many traces we leave on the Internet. I really liked the comment that came up when we discussed it in the group: „the more I know about the consequences of online presence, the less I feel like being resident.” I feel very much the same.
When the first results of our research on this issue began to appear in the form of links to content dealing with this topic, I was amazed, surprised and grateful. Amazed that there is so much! Surprised that most of them are sources that arose many years ago, not because of the pandemic and the shift to distance learning! And grateful, because some of them are ready-made recipes for what and how to do to improve the quality of online learning.
Of course, reading long scientific articles from an area of research that I do not know (for my own use, perhaps I would call it the psychosociology of digital education) in a language that I’m not native (English) was a bit tiring. But what surprised me the most was that the topic of „online participation & digital literacies” may be about more than just the technical skills of the teacher or mastering the tool!
So, what can it be about then? For example, about the sense of security (teacher and student), trust, or so-called supportive competences being part of teacher digital competences, „more holisitc and broader-based understandings that recognize ethical, safety and productivity aspects”). I had no idea that such competences even existed.
This is obviously very developing for me as an individual, but this level of awareness in distance learning seems abstract and purely theoretical when confronted with hard reality. And the reality is that for months my requests to organize training on the tools of the basic platform used at the university remain unanswered. I have such a reflection that if, on such a basic level, the teacher cannot count on the support of the institution, she/he will also not be able to count on it in acquiring more advanced competences. This is, again, surprising and a bit sad, because the level of the teacher corresponds to the level of the institution he represents.
My position is that the teacher should get encouragement and all support to improve their qualifications in this area. I even think that she/he should be held accountable for it, and the online work methods she/he uses should be evaluated. But of course there is a systemic problem here, because who would do this evaluation, if (as a professional group) we are just learning everything? It’s good that we learn. It is a pity that it is so slowly and that it is a matter of free will of teachers, not the requirements and commitment of the institution.
One more surprise, completely personal and very nice. I consider myself a person quite hard to learn the new Internet tool. To my surprise, however, I was selected in our workgroup as the person who is most skilled at bringing our mind map to the desired state using the Coggle (arrows, colours, boxes: freestyle) tool. [At this point, I take my hat off to Lena, who was the first to challenge Coggle alone, and to Michael for moderating the first topic. Great job, I’m impressed!].
Quite a lot of surprises, on just one topic and two weeks of the course.
