This page is referenced by:

• 1 2022-06-04T15:43:12+00:00 Glossary 19 alphabetic listing of glossary items with links to notes that describe each item plain 2023-06-28T15:29:30+00:00 Here is an alphabetic listing of the glossary items included in this dissertation document. Each item is linked to a note where the item is defined, described, and/or examples provided. These glossary items are also embedded throughout the document as notes within pages, where they provide 'just in time' clarification for you, the reader.
  • Actor Network Theory
  • Affinity Spaces
  • Alternative Dissertation
  • Artificial Intelligence (AI)
  • Black Box technology
  • Block Chain
  • ChatGPT
  • Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS)
  • Creative Commons
  • Cynefin framework
  • Data Gathering
  • Digital Rights Management (DRM)
  • Educommunication
  • Emirec
  • Episteme / Phronesis
  • Faculty of Education (FoE)
  • #FemEdTech
  • Free and Open Software (FOSS)
  • Homo Faber
  • Hupomnemata
  • Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA)
  • Learning Management Systems (LMS)
  • Makerspace
  • Massive Open Online Course (MOOC)
  • Media and Information Literacy (MIL)
  • Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
  • Open Educational Practices (OEPr)
  • Paywall
  • Platforms
  • PDF
  • Portable Graphics Network (PNG)
  • Post-Intentional Phenomenology (P-IP)
  • Practice - both noun and verb
  • Research Ethics Board (REB)
  • Safety, Security, Privacy, Permission (SSPP)
  • Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Canada (SSHRC)
  • Teacher Candidates (TCs)
  • Teacher Educators (TEds)
  • Teacher Educator Technology Competencies (TETCs)
  • TPACK
  • Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans
  • UNESCO
  • Uniform Resource Locator (URL)
  • Universal Serial Bus (USB)
  • Visitors / Residents
  
   
• 1 2023-04-24T16:40:00+00:00 Dimension Four 12 discussion of dimension 4: criticality plain 316 2023-10-28T16:36:28+00:00

  Criticality

  “Critical thinking requires us to use our imagination, seeing things from perspectives other than our own and envisioning the likely consequences of our position.” bell hooks (1994)

  Drawing on the dimension of social justice from the previous section, the critical dimension of MDL is illuminated through this quote by bell hooks. I notice that MDL takes an intentional shift in critical and imaginary thinking to teach with an infusion of MDL within an OEPr for the TEds’ in this research. Criticality not only problematizes their use of technologies when applying MDL into teaching and learning, but is also foundational when problem-solving as new technologies are integrated into educational contexts within teacher education. This is suggested by Martinez-Bravo et al., (2022) when emphasizing criticality in digital literacy, since it “constitutes a great commitment to the construction of significant ecosystems and the development of an awareness and values connected with social and civic responsibility in a globalized world” (p. 11). The findings in this research support this conception of a social and civic responsibility exhibited by the participants, particularly when MDL is applied within their OEPr. This occurs through a critical examination of identity, emirec – the reception and emitting of media and digital productions – and, the participants’ decision-making about the circulation of learning artifacts. In this research criticality is evident as both cognitive and social dimensions of MDL and is defined as the practice of critique through close and careful examination and questioning of objects, actions, or ideas of decisive importance (OED online, 2022).

  From the frameworks

  Criticality is embedded in each the frameworks I explore for this discussion (see Table 4).
  • Hoechsmann and Poyntz (2012) mention criticality in media literacy as being essential for “critical engagement with mediated cultures … to engage with the technologies, literacies, and everyday cultural practices that can foster economic participation and social inclusion” (pg. 201).
  • MediaSmarts Canada uses the terms finding and verifying in a process of evaluation, authentication, and critiquing sources of information garnered from the internet (McAleese & Brisson-Boivin, 2022).
  • UNESCO (2013) includes the element of criticality within the definition of MIL whereby citizens “access, retrieve, understand, evaluate and use … media content in all formats, using various tools, in a critical, ethical, and effective way…” (p 29).
  • Belshaw (2011) identifies critical as one of the eight digital literacies, tying it closely to civic literacy, and examines semiotic domains for evidence of inclusion or exclusion, underlying power structures, and assumptions embedded in literacy practices.
  • In their examination of international digital literacy frameworks, Martinez-Bravo et al., (2022) identify criticality as a prominent dimension with implications “when faced with diverse situations, cultivating social and civic responsibility, as well as developing the judgment to assess and make effective decisions in the face of risks, and to develop attitudes of self-control, autonomy, and flexibility” (p. 5).
  • DigCompEDU (2017) places the focus of criticality on fostering learners’ digital problem solving, reflecting on teaching strategies that foster learners’ competencies with technology, and the critical evaluation of credible and reliable sources of information (Redecker, 2017).
  • The DQ global standards places critical thinking as one of twelve future-readiness skills connected to cyber security, digital empathy, digital footprint management, MIL, and privacy management.
  Criticality focuses on the participants’ careful, collaborative, and informed critique of technologies, structures, and participation. For the participants in this research criticality explicitly includes examinations of their own practice, and that of organizational decision-makers. From their lived experiences I notice when participants mention intentional actions to counter techno-deterministic educational technology sector narratives, particularly the notion of knowledge scarcity (Stewart, 2015a) and how they resist attentional economies with its focus on clicks and time on task. Participants shared their intentional decisions to oppose the academic surveillance of students (Kuhn & Raffaghelli, 2022) and how they combat the market logics of referencing students as consumers (Mirra et al., 2018). Dimensions that emerge from the findings and discussed here include criticality in the selection of tools, technologies, spaces, and places for MDL within an OEPr, critical examinations of boundaries relating to identity and power structures (Koseoglu, 2017; Stewart et al., 2021), criticality in data literacies and algorithmic bias (Nichols et al., 2021; Raffeghelli & Stewart, 2020), and a critical focus on intentionality applied to human↔︎technology↔︎world relationships (Ihde, 2015; Kallinikos, 2002).