Is Digital Scholarship limited by cultural myopia?

Introduction

The parameters of scholarship in education are often based on Boyer’s (1990) dimensions of discovery, integration, application and teaching.  Healey further expands on the scholarship of teaching to include “research into teaching and learning, critical reflection of practice and communication and dissemination about the practice of one’s subject” (2000, p. 169).

Broadening the discussion to include the transformational aspects of “digital” technology, educational scholarship has been enriched through open data, open publishing, a blurring of the academic and ‘real’ world, open teaching and learning and a movement from the individual to the distributed scholar and global access (Pearce, Weller, Scanlon, & Kinsley, 2012). However, Pearce etal. (2012, p. 169) cautioned that technology is “a necessary but not sufficient condition” for true scholarship. The question is, given the potential and reality of technology, what else is needed to fulfil the obligations of a modern ‘digital’ scholar?

Argument statement 

This essay will argue that the dominance of a Western cognitive constructivist tradition in online and offline education, led by British, Australasian and North American (BANA) institutions limits knowledge, understanding and progress not only of its students, but of its scholars as well in exploiting the true potential of open educational tools and resources.

There are four main reasons for situating this essay in the context of teaching and learning, in particular, a critical reflection of digital scholarship practice in relation to multi-cultural multi-lingual (MCML) learning environments. Firstly, demographic shifts in education are occurring at an unprecedented rate as a result of globalisation, immigration, migration, and war (Boelens, 2010; Boelens, Cherek, Tilke, & Bailey, 2015).  Secondly a significant shift to online education where the global market is showing a 9.2% five year annual compound growth rate and is now worth $107 billion led by India and China (Pappas, 2015). Thirdly, work and employment increasingly is global, remote and disaggregated with globally mobile and fluid workforce and both employers and employees requiring “just in time” rather than “just in case” skills and knowledge. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, there is a moral, ethical and value-based argument. On the one hand, MCML students are prejudiced by the dominance of a Western cognitive constructivist tradition in education (Catterick, 2007; Sadykova, 2014; Zhang & Kenny, 2010) and on the other, ignoring the MCML dimension limits critical reflective practice, the potential of international digital scholarship and knowledge and understanding of a large part of the educational scholars’ field.

Interpretive Discussion

Background

Traditionally, creating culturally-responsive accommodations for MLMC students has faced considerable institutional opposition. The response of educational institutions, comprised a narrow range between non-accommodation and intervention in the form of student induction into ‘the system’ i.e. modify the student not the program (Catterick, 2007; Parrish & Linder-VanBerschot, 2010). Arguments against interventions cite costs, quality control, and expectations of the students themselves and their future employers that they are “Westernised” as a by-product of their education (Catterick, 2007).

Parrish and Linder-VanBerschot (2010) acknowledge these issues and suggest that institutions distinguish between entrenched cultural values and superficial practices, and create interventions with constructivist and instructivist alternatives or choices in learning activities and instructional format only where these are critical to learning success.  Researchers sound a word of caution against cultural generalizations that lead to stereotyping and discrimination (Gazi, 2014; Hardy & Tolhurst, 2014; Parrish & Linder-VanBerschot, 2010). This can be ameliorated through a combination of embedding cultural considerations in each stage of the instructional design process, ensuring an iterative practice of reflection and modification and encouraging student interaction and feedback (Parrish & Linder-VanBerschot, 2010; Young, 2009).

Models designed to foster awareness of cultural implications in education vary in their orientation. Initially research done in corporations (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010) and physical classrooms led to classroom or systems originated and oriented models such as the Inclusion, Attitude, Meaning, Competence (IAMC) model of Ginsberg & Wlodkowski (2009, cited in Suzuki & Nemoto, 2012) and the Cultural Dimensions Learning Framework (CDLF) (Parrish & Linder-VanBerschot, 2010) which were adapted for online learning.

In contrast, the Culture Based Model (CBM) framework of Young (2009) and the Cultural Adaptation Process (CAP) model (Edmundson, 2007b) are product oriented with the aim of guiding designers to incorporate culture in the design of digital and online educational products. (See Appendix 1 for illustrations of these models).

Reflection on teaching and learning in a multi-cultural environment

Educational institutions are not the only suppliers of teaching and learning. Commercial entities, particularly multinational companies, go to an enormous amount of effort in creating culturally compatible user interfaces - see Edmundson’s (2007a) book “Globalized e-learning cultural challenges”. One could argue that this effort directly benefits their bottom line, however all institutions would benefit from this approach.

Fortunately there are some researchers open-minded enough to examine the assumptions of their own culture, reflect on the embedded cultural practices of teaching and learning and those of the digital platforms and applications and thoughtfully researching ways to reconcile the two so as to optimise the learning of their students (Chan & Rao, 2010; Looker, 2011; Ren & Montgomery, 2015; Sadykova, 2014).  Critical examination of one’s own culture and introducing new technologies in a more considered and less forceful way, appears to result in more success and acceptance. Pedagogy aligned with sociocultural context allows scaffolding of current to new practice and understanding (Chan, 2010; Chan & Rao, 2010; Law et al., 2010; Rao & Chan, 2010).

Chan (2010) demonstrated aspects of the Confucian approach to teaching and learning were highly compatible with the values of digital scholarship, and showed how modifications in the way technological tools for collaborative learning were introduced positively impacted their acceptance by teachers and students in a high school setting.

More recently, in examining Korean students’ experiences of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), Ahn, Yyon and Cha (2015) built on the CDLF of Parrish & Linder-VanBerschot (2010) showing how awareness, cultural sensitivity and relatively minor adjustments could enhance the online learning experience of such students without detracting from the quality  and substance of the courses.

The introduction of digital innovation in the learning environment does not automatically lead to universal acceptance, but can resoundingly be rejected in any culture when it is felt basic assumptions and expectations are being violated – as the study of an online peer-to-peer review workshop tool revealed (Wilson, Diao, & Huang, 2015). Even if peer-to-peer review and data analytics have meta-cognitive benefits, their implementation is often poor and occurs within a context where cooperation and collaboration is espoused but underlying assumptions and pressures of competition and the importance of good grades prevail (Durall & Gros, 2014; Wilson et al., 2015). Similarly, suboptimal outcomes are seen if the social-emotional needs and group formation process is neglected in online scholarship or learning and made subservient to certification and task performance (Carabajal, LaPointe, & Gunawardena, 2003).

Current trends, futurist predictions, theoretical perspectives

Disaggregation and re-aggregation appears to be a theme in many of the discussions on trends and the future of education - something technology allows in ways previously not possible.

Ware, writing in 2011, predicted that the publication of academic research would be disaggregated between the repository process of registration and dissemination of work and the certification process which includes peer review and branding – an idea that harks back to the learned societies of the 18th and 19th centuries. (Ware, 2011). Four years later this is the reality in open access repositories in China (Ren & Montgomery, 2015).   Retractions of research papers have also resulted in the calls for the publication of the complete research work flow including raw data – something that is now technologically possible and feasible as interrogation and data analytic tools develop (Larsen, 2008; Oransky & Marcus, 2010; Ware, 2011).

Technology enhances the agency of the self-directed learner (SDL) to re-aggregate OER to suit their learning needs. Mike Caulfield’s idea of choral explanations in OER textbooks:
“the text branches off into multiple available explanations of the same concept, explanations authored individually by a wide range of instructors, researchers, and students. You can keep reading until you find the explanation that makes sense, or you can start with simpler explanations and work your way to nuance.” (Caulfield, 2016, para. 63)
opens many possibilities for expanding textbooks to accommodate linguistic and cultural diversity – something international students already do when they purchase two (physical) textbooks, one that is not only in their home language but also in their home pedagogical culture (Bailey, 2016; Kim & Mizuishi, 2014)

Bates cautions that there is still an agency role to structure and accredit that knowledge acquisition (Bates, 2011), but in a globally mobile and fluid workforce, those aggregators will need to accommodate different cultures of learning.  Public/private educational entities such as Singapore’s Institute of Technical Education are taking a regional lead in exporting their vocational training through their educational services division (Chong, 2014; ITEES, 2015; Li, Yao, & Chen, 2014).

Similarly consideration could be given to using the models and algorithms in the field of adaptive learning (Charles Sturt University, n.d.) and personalisation in order to create cultural adaptations based on parameters set by students.

Two universities, although very different in design are using innovative online technology, Kiron University to give refugees the opportunity to further their education (Bates, 2015) and Minerva University to give fee paying students a global education that is location independent for both students and professors (Wood, 2014).  Such disruptive models of higher education raise all kinds of questions on the implications of digital learning including whether scholarship and research will continue if scholarship is not directly visible or rewarded (Harry Lewis, cited by Wood, 2014).
Implications for scholarly practice
In order to understand the role of technology, Kalantzis and Cope (2015) go back to the etymology of ‘media’ as agents bridging meaning across space and time to facilitate communication, understanding and learning. This has huge implications for scholarly practice.

Literature on global collaboration in the classroom (Higgitt et al., 2008; Thombs, Ivarsson, & Gillis, 2011), the research process (Siemens & Burr, 2013; Siemens, Cunningham, Duff, & Warwick, 2011) and online conferencing (LaPointe & Gunawardena, 2004) enumerates many benefits of such collaboration. These include but are not limited to the opening of and access to new knowledge; flattening of hierarchies, easier discovery and connection mechanisms; extending the reach and equity of scholars and reducing costs. Some of the problems however, include issues with technological difficulties and failure, differences in equipment standards and capabilities, scheduling issues due to time differences, misunderstandings due to language, the nature of computer-mediated communication including its text-basis, time-independence, asynchronous nature and inability to interpret culturally based non-verbal cues (Pearce et al., 2012; Selwyn, 2010; Veletsianos & Kimmons, 2012a, 2012b; Weller, 2011).

Of these, language remains a significant barrier to open access international research and learning. Even where all members of a research team are proficient in a language (usually English), research in other languages may not be accessible to non-speakers (Loan & Sheikh, 2016; Ren & Montgomery, 2015),  and language and cultural norms may be intertwined where nuance can result in misunderstanding (Siemens & Burr, 2013). As translation software continue to evolve will more students be able to study and do internationally recognised and disseminated research in their home language, (Cheesman et al., 2016; Palaiologou, 2007; Sadykova, 2014)? Or will the dominance of English prevail – albeit with a move to “global English” as envisioned by Schell (2007) and what will be lost as a result?

Conclusion

Digital scholarship within the context of international and globalised education could benefit from additional critical reflection into the assumptions concerning and attitudes towards multi-cultural and multi-lingual students and fellow researchers.  Given the plethora of technological tools, research, knowledge and practice in non-BANA educational institutions, of intrepid researchers in BANA institutions and of multi-national corporations there are ample examples of best practice and the potential to positively impact student learning and educational scholarship in the digital realm.

References

Ahn, M. L., Yoon, H. S., & Cha, H. J. (2015). Cultural sensitivity and design implications of MOOCs from Korean learners’ perspectives: Case studies on edX and Coursera. Educational Technology International, 16(2), 201–229. Retrieved from http://www.kset.or.kr/eti_ojs/index.php/instruction/article/viewFile/49/pdf_15

Bailey, N. (2016, August 27). OER textbooks and the potential for multicultural environment [Web Log]. Retrieved 27 August 2016, from http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/informativeflights/2016/08/27/oer-textbooks-and-the-potential-for-multicultural-environment/

Bates, T. (2011). Understanding Web 2.0 and its implications for e-learning. In M. J. W. Lee & C. McLoughlin (Eds.), Web 2.0-Based E-Learning: Applying Social Informatics for Tertiary Teaching (pp. 20–42). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. Retrieved from 10.4018/978-1-60566-294-7

Bates, T. (2015, October 30). Using MOOCs to help refugees [Web Log]. Retrieved 27 August 2016, from http://www.tonybates.ca/2015/10/30/using-moocs-to-help-refugees/

Boelens, H. (2010). The evolving role of the school library and information centre in education in digital Europe (PhD Thesis). Middlesex University. Retrieved from http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/7329/

Boelens, H., Cherek, J., Tilke, A., & Bailey, N. (2015). Communicating across cultures: Cultural identity issues and the role of the multicultural, multilingual school library within the school community. Presented at the ‘The school library rocks’ IASL 2015, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, N.J: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Carabajal, K., LaPointe, D., & Gunawardena, C. (2003). Group development in online learning communities. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 217–234). Mahwah, N.J: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Catterick, D. (2007). Do the philosophical foundations of online learning disadvantage non-western students? In A. Edmundson (Ed.), Globalized E-Learning Cultural Challenges: (pp. 116–129). Hershey, PA: Information Science Pub.

Caulfield, M. (2016, July 12). Choral explanations and OER: A summary of thinking to date [Web Log]. Retrieved 27 August 2016, from https://hapgood.us/2016/07/12/choral-explanations-and-oer-a-summary-of-thinking-to-date/

Chan, C. K. K. (2010). Classroom innovation for the Chinese learner: Transcending dichotomies and transforming pedagogy. In C. K. K. Chan & N. Rao (Eds.), Revisiting The Chinese Learner (pp. 169–210). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

Chan, C. K. K., & Rao, N. (Eds.). (2010). Revisiting the Chinese learner: changing contexts, changing education. Dordrecht: Springer.

Charles Sturt University. (n.d.). Flexible and adaptive learning. Retrieved 28 August 2016, from http://uimagine.edu.au/csulx/model/flexible-adaptive.html

Cheesman, T., Flanagan, K., Thiel, S., Rybicki, J., Laramee, R. S., Hope, J., & Roos, A. (2016). Multi-retranslation corpora: Visibility, variation, value, and virtue. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities. http://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqw027

Chong, T. (2014). Vocational education in Singapore: meritocracy and hidden narratives. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 35(5), 637–648. http://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2014.927165

Durall, E., & Gros, B. (2014). Learning analytics as a metacognitive tool (pp. 380–384). Presented at the CSEDU 2014 - 6th International Conference on Computer Supported Education.

Edmundson, A. (Ed.). (2007a). Globalized e-learning cultural challenges. Hershey, PA: Information Science Pub.

Edmundson, A. (2007b). The cultural adaptation process (CAP) model: Designing E-learning for another culture. In A. Edmundson (Ed.), Globalized E-Learning Cultural Challenges: (pp. 267–290). Hershey, PA: Information Science Pub.

Gazi, Y. (2014). Issues surrounding a heutagogical approach in global engineering education. In 360 of Engineering Education. Indianapolis: ASEE. Retrieved from https://peer.asee.org/issues-surrounding-a-heutagogical-approach-in-global-engineering-education.pdf

Hardy, C., & Tolhurst, D. (2014). Epistemological beliefs and cultural diversity matters in management education and learning: A critical review and future directions. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13(2), 265–289. http://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2012.0063

Healey, M. (2000). Developing the scholarship of teaching in higher education: A discipline-based approach. Higher Education Research & Development, 19(2), 169–189. http://doi.org/10.1080/072943600445637

Higgitt, D., Donert, K., Healey, M., Klein, P., Solem, M., & Vajoczki, S. (2008). Developing and enhancing international collaborative learning. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 32(1), 121–133. http://doi.org/10.1080/03098260701731629

Hofstede, G. H., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: software of the mind: intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival (3rd ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.
ITEES. (2015). About ITE Education Services. Retrieved 27 August 2016, from http://www.itees.com.sg/

Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2015). Learning and new media. In D. Scott & E. Hargreaves (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of learning (pp. 373–387). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd. Retrieved from http://neamathisi.com/_uploads/Kalantzis_and_Cope_Learning_and_New_Media_2015.pdf

Kim, M., & Mizuishi, K. (2014, December). Language and cultural differences and barriers in an international school setting - personal experiences and reflections. UWCSEA-East.

LaPointe, D. K., & Gunawardena, C. N. (2004). Developing, testing and refining of a model to understand the relationship between peer interaction and learning outcomes in computer‐mediated conferencing. Distance Education, 25(1), 83–106. http://doi.org/10.1080/0158791042000212477

Larsen, R. L. (2008). On the threshold of cyberscholarship. The Journal of Electronic Publishing, 11(1). http://doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0011.102

Law, N. W. Y., Yuen, A. H. K., Chan, C. K. K., Yuen, J. K. L., Pan, N. F. C., Lai, M., & Lee, V. S. L. (2010). New experiences, new epistemology, and the pressures of change: The Chinese learner in transition. In C. K. K. Chan & N. Rao (Eds.), Revisiting The Chinese Learner (pp. 89–129). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

Li, W., Yao, W., & Chen, N. (2014). Strategic development for advancing ODL institutions: A SWOT analysis from the Open University of China. In Advancing Open and Distance Learning: Research and Practices. Hong Kong: The Open University of Hong Kong. Retrieved from http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/37915895/AAOU_Proceedings28th.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPEA&Expires=1471741257&Signature=VzzGfsbMtx0%2ByQAEdqwbOxicq4E%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DBlessing_or_Curse_Open_Educational_Resou.pdf#page=771

Loan, F. A., & Sheikh, S. (2016). Analytical study of open access health and medical repositories. The Electronic Library, 34(3), 419–434. http://doi.org/10.1108/EL-01-2015-0012

Looker, P. (2011). Globalising the local: The scholarship of teaching and learning in a larger context. Journal of the NUS Teaching Academy, 1(1), 21–31.

Oransky, I., & Marcus, A. (2010, August 3). Why write a blog about retractions? [Web Log]. Retrieved 20 August 2016, from http://retractionwatch.com/2010/08/03/why-write-a-blog-about-retractions/

Palaiologou, N. (2007). Intercultural dimensions in the information society: Reflections on designing and developing culturally-oriented learning. In A. Edmundson (Ed.), Globalized E-Learning Cultural Challenges: (pp. 267–290). Hershey, PA: Information Science Pub.

Pappas, C. (2015, January). The top eLearning statistics and facts for 2015 you need to know [Web Log]. Retrieved 28 August 2016, from https://elearningindustry.com/elearning-statistics-and-facts-for-2015

Parrish, P., & Linder-VanBerschot, J. A. (2010). Cultural dimensions of learning: Addressing the challenges of multicultural instruction. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 11(2), 1–19.

Pearce, N., Weller, M., Scanlon, E., & Kinsley, S. (2012). Digital scholarship considered: How new technologies could transform academic work. In Education, 16(1). Retrieved from http://ineducation.ca/ineducation/article/view/44

Rao, N., & Chan, C. K. K. (2010). Moving Beyond paradoxes: Understanding Chinese learners and their teachers. In C. K. K. Chan & N. Rao (Eds.), Revisiting The Chinese Learner (pp. 3–32). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

Ren, X., & Montgomery, L. (2015). Open access and soft power: Chinese voices in international scholarship. Media, Culture & Society, 37(3), 394–408. http://doi.org/10.1177/0163443714567019

Sadykova, G. (2014). Mediating knowledge through peer-to-peer interaction in a multicultural online learning environment: A case of international students in the US. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(3).

Schell, M. (2007). How to globalize online course content. In A. Edmundson (Ed.), Globalized E-Learning Cultural Challenges: (pp. 155–167). Hershey, PA: Information Science Pub.

Selwyn, N. (2010). Looking beyond learning: notes towards the critical study of educational technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 65–73. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00338.x

Siemens, L., & Burr, E. (2013). A trip around the world: Accommodating geographical, linguistic and cultural diversity in academic research teams. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 28(2), 331–343. http://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqs018

Siemens, L., Cunningham, R., Duff, W., & Warwick, C. (2011). A tale of two cities: implications of the similarities and differences in collaborative approaches within the digital libraries and digital humanities communities. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 26(3), 335–348. http://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqr028

Suzuki, K., & Nemoto, J. (2012). Cultural and social frameworks of instructional design (pp. 22–24). Presented at the 10th International Conference for Media in Education, Beijing.

Thombs, M., Ivarsson, L., & Gillis, M. (2011). Building bridges across the Atlantic: The impact of technology facilitated classroom partnerships on cultural competency and language skills. In M. Bhattacharya, N. Mach, & M. Moallem (Eds.), Emerging Technologies in Learning: Impact on Cognition and Culture (pp. 35–44). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/39252

Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2012a). Assumptions and challenges of open scholarship. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(4). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1634473693?accountid=10344

Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2012b). Networked participatory scholarship: Emergent techno-cultural pressures toward open and digital scholarship in online networks. Computers & Education, 58(2), 766–774. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.001

Ware, M. (2011). Peer review: Recent experience and future directions. New Review of Information Networking, 16(1), 23–53. http://doi.org/10.1080/13614576.2011.566812

Weller, M. (2011). The nature of scholarship. In The Digital Scholar : How Technology Is Transforming Scholarly Practice (1st ed., pp. 41–51). London: Bloomsbury Academic. Retrieved from http://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/the-digital-scholar-how-technology-is-transforming-scholarly-practice/ch4-the-nature-of-scholarship/

Wilson, M. J., Diao, M. M., & Huang, L. (2015). ‘I’m not here to learn how to mark someone else’s stuff’: an investigation of an online peer-to-peer review workshop tool. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(1), 15–32. http://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.881980

Wood, G. (2014, September). The future of college? Retrieved 27 August 2016, from http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/09/the-future-of-college/375071/

Young, P. A. (2009). The Culture-Based Model framework. In P. A. Young, Instructional Design Frameworks and Intercultural Models: (pp. 37–53). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Retrieved from 10.4018/978-1-60566-426-2.ch003

Zhang, Z., & Kenny, R. F. (2010). Learning in an online distance education course: Experiences of three international students. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(1). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/775/1481

Appendix 1: Illustrations of Models

Figure 1: IAMC model Ginsberg & Wlodkowski, 2009 (cited in Suzuki & Nemoto, 2012 p. 25)

Figure 2: Cultural Dimensions Learning Framework (Parrish & Linder-VanBerschot, 2010,  summarized in Ahn, Yoon & Cha, 2015, p.207)

Figure 3: Culture Based Model, Young, 2009, p. 38

 Figure 4: Cultural Adaptation Process (Edmundson, 2007b, p. 269)

Is Digital Scholarship limited by cultural myopia?

Introduction

The parameters of scholarship in education are often based on Boyer’s (1990) dimensions of discovery, integration, application and teaching.  Healey further expands on the scholarship of teaching to include “research into teaching and learning, critical reflection of practice and communication and dissemination about the practice of one’s subject” (2000, p. 169).

Broadening the discussion to include the transformational aspects of “digital” technology, educational scholarship has been enriched through open data, open publishing, a blurring of the academic and ‘real’ world, open teaching and learning and a movement from the individual to the distributed scholar and global access (Pearce, Weller, Scanlon, & Kinsley, 2012). However, Pearce etal. (2012, p. 169) cautioned that technology is “a necessary but not sufficient condition” for true scholarship. The question is, given the potential and reality of technology, what else is needed to fulfil the obligations of a modern ‘digital’ scholar?

Argument statement 

This essay will argue that the dominance of a Western cognitive constructivist tradition in online and offline education, led by British, Australasian and North American (BANA) institutions limits knowledge, understanding and progress not only of its students, but of its scholars as well in exploiting the true potential of open educational tools and resources.

There are four main reasons for situating this essay in the context of teaching and learning, in particular, a critical reflection of digital scholarship practice in relation to multi-cultural multi-lingual (MCML) learning environments. Firstly, demographic shifts in education are occurring at an unprecedented rate as a result of globalisation, immigration, migration, and war (Boelens, 2010; Boelens, Cherek, Tilke, & Bailey, 2015).  Secondly a significant shift to online education where the global market is showing a 9.2% five year annual compound growth rate and is now worth $107 billion led by India and China (Pappas, 2015). Thirdly, work and employment increasingly is global, remote and disaggregated with globally mobile and fluid workforce and both employers and employees requiring “just in time” rather than “just in case” skills and knowledge. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, there is a moral, ethical and value-based argument. On the one hand, MCML students are prejudiced by the dominance of a Western cognitive constructivist tradition in education (Catterick, 2007; Sadykova, 2014; Zhang & Kenny, 2010) and on the other, ignoring the MCML dimension limits critical reflective practice, the potential of international digital scholarship and knowledge and understanding of a large part of the educational scholars’ field.

Interpretive Discussion

Background

Traditionally, creating culturally-responsive accommodations for MLMC students has faced considerable institutional opposition. The response of educational institutions, comprised a narrow range between non-accommodation and intervention in the form of student induction into ‘the system’ i.e. modify the student not the program (Catterick, 2007; Parrish & Linder-VanBerschot, 2010). Arguments against interventions cite costs, quality control, and expectations of the students themselves and their future employers that they are “Westernised” as a by-product of their education (Catterick, 2007).

Parrish and Linder-VanBerschot (2010) acknowledge these issues and suggest that institutions distinguish between entrenched cultural values and superficial practices, and create interventions with constructivist and instructivist alternatives or choices in learning activities and instructional format only where these are critical to learning success.  Researchers sound a word of caution against cultural generalizations that lead to stereotyping and discrimination (Gazi, 2014; Hardy & Tolhurst, 2014; Parrish & Linder-VanBerschot, 2010). This can be ameliorated through a combination of embedding cultural considerations in each stage of the instructional design process, ensuring an iterative practice of reflection and modification and encouraging student interaction and feedback (Parrish & Linder-VanBerschot, 2010; Young, 2009).

Models designed to foster awareness of cultural implications in education vary in their orientation. Initially research done in corporations (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010) and physical classrooms led to classroom or systems originated and oriented models such as the Inclusion, Attitude, Meaning, Competence (IAMC) model of Ginsberg & Wlodkowski (2009, cited in Suzuki & Nemoto, 2012) and the Cultural Dimensions Learning Framework (CDLF) (Parrish & Linder-VanBerschot, 2010) which were adapted for online learning.

In contrast, the Culture Based Model (CBM) framework of Young (2009) and the Cultural Adaptation Process (CAP) model (Edmundson, 2007b) are product oriented with the aim of guiding designers to incorporate culture in the design of digital and online educational products. (See Appendix 1 for illustrations of these models).

Reflection on teaching and learning in a multi-cultural environment

Educational institutions are not the only suppliers of teaching and learning. Commercial entities, particularly multinational companies, go to an enormous amount of effort in creating culturally compatible user interfaces - see Edmundson’s (2007a) book “Globalized e-learning cultural challenges”. One could argue that this effort directly benefits their bottom line, however all institutions would benefit from this approach.

Fortunately there are some researchers open-minded enough to examine the assumptions of their own culture, reflect on the embedded cultural practices of teaching and learning and those of the digital platforms and applications and thoughtfully researching ways to reconcile the two so as to optimise the learning of their students (Chan & Rao, 2010; Looker, 2011; Ren & Montgomery, 2015; Sadykova, 2014).  Critical examination of one’s own culture and introducing new technologies in a more considered and less forceful way, appears to result in more success and acceptance. Pedagogy aligned with sociocultural context allows scaffolding of current to new practice and understanding (Chan, 2010; Chan & Rao, 2010; Law et al., 2010; Rao & Chan, 2010).

Chan (2010) demonstrated aspects of the Confucian approach to teaching and learning were highly compatible with the values of digital scholarship, and showed how modifications in the way technological tools for collaborative learning were introduced positively impacted their acceptance by teachers and students in a high school setting.

More recently, in examining Korean students’ experiences of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), Ahn, Yyon and Cha (2015) built on the CDLF of Parrish & Linder-VanBerschot (2010) showing how awareness, cultural sensitivity and relatively minor adjustments could enhance the online learning experience of such students without detracting from the quality  and substance of the courses.

The introduction of digital innovation in the learning environment does not automatically lead to universal acceptance, but can resoundingly be rejected in any culture when it is felt basic assumptions and expectations are being violated – as the study of an online peer-to-peer review workshop tool revealed (Wilson, Diao, & Huang, 2015). Even if peer-to-peer review and data analytics have meta-cognitive benefits, their implementation is often poor and occurs within a context where cooperation and collaboration is espoused but underlying assumptions and pressures of competition and the importance of good grades prevail (Durall & Gros, 2014; Wilson et al., 2015). Similarly, suboptimal outcomes are seen if the social-emotional needs and group formation process is neglected in online scholarship or learning and made subservient to certification and task performance (Carabajal, LaPointe, & Gunawardena, 2003).

Current trends, futurist predictions, theoretical perspectives

Disaggregation and re-aggregation appears to be a theme in many of the discussions on trends and the future of education - something technology allows in ways previously not possible.

Ware, writing in 2011, predicted that the publication of academic research would be disaggregated between the repository process of registration and dissemination of work and the certification process which includes peer review and branding – an idea that harks back to the learned societies of the 18th and 19th centuries. (Ware, 2011). Four years later this is the reality in open access repositories in China (Ren & Montgomery, 2015).   Retractions of research papers have also resulted in the calls for the publication of the complete research work flow including raw data – something that is now technologically possible and feasible as interrogation and data analytic tools develop (Larsen, 2008; Oransky & Marcus, 2010; Ware, 2011).

Technology enhances the agency of the self-directed learner (SDL) to re-aggregate OER to suit their learning needs. Mike Caulfield’s idea of choral explanations in OER textbooks:
“the text branches off into multiple available explanations of the same concept, explanations authored individually by a wide range of instructors, researchers, and students. You can keep reading until you find the explanation that makes sense, or you can start with simpler explanations and work your way to nuance.” (Caulfield, 2016, para. 63)
opens many possibilities for expanding textbooks to accommodate linguistic and cultural diversity – something international students already do when they purchase two (physical) textbooks, one that is not only in their home language but also in their home pedagogical culture (Bailey, 2016; Kim & Mizuishi, 2014)

Bates cautions that there is still an agency role to structure and accredit that knowledge acquisition (Bates, 2011), but in a globally mobile and fluid workforce, those aggregators will need to accommodate different cultures of learning.  Public/private educational entities such as Singapore’s Institute of Technical Education are taking a regional lead in exporting their vocational training through their educational services division (Chong, 2014; ITEES, 2015; Li, Yao, & Chen, 2014).

Similarly consideration could be given to using the models and algorithms in the field of adaptive learning (Charles Sturt University, n.d.) and personalisation in order to create cultural adaptations based on parameters set by students.

Two universities, although very different in design are using innovative online technology, Kiron University to give refugees the opportunity to further their education (Bates, 2015) and Minerva University to give fee paying students a global education that is location independent for both students and professors (Wood, 2014).  Such disruptive models of higher education raise all kinds of questions on the implications of digital learning including whether scholarship and research will continue if scholarship is not directly visible or rewarded (Harry Lewis, cited by Wood, 2014).
Implications for scholarly practice
In order to understand the role of technology, Kalantzis and Cope (2015) go back to the etymology of ‘media’ as agents bridging meaning across space and time to facilitate communication, understanding and learning. This has huge implications for scholarly practice.

Literature on global collaboration in the classroom (Higgitt et al., 2008; Thombs, Ivarsson, & Gillis, 2011), the research process (Siemens & Burr, 2013; Siemens, Cunningham, Duff, & Warwick, 2011) and online conferencing (LaPointe & Gunawardena, 2004) enumerates many benefits of such collaboration. These include but are not limited to the opening of and access to new knowledge; flattening of hierarchies, easier discovery and connection mechanisms; extending the reach and equity of scholars and reducing costs. Some of the problems however, include issues with technological difficulties and failure, differences in equipment standards and capabilities, scheduling issues due to time differences, misunderstandings due to language, the nature of computer-mediated communication including its text-basis, time-independence, asynchronous nature and inability to interpret culturally based non-verbal cues (Pearce et al., 2012; Selwyn, 2010; Veletsianos & Kimmons, 2012a, 2012b; Weller, 2011).

Of these, language remains a significant barrier to open access international research and learning. Even where all members of a research team are proficient in a language (usually English), research in other languages may not be accessible to non-speakers (Loan & Sheikh, 2016; Ren & Montgomery, 2015),  and language and cultural norms may be intertwined where nuance can result in misunderstanding (Siemens & Burr, 2013). As translation software continue to evolve will more students be able to study and do internationally recognised and disseminated research in their home language, (Cheesman et al., 2016; Palaiologou, 2007; Sadykova, 2014)? Or will the dominance of English prevail – albeit with a move to “global English” as envisioned by Schell (2007) and what will be lost as a result?

Conclusion

Digital scholarship within the context of international and globalised education could benefit from additional critical reflection into the assumptions concerning and attitudes towards multi-cultural and multi-lingual students and fellow researchers.  Given the plethora of technological tools, research, knowledge and practice in non-BANA educational institutions, of intrepid researchers in BANA institutions and of multi-national corporations there are ample examples of best practice and the potential to positively impact student learning and educational scholarship in the digital realm.

References

Ahn, M. L., Yoon, H. S., & Cha, H. J. (2015). Cultural sensitivity and design implications of MOOCs from Korean learners’ perspectives: Case studies on edX and Coursera. Educational Technology International, 16(2), 201–229. Retrieved from http://www.kset.or.kr/eti_ojs/index.php/instruction/article/viewFile/49/pdf_15

Bailey, N. (2016, August 27). OER textbooks and the potential for multicultural environment [Web Log]. Retrieved 27 August 2016, from http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/informativeflights/2016/08/27/oer-textbooks-and-the-potential-for-multicultural-environment/

Bates, T. (2011). Understanding Web 2.0 and its implications for e-learning. In M. J. W. Lee & C. McLoughlin (Eds.), Web 2.0-Based E-Learning: Applying Social Informatics for Tertiary Teaching (pp. 20–42). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. Retrieved from 10.4018/978-1-60566-294-7

Bates, T. (2015, October 30). Using MOOCs to help refugees [Web Log]. Retrieved 27 August 2016, from http://www.tonybates.ca/2015/10/30/using-moocs-to-help-refugees/

Boelens, H. (2010). The evolving role of the school library and information centre in education in digital Europe (PhD Thesis). Middlesex University. Retrieved from http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/7329/

Boelens, H., Cherek, J., Tilke, A., & Bailey, N. (2015). Communicating across cultures: Cultural identity issues and the role of the multicultural, multilingual school library within the school community. Presented at the ‘The school library rocks’ IASL 2015, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, N.J: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Carabajal, K., LaPointe, D., & Gunawardena, C. (2003). Group development in online learning communities. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 217–234). Mahwah, N.J: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Catterick, D. (2007). Do the philosophical foundations of online learning disadvantage non-western students? In A. Edmundson (Ed.), Globalized E-Learning Cultural Challenges: (pp. 116–129). Hershey, PA: Information Science Pub.

Caulfield, M. (2016, July 12). Choral explanations and OER: A summary of thinking to date [Web Log]. Retrieved 27 August 2016, from https://hapgood.us/2016/07/12/choral-explanations-and-oer-a-summary-of-thinking-to-date/

Chan, C. K. K. (2010). Classroom innovation for the Chinese learner: Transcending dichotomies and transforming pedagogy. In C. K. K. Chan & N. Rao (Eds.), Revisiting The Chinese Learner (pp. 169–210). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

Chan, C. K. K., & Rao, N. (Eds.). (2010). Revisiting the Chinese learner: changing contexts, changing education. Dordrecht: Springer.

Charles Sturt University. (n.d.). Flexible and adaptive learning. Retrieved 28 August 2016, from http://uimagine.edu.au/csulx/model/flexible-adaptive.html

Cheesman, T., Flanagan, K., Thiel, S., Rybicki, J., Laramee, R. S., Hope, J., & Roos, A. (2016). Multi-retranslation corpora: Visibility, variation, value, and virtue. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities. http://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqw027

Chong, T. (2014). Vocational education in Singapore: meritocracy and hidden narratives. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 35(5), 637–648. http://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2014.927165

Durall, E., & Gros, B. (2014). Learning analytics as a metacognitive tool (pp. 380–384). Presented at the CSEDU 2014 - 6th International Conference on Computer Supported Education.

Edmundson, A. (Ed.). (2007a). Globalized e-learning cultural challenges. Hershey, PA: Information Science Pub.

Edmundson, A. (2007b). The cultural adaptation process (CAP) model: Designing E-learning for another culture. In A. Edmundson (Ed.), Globalized E-Learning Cultural Challenges: (pp. 267–290). Hershey, PA: Information Science Pub.

Gazi, Y. (2014). Issues surrounding a heutagogical approach in global engineering education. In 360 of Engineering Education. Indianapolis: ASEE. Retrieved from https://peer.asee.org/issues-surrounding-a-heutagogical-approach-in-global-engineering-education.pdf

Hardy, C., & Tolhurst, D. (2014). Epistemological beliefs and cultural diversity matters in management education and learning: A critical review and future directions. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13(2), 265–289. http://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2012.0063

Healey, M. (2000). Developing the scholarship of teaching in higher education: A discipline-based approach. Higher Education Research & Development, 19(2), 169–189. http://doi.org/10.1080/072943600445637

Higgitt, D., Donert, K., Healey, M., Klein, P., Solem, M., & Vajoczki, S. (2008). Developing and enhancing international collaborative learning. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 32(1), 121–133. http://doi.org/10.1080/03098260701731629

Hofstede, G. H., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: software of the mind: intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival (3rd ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.
ITEES. (2015). About ITE Education Services. Retrieved 27 August 2016, from http://www.itees.com.sg/

Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2015). Learning and new media. In D. Scott & E. Hargreaves (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of learning (pp. 373–387). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd. Retrieved from http://neamathisi.com/_uploads/Kalantzis_and_Cope_Learning_and_New_Media_2015.pdf

Kim, M., & Mizuishi, K. (2014, December). Language and cultural differences and barriers in an international school setting - personal experiences and reflections. UWCSEA-East.

LaPointe, D. K., & Gunawardena, C. N. (2004). Developing, testing and refining of a model to understand the relationship between peer interaction and learning outcomes in computer‐mediated conferencing. Distance Education, 25(1), 83–106. http://doi.org/10.1080/0158791042000212477

Larsen, R. L. (2008). On the threshold of cyberscholarship. The Journal of Electronic Publishing, 11(1). http://doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0011.102

Law, N. W. Y., Yuen, A. H. K., Chan, C. K. K., Yuen, J. K. L., Pan, N. F. C., Lai, M., & Lee, V. S. L. (2010). New experiences, new epistemology, and the pressures of change: The Chinese learner in transition. In C. K. K. Chan & N. Rao (Eds.), Revisiting The Chinese Learner (pp. 89–129). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

Li, W., Yao, W., & Chen, N. (2014). Strategic development for advancing ODL institutions: A SWOT analysis from the Open University of China. In Advancing Open and Distance Learning: Research and Practices. Hong Kong: The Open University of Hong Kong. Retrieved from http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/37915895/AAOU_Proceedings28th.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPEA&Expires=1471741257&Signature=VzzGfsbMtx0%2ByQAEdqwbOxicq4E%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DBlessing_or_Curse_Open_Educational_Resou.pdf#page=771

Loan, F. A., & Sheikh, S. (2016). Analytical study of open access health and medical repositories. The Electronic Library, 34(3), 419–434. http://doi.org/10.1108/EL-01-2015-0012

Looker, P. (2011). Globalising the local: The scholarship of teaching and learning in a larger context. Journal of the NUS Teaching Academy, 1(1), 21–31.

Oransky, I., & Marcus, A. (2010, August 3). Why write a blog about retractions? [Web Log]. Retrieved 20 August 2016, from http://retractionwatch.com/2010/08/03/why-write-a-blog-about-retractions/

Palaiologou, N. (2007). Intercultural dimensions in the information society: Reflections on designing and developing culturally-oriented learning. In A. Edmundson (Ed.), Globalized E-Learning Cultural Challenges: (pp. 267–290). Hershey, PA: Information Science Pub.

Pappas, C. (2015, January). The top eLearning statistics and facts for 2015 you need to know [Web Log]. Retrieved 28 August 2016, from https://elearningindustry.com/elearning-statistics-and-facts-for-2015

Parrish, P., & Linder-VanBerschot, J. A. (2010). Cultural dimensions of learning: Addressing the challenges of multicultural instruction. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 11(2), 1–19.

Pearce, N., Weller, M., Scanlon, E., & Kinsley, S. (2012). Digital scholarship considered: How new technologies could transform academic work. In Education, 16(1). Retrieved from http://ineducation.ca/ineducation/article/view/44

Rao, N., & Chan, C. K. K. (2010). Moving Beyond paradoxes: Understanding Chinese learners and their teachers. In C. K. K. Chan & N. Rao (Eds.), Revisiting The Chinese Learner (pp. 3–32). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

Ren, X., & Montgomery, L. (2015). Open access and soft power: Chinese voices in international scholarship. Media, Culture & Society, 37(3), 394–408. http://doi.org/10.1177/0163443714567019

Sadykova, G. (2014). Mediating knowledge through peer-to-peer interaction in a multicultural online learning environment: A case of international students in the US. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(3).

Schell, M. (2007). How to globalize online course content. In A. Edmundson (Ed.), Globalized E-Learning Cultural Challenges: (pp. 155–167). Hershey, PA: Information Science Pub.

Selwyn, N. (2010). Looking beyond learning: notes towards the critical study of educational technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 65–73. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00338.x

Siemens, L., & Burr, E. (2013). A trip around the world: Accommodating geographical, linguistic and cultural diversity in academic research teams. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 28(2), 331–343. http://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqs018

Siemens, L., Cunningham, R., Duff, W., & Warwick, C. (2011). A tale of two cities: implications of the similarities and differences in collaborative approaches within the digital libraries and digital humanities communities. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 26(3), 335–348. http://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqr028

Suzuki, K., & Nemoto, J. (2012). Cultural and social frameworks of instructional design (pp. 22–24). Presented at the 10th International Conference for Media in Education, Beijing.

Thombs, M., Ivarsson, L., & Gillis, M. (2011). Building bridges across the Atlantic: The impact of technology facilitated classroom partnerships on cultural competency and language skills. In M. Bhattacharya, N. Mach, & M. Moallem (Eds.), Emerging Technologies in Learning: Impact on Cognition and Culture (pp. 35–44). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/39252

Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2012a). Assumptions and challenges of open scholarship. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(4). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1634473693?accountid=10344

Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2012b). Networked participatory scholarship: Emergent techno-cultural pressures toward open and digital scholarship in online networks. Computers & Education, 58(2), 766–774. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.001

Ware, M. (2011). Peer review: Recent experience and future directions. New Review of Information Networking, 16(1), 23–53. http://doi.org/10.1080/13614576.2011.566812

Weller, M. (2011). The nature of scholarship. In The Digital Scholar : How Technology Is Transforming Scholarly Practice (1st ed., pp. 41–51). London: Bloomsbury Academic. Retrieved from http://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/the-digital-scholar-how-technology-is-transforming-scholarly-practice/ch4-the-nature-of-scholarship/

Wilson, M. J., Diao, M. M., & Huang, L. (2015). ‘I’m not here to learn how to mark someone else’s stuff’: an investigation of an online peer-to-peer review workshop tool. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(1), 15–32. http://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.881980

Wood, G. (2014, September). The future of college? Retrieved 27 August 2016, from http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/09/the-future-of-college/375071/

Young, P. A. (2009). The Culture-Based Model framework. In P. A. Young, Instructional Design Frameworks and Intercultural Models: (pp. 37–53). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Retrieved from 10.4018/978-1-60566-426-2.ch003

Zhang, Z., & Kenny, R. F. (2010). Learning in an online distance education course: Experiences of three international students. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(1). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/775/1481

Appendix 1: Illustrations of Models

Figure 1: IAMC model Ginsberg & Wlodkowski, 2009 (cited in Suzuki & Nemoto, 2012 p. 25)

Figure 2: Cultural Dimensions Learning Framework (Parrish & Linder-VanBerschot, 2010,  summarized in Ahn, Yoon & Cha, 2015, p.207)

Figure 3: Culture Based Model, Young, 2009, p. 38

 Figure 4: Cultural Adaptation Process (Edmundson, 2007b, p. 269)

Library 2.0 or the operation of public services?

Introduction:

An understanding of the Digital Environment and how it is related to libraries is undertaken in the critiquing of three articles each offering different perspectives.  In the first, Anderson (2007a) attempts to find an academic framework within which to analyze “Web 2.0” and “Library 2.0”.  Missingham (2009) describes the Australian experience in encouraging participation in the digital economy and digital citizenship through a national initiative – the Electronic Resources Australia (ERA) and finally the State Government of Victoria (2012) takes the question to a local level in asking what the role of its libraries will be in this digital future. 

Summaries:

Anderson, P. (2007a). 'All That Glisters Is Not Gold’ — Web 2.0 And The Librarian. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 39(4), 195–198.

In his article Anderson (2007a) examines the concept of Web 2.0 and how this relates to the librarian.  He begins with a history and some definitions of Web 2.0.  He then proposes a three-part framework within which to scaffold discussions around how Web 2.0 impacts the library.  These can roughly be summarized as services / applications, the “six big ideas” and technologies / standards. 

Services / applications include software and social networking.  The “Six Big Ideas” are the principles underpinning the Internet in its current form as outlined by O’Reilly (2005): “individual production and user generated content; harnessing the power of the crowd; data on an epic scale; the architecture of participation; network effects and openness”. (Anderson 2007a, p.196). The final aspect is the technology and accepted standards that underlie the services and applications.  In his article “What is Web 2.0“, Anderson, (2007b) further elaborates on this framework in general with specific focus on implications for libraries from page 36.

Missingham, R. (2009). Encouraging the digital economy and digital citizenship. Special issue on the ALIA Public Libraries Summit 2009, 58(4), 386.

In her article, Missingham (2009) describes the history and status of Australian use of technology with comparative statistics to the UK and Canada.  She gives a background to the creation of ERA and justifies the need of Australians for access to the types of information purchased by the ERA consortium in order to participate in the “digital economy”.  This view has a foundation in the four benefits to narrowing the digital divide in a society: economic equality, social mobility, democracy and economic growth (Internet World Stats,2012).

The final part of her article examines the role of libraries in supporting access to digital resources, not only as subscribers to the ERA, but also in helping the community develop (digital) literacy skills.  She concludes by touching on issues relating to the digital divide in Australia, including connectivity, content issues and the capability of users.  The primary problems highlighted by her concern the gap between rural and metropolitan areas, affordability of services and literacy levels.

Ministerial Advisory Council on Public Libraries. (2012). Tomorrow’s Library: DiscussionPaper. State Government of Victoria.

This discussion paper initiates the first part of a review of the role and function of public libraries in the State of Victoria, Australia in order to determine future strategic directions.  In the document four dimensions of libraries are covered: Collections, resources and programs; Library buildings; Technology; and Service delivery. In each, the topic is introduced with challenges they pose now and in the future and feedback in the form of answers to questions is requested of stakeholders.

Critique:

Anderson’s framework is very useful when reading articles concerning Web 2.0 and Library 2.0.  One can quickly put an article or research in context.  For example Xu, Ouyang and Chu (2009) in "The Academic Library Meets Web 2.0" focuses mainly on the first part of the framework in surveying the websites of 81 academic libraries in the State of New York and neglects any discussion of “big ideas” or technologies and standards.  On the other hand in “ComingTogether around Library 2.0” Miller (2006) concentrates more on the impact of the “big ideas” quoting Ian Davis who said “Web 2.0 an attitude, not a technology" and makes a plea for integrating “library stuff” into normal workflows of library users.

However, no matter how useful a framework may be, unless other researchers adopt it as some kind of standard, its relevance may be questioned.  In reviewing the literature on Web 2.0 and Library 2.0 it appears that after a flurry of research and articles in the years 2005-2007 academic interest in that aspect of the topic seems to have waned.  Perhaps research was overtaken by the practicalities of implementing the new technologies, the specifics of integrating systems and licensing matters and dealing with their day-to-day issues.  It can be argued that the framework would have relevance at some point in doing a meta-analysis and literature review of the Web / Library 2.0 literature in the early 21^st century.

Anderson opens the point of entry for a discussion of the other two papers when he says: “much of the discussion can often be seen in the context of the wider public debate concerning the operation of public services in a modern, technology-rich environment in which user expectations have rapidly changed (Crawford, 2006), rather than Web 2.0 per se.”  (Anderson, 2007b, p. 36)

We now move to the provision of public services in the form of the establishment of the ERA, (Missingham, 2009) and the specific instance of Victoria Public Libraries. Underlying Missingham’s paper are references to the “digital divide”. The term “digital divide” is very broad and she only touches on aspects of it in a rather unstructured manner, with consideration of “access” in between a “content” discussion, (p. 389) and “literacy” in between the examination of the importance of “access” (p. 395) and little reference to local research such as that of Black and Atkinson (2007) who cover the arguments and literature surrounding the digital divide in Australia very well.  For a better framework to this concept, Warschauer (2003) uses the rubrics of: Physical Resources (computers and connectivity); Digital Resources (content and language); Human Resources (literacy and education) and Social Resources (communities and institutions).  Framing her discussion in this way would have led to a more coherent argument.  Further, her evidence of the divide is anecdotal in the form of selective quotations from submissions to a Senate enquiry (pages 389-390).  Her argument could have been better served by reference to data such as that generated by Ewing and Thomas (2010), for example, “home access by income” and “use by location”, illustrated in the graphs below.

(Ewing and Thomas, 2010, The Internet in Australia. ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation, p.10)

(Ewing and Thomas, 2010, The Internet in Australia. ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation, p.3)

A shortcoming in the traditional writings on digital divide is the neglect of the concept of “digital natives” versus “digital immigrants”.  Reading the essays collected in “The digital Divide” (Bauerlein, 2011), one has to conclude that all the above papers’ authors are “digital immigrants”  - a term coined by Marc Prensky in 2001.   This is further exposed when one contrasts what is being said and done on the Internet versus in the libraries and written about in academic literature.  For example Harradine (2012) reports on the introduction of eBooks into the Western Australia Public library system.  Her article echoes the earlier experiences in the USA with initial slow take-up by patrons and friction between the publishing companies and libraries (Zickuhr,Rainie, Purcell, Madden, & Brenner, 2012).  Australian reporting on eResources could benefit by looking at worldwide trends in more technical savvy countries.  In contrast, when browsing forums concerning eBooks in Australia, it would appear that patrons step boldly where libraries fear to tread, with early adopters paying to join libraries in the USA and Singapore in order to borrow eBooks that are not available in their local libraries.  These are potentially lost patrons who would not even appear on the radar of the librarians who are complaining about the lack of interest in digital services.

Neither Missingham nor the discussion paper consider the potential “leapfrogging” of terminals and desktop computer ubiquity and use as a result of the uptake in mobile devices such as tablets and smart phones.   Carlucci Thomas (2012) writes about the need for libraries to follow patrons in providing new mobile services.  She posits that adoption of mobile devices is driving the interest in eBooks in the USA where, since May 2011, eBooks outsold print books for the first time on Amazon.  Another digital native librarian - self-described “Edupunk”  - Travis (2012) demonstrates in her blog that cost need not be an obstacle in providing services and Greenhill (2012) echoes this sentiment for the Australian market, highlighting extra-legal “free and easy” aspects to obtaining digital information which librarians need to be aware of.

The Year Book Australia, (2012) in launching its National Year of Reading makes some very astute statements about the changing roles of libraries from being simple repositories of reading materials to being the point of contact for the acquisition of information for all community members “with a focus on the most disadvantaged”. Emphasis is given in this initiative to a wide range of materials both in print and online gleamed from a range of collaborative partnerships.

If one reads the State Government of Victoria discussion paper in conjunction with the Australian Public Library Statistics(2010-2011), it seems to be a rather shameful exercise in the selective use of statistics and quotations.  For example in the discussion on technology, they state  “78.6% of libraries provide a computer lab / Internet area.”  The more relevant statistic would be that Victoria only has 3.62 public access Internet terminals per 10,000 persons, which is one of the lowest in Australia and lags the National average of 4.43, and other states such as South Australia (8.11) (Australian Public Library Statistics, 2012, p.20).

(Public & Indigenous Library Services State Library of Queensland. (2012). Australian Public Libraries Statistical Report 2010-2011. p.20) 

This is not surprising when you dig further and see that there was no spending on electronic resources in libraries at all in the years 2007 to 2010 (ibid. p.19) for the State of Victoria, with a huge catch up spend in 2010-11.

(Public & Indigenous Library Services State Library of Queensland. (2012). Australian Public Libraries Statistical Report 2010-2011. p.18) 

The report is very inwardly focused and does not even make reference to what is happening in the rest of Australia, not to speak of internationally, and could quite possibly be an exercise in reinventing the wheel. Their internal focus is astounding, referring to a “borderless library” and in the same breath speaking of “across the state (of Victoria)” rather than referring to the rest of the country or the world.

A visit to the website of Victoria State Library shows it doesn’t even mention eResources on their home page and one has to dig four levels down to find them.  In contrast the National Library has a well developed website for eResources and the State Library of Western Australia appears to have a more developed policy and methodology for the loaning of eBooks.  Unlike their counterparts nationally and in other states there is no friendly “how to” video or tutorial on the use of eResources. 

In the discussion on Library buildings, it is important to learn from the experience of libraries further along the eResources curve, who find that some patrons visit the library less and access more remotely and that the location, nature and use of libraries has changed substantially (Zickuhr etal, 2012).  In the report, service delivery, including workforce is dealt with separately to technology, although one of the challenges lies in an ageing public library workforce, whom, one may assume are not digital natives.

Conclusion:

All three authors seem to suffer somewhat from the mindset of  “build it, and they will come”. Anderson has a useful framework that doesn’t appear to have been widely adopted.  Missingham discusses the ERA that in conjunction with the National broadband Network (NBN), will provide the physical and electronic resources for the digital economy, but doesn’t address how the human and social resources aspects will be adapted to optimize their use. The State Government of Victoria is embarking on an old fashioned and potentially extensive, expensive and long term exercise, with the risk that it is redundant before it’s finished.  This is in complete contrast to one of the key “big ideas” of Web 2.0, which is living life in a perpetual state of Beta.  Finally one has to resort to the most important question, which is whether any of these articles contribute to enhancing the operation of public services.

Reference List and Bibliography:

Anderson, P. (2007a). 'All ThatGlisters Is Not Gold’ — Web 2.0 And The Librarian. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 39(4), 195–198.

Anderson, P. (2007b). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education. JISC Technology and Standards Watch, February 2007.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2012). 1301.0 - Year Book Australia, 2012. The National Year of Reading: Libraries Helping to make Australia a Nation of Readers. 

Berners-Lee on the read/write web. (2005). BBC. 

Black, R., & Atkinson, J. (2007). Addressing the Digital Divide in Rural Australia. Presented at the Australian World Wide Web (AusWeb) Conference, Lismore, Australia: Southern Cross University Printery.

Burke, J. J. (2009). Neal-Schuman Library Technology Companion (Third Edition.). Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc.

Carlucci Thomas, L. (2010). Gone mobile? (Mobile Libraries Survey 2010). Library Journal.
Carlucci Thomas, L. (2012). The State of Mobile in Libraries 2012 - The Digital Shift. 

Digital Divide - ICT Information Communications Technology - 50x15 Initiative. (2012). Internet World Stats.

Digital Divides profile: Australia.(2012).

Dudley, E. (2009). Editorial: Lines of Communication. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 41(3), 131–134.

EBook Library (EBL): State Library of Western Australia. (2012). 

Greenhill, K. (2012). No library required: the free and easy backwaters of online content sharing. In VALA2012 CONCURRENT SESSION 11: Digitisation. Presented at the VALA2012, Melbourne, Australia.

Harradine, N. (2012). Libraries begin lending e-books to members - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation).

Leonard, C. (2007). Competing in a Google world. Connections. 

Miller, P. (2005). Web 2.0: Building the New Library. Ariadne: Web Magazine for Information Professionals, (45).

Miller, P. (2006). Coming Together around Library 2.0. D-Lib Magazine, 12(4).

Ministerial Advisory Council on Public Libraries. (2012). Tomorrow’s Library: Discussion Paper. State Government of Victoria.

Missingham, R. (2009). Encouragingthe digital economy and digital citizenship. Special issue on the ALIA Public Libraries Summit 2009, 58(4), 386.

Needleman, M. (2007). Web 2.0/Lib2.0—What Is It? (If It’s Anything at All). ScienceDirect.com - Serials Review, 33(3), 202–203.

Norris, P. (2012). Digital Divide: Civic Engagement,Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide. Cambridge University Press.

O’Reilly, T. (2005). What Is Web2.0?  Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software.  

Palmer, C. (2012). NBN pricing critical as digital divide deepens. The Conversation. 

Patty, A. (2010). City-rural divide hits computer literacy. The Sydney Morning Herald. 

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon (MCB University Press), 9(5).  

Public & Indigenous Library Services State Library of Queensland. (2012). Australian Public Libraries Statistical Report 2010-2011. 

Public Libraries and ebooks -Readers - Gadgets. (n.d.).  

Richtel, M. (2012). New “Digital Divide” Seen in Wasting Time Online - NYTimes.com. 

Ewing, S. & Thomas, J. (2010). The Internet in Australia. ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation. 

Travis, T. (2011). Edupunk goes mobile: Mobile library sites with zero budget « Tiffinianne’s Blog. 

Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion : rethinking the digital divide. The MIT Press.

Xu, C., Ouyang, F., & Chu, H. (2009). The Academic Library Meets Web 2.0: Applications and Implications. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 35(4), 324–331. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2009.04.003

Zickuhr, K., Rainie, L., Purcell, K., Madden, M., & Brenner, J. (2012). Libraries, patrons, and e-books. Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project.