Media and digital literacies in Canadian teacher educators’ open educational practices: A post-intentional phenomenology

Dimension One

Communication

The digital isn’t magic. It isn’t mysterious. It’s regular human communication astride a new medium. Let me say that again: It’s regular human communication astride a new medium. There’s no need to make it more than it is. (Sean Michael Morris, 2017, paragraph 25).

From a media and digital literacy perspective, communication is both purpose and product. As well as appearing in the findings of this research, the concept of communication is evident in each of the eight MDL frameworks selected for examination in this discussion (see Table 5). What becomes clear, through the stories of the participants and the artifacts they created, is that the ubiquity of digital applications may not appear to be magical to the participants, their use of digital communications have rendered the magical into the realm of being ordinary.

          The quote by Morris (2017) echoes back to McLuhan’s (1964) phrase that the ‘medium is the message’. This ubiquitous nature of technologies to create communications reflects the lived experiences and stories from the participants, exemplified in the words of one participant who suggests that media frames the message and that the digital is the mechanism through which messages are created and shared. The medium – the digital format – shapes the messages that are communicated and exerts influence over how the message is constructed and shared. This reflects the importance of communication as an essential element of human interactions and relationships. The use of digital technologies may be a newer medium and mechanism for communicational endeavours, yet the participants in this research are able to draw on skills, fluencies, competencies, and literacies already in place within their teaching practices to build and maintain relationships with others in their world through the digital communicational tools they choose to use, within the limitations of the digital devices available to them. In their lived experiences the participants select and apply digital technologies to communicate and build relationships, primarily with their students as audience, but also within multiple contexts, through the technologies they use. The technology becomes ubiquitous to their communicational practice as a TEd. This is particularly important in light of the dramatic shifts in how teaching and learning is conducted in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. For the participants in this research, the digital is not magic, it is the way they do their work of teaching and learning. The media and digital tools and devices participants use to communicate with specific audiences – their students, colleagues, networks, or openly with the world – did not necessary shift as a result of the pandemic, but gained prominence in their lived experiences as a result of shifts to online teaching and learning precipitated by the pandemic.

From the frameworks

Communication is identified in frameworks I examine for this discussion (see Table 4).          Communication and education, and thus teacher education, are explicitly tied together. Teacher educators understand that their abilities to communicate clearly and effectively impacts how lessons are learned or how students engage with learning opportunities. I connect this observation to the research literature relating to media literacy and educommunication. I pay attention to the notion that “an educational act is viewed as a communicational act, and a communicational act is an educational act” (Barbas, 2020, p. 74) and that education is primarily a communicational endeavour (Chiappe et al., 2020). Bringing an educommunicational perspective into focus in teacher education, such as that done through the communicative work of the TEds in this research, may hold promise within a future-focused, MDL focused, open education focused learning environment with teacher candidates. The concept of educommunication may provide a path forward in the pursuit of MDL in OEPr in teacher education.

          As evident in the stories shared by the participants, and evident in the frameworks, communication creates the primary purpose for media and digital literacies for both construction, deconstruction, production and dissemination of information, not only for their pedagogical practice with students, but in all their open educational endeavours. Research by Young and Nichols (2017) suggests that “diversification of communication within teaching and learning practice gives students more choice and opportunity to interact with both their peers and teaching staff” (p. 345). As outlined in the DQ framework, this includes presentation skills, written communication, collaboration and teamwork, active listening, self-control, and storytelling.  For example, Andromeda, Aquila, Izar, Lyra, Orion, Perseus, and Polaris engage learners in writing and presenting course tasks using blogging as a means of communication. Vega engages learners in active listening in the use of podcasts as a means for communication. Leonis and Rigel integrate video and image production into their communication strategies with students. Although the participants shared stories about media productions using digital technologies, I notice that their communication hinges on decisions within both digital and analog domains. Continual negotiations between/among distribution of communications through public, private and controlled digital spaces is required. This is echoed in Cronin’s research into OEPr (2017) and Hoechsmann and Poyntz’ (2012) considerations of media literacy practices. This leads me to examine two dimensions of communication – as a human right for a common good and human beings as storytellers.

 

This page has paths:

Contents of this path: