The Digital Child - Building Occupational Therapy Cultural Competence--NAIDOC Week 2023

'DIGITAL' CHILDREN

Current issues about 'digital children include the ban on mobile phones in schools, which is soon to be introduced for Queensland, but already in place in other states of Australia. There is concern for the rise in cyber-bullying, which is most prevalent in the primary school age group. Inconsistencies abound for the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, and uncertainty around the use of new digital platforms, especially with overseas connections. Parents worry about data harvesting and sensitivities about what they post about children on social media. Some use parent control applications. 

The ARC Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child website addresses, 'What are the best ways of supporting children's participation in digital technologies?'  Many children are referred for occupational therapy with parent/teacher requests around concerns with emotional regulation, sensory modulation, and the need for nature play--with worries about children's amount of screen time. The guidelines were once connected with physical activity, but this is now debated. I'm interested to learn more about an optimal balance between children's participation in the virtual vs material worlds; cultural concepts of digital competencies; and the impact of digital technologies on children's development. 

Some time ago, we wrote: 'The Impact of New Technologies on Musical Learning of Indigenous Australian Children' (Kirkwood & Miller, 2014). There is a need to update our research and practice in children's engagement with digital technologies to be able to discuss complex cultural issues with parents/carers, and early childhood professionals. While there are some useful guidelines for online E-safety from the E-Commissioner, children differ in their access and uptake of technologies at home and school. It is not a level playing field, because some children are disadvantaged in not having digital technologies available in their homes. There are cultural considerations that are unique to each child/family/community, and their living and learning environments. 

With NAIDOC Week commencing tomorrow, it is timely to consider Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people's cultural engagement with digital cultures (Indigenous Australians). I prepared this literature review originally for the QUT EUQ644 course on 'Participating in Digital Cultures,' and now reconsider the parameters and re-design of the Indigenous Digital Capacity Framework. I am interested to collaborate with others and understand various perspectives on 'Digital Children.'

LITERATURE REVIEW

Definitions are needed for 'digital literacy' and 'digital capability,' within and across cultural borders. We need to re-consider which models and approaches apply for culturally diverse communities, Indigenous, and other Australians.

Digital literacy is defined as: ‘a person's ability to perform tasks that include reading and interpreting media (text, sound, images), understanding and reproducing data and images through digital manipulation, interacting with others using language appropriate to the media and evaluating and applying new knowledge gained from digital or on-line environments, using a computer’ (Hamilton & Penman, 2013, p. 130). McKinstry et., al (2020), acknowledges that digital literacy means more than just using information communication technologies (ICT) skillfully. Falloon (2020), states that more than ‘digital literacy’ is needed, this extends to the concept of ‘digital capability.’

Digital capability includes: “awareness and attitudes to interpret, understand, construct and apply digital knowledge in specific contexts and to reflect on the process” (Martin & Grudziecki, 2015, p. 211). The aim is for digital literacy, within a digital capacity paradigm.

The Joint Information Systems Committee, JISC 2019 states there are six elements of digital capabilities (see Figure 1):

•  Information, data and media literacies
•  Digital creation, problem solving and innovation
•  Information communication technologies (ICT) proficiency
•  Digital learning and development
• Digital communication, collaboration and participation
  

Figure 1: JISC Diagram of 6 Elements of Digital Capacity (this work is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA).
Click on diagram to read.

CULTURAL CONSIDERATIONS (Australian Indigenous)

The JISC Model of Digital Capability appears comprehensive of the areas of digital literacy that we encounter daily. However, there is lack of explicit attention to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural engagement in Australia. Within the JISC Model, Digital Collaboration includes: “An understanding of the features of different digital tools for collaboration, and of the varieties of cultural and other norms for working together” (JISC 2019, p. 6). Digital Participation includes capacity to “participate in social and cultural life using digital media and services” (JISC, 2019, p. 6). A lack of explicit attention to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives may produce systemic oppression and racial prejudice. Cultural differences are an important consideration for any model-building.

Cultural awareness and cultural safety are critical competencies for Occupational Therapists working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (Australian Occupational Therapy Competency Standards, Australian OT Registration Board, 2018).

Cultural safety is described as: “…an environment that is spiritually, socially and emotionally safe, as well as physically safe for people; where there is no assault challenge or denial of their identity, of who they are and what they need. It is about shared respect, shared meaning, shared knowledge and experience of learning together” (Williams, 1999, p. 213).

Culturally safe strategies are described in Cultural safety: Cultural Connections for Learning:

• reflecting on one’s own culture, attitudes and beliefs about ‘others’
• clear, value free, open and respectful communication
• developing trust
• recognising and avoiding stereotypical barriers
• being prepared to engage with others in a two-way dialogue where knowledge is shared
• understanding the influence of culture shock

Cultural background influences people’s attitudes and acceptance of digital technologies and impacts on digital literacy learning and leadership. There are socio-economic differences in access to digital technologies and usage by Indigenous Australians according to (Radoll, 2012; and Rice et al., 2016). Therefore, cultural engagement processes are needed that are tailored to individual and community needs. Further information for culturally safe practice is available on the Australian Indigenous Health InfoNet website.

APPROACHES

Human Rights Approaches

Implementation of processes for digital literacy embody basic understanding of Human Rights Legislation (Queensland Government, 2019), and Cultural Respect Frameworks (Australian Government, n.d.). The Human Rights Act, 2019, raises the imperative for cultural safety to be addressed. The NHQHS Standards, (Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Healthcare, 2020) require competence in cultural awareness and safety. Laverty et al., (2017), describe ways of embedding Indigenous Australian perspectives in healthcare standards. Fostering community engagement and collaborative participation through shared leadership is essential to community cultural development projects, involving digital literacy. 

The Community Strengths Model incorporates Indigenous perspectives with social learning approaches (Eady, 2016). This appears to be a more suitable theoretical model for digital literacy projects. An exemplary program for supporting Australian teachers with cultural awareness, ‘Aboriginal ways of seeing and being,’ is described by Buxton (2018).  This method of hands-on experiential learning precedes collaboration through digital networking. Hybrid learning approaches are ideal with combination of digital and face-to-face interactions. This allows learning to occur on Country with visceral sensations. 

‘Transformational Teaching’ approaches, involve students in creating resources for social action projects (Baker-Doyle, 2017). The Teacher works outside the usual parameters of formal 'in-house' schooling to involve external experts and community advisers. Rheingold, (2014), describes the power of digital literacy, through knowing “how to blog, tweet, wiki, search, innovate, program, and /or organise online…” Rheingold’s five fundamental digital literacies centre on being mindful—which includes: attention, participation, collaboration, critical consumption of information (or "crap detection"), and network smarts (Reingold, 2014). This paradigm leads to social action that produces political, socio-economic, and cultural value to participants. Rheingold’s model is useful, but still not explicit on how to tailor digital literacy for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participants.

RATIONALE

Given this literature review and reflection on values, my professional rationale is based on the Indigenous Digital Capacities Framework (Figure 2) that I formulated to intentionally incorporate cultural safety and holistic perspectives of Aboriginal Health, digital learning and cultural leadership. 

 
Figure 2: Indigenous Digital Capabilities Framework, Kirkwood (2020)--click on diagram to read.

Indigenous Digital Capability means to support culturally engaged community participation which facilitates digital literacy. Consultation with Aboriginal Elders, schools and community groups is essential for developing a Digital Capability Action Plan (DCAP). The objectives of a DCAP may correspond with the Australian Curriculum (ACARA), and requirements of the Australian Occupational Therapy Competency Standards. Possible actions include: identifying and recruiting digital literacy coaches and mentors; providing training in chosen approach; identifying leadership roles for consultations for formulating a culturally relevant DCAP. A reference group may implement a DCAP at the pace, and on the terms agreed with the community and participants. The next step is to evaluate the approach and to determine if it is suitable for the participants, community context and location.

REFERENCES / BIBLOGRAPHY

Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Healthcare. (2020). NHSQS standards. https://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/sites/default/files/migrated/National-Safety-and-Quality-Health-Service-Standards-second-edition.pdf

Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Healthcare. Improving cultural competency. https://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/standards/national-safety-and-quality-health-service-nsqhs-standards/resources-nsqhs-standards/user-guide-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-health/action-121-improving-cultural-competency 

Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA]. (n. d.). Information communication technology capability. Australian Curriculum. https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/general-capabilities/information-and-communication-technology-ict-capability/

Australian Government, Cultural respect framework. https://www1.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/indigenous-crf

Australian Government. Your online journey: Digital capability application. https://www.indigenous.gov.au/teaching-guides/digital-capability-app-your-online-journey

Australian Indigenous Health InfoNet website. https://healthinfonet.ecu.edu.au/

Baker-Doyle, K. J. (2017). Transformative teachers: Teacher leadership and learning in a connected world. Harvard Education Press.

Buxton, L. (2018). Aboriginal ways of seeing and being: Informing professional learning for Australian teachers. AlterNative, 14(2), 121-129. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1177180118764124

Casa-Todd, J. (2017). Digital leadership: We need a new direction. https://www.socialleadia.org/chapter-resources/chapter-2-digital-leadership-we-need-a-new-direction/

Chan, B. S. K., Churchill, D., & Chiu, T. K. F. (2017). Digital capability learning in higher education through digital storytelling approach. Journal of International Education Research (JIER), 13(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.19030/jier.v13i1.9907

Cultural Safety: Cultural connections for learning. http://www.intstudentsup.org/diversity/cultural_safety/

Eady, M. (2016). The community strength model: A proposal to invest in existing Aboriginal intellectual capital. IN Education, 22(1). https://ineducation.ca/ineducation/article/view/277/844

E-Safety Commissioner online information for parents. https://esafety.gov.au/parents  

Falloon, G. (2020). From digital literacy to digital competence: the teacher digital competency (TDC) framework. Education Tech Research Development. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11423-020-09767-4.pdf

Freire, P. (2005) Pedagogy of the oppressed, 30th anniversary edition. Continuum. https://envs.ucsc.edu/internships/internship-readings/freire-pedagogy-of-the-oppressed.pdf

Hamilton, A., & Penman, M. (2013). Using digital technology for knowledge transfer. In K. Stagnitti, A. Schoo, & D. Welch (Eds.), Clinical and fieldwork placement in the health professions, 2nd ed. (pp. 128–145). Oxford University Press.

Joint Information Systems Committee [JISC]. (2019). Digital capabilities framework: The six elements defined. http://repository.jisc.ac.uk/7278/1/BDCP-DC-Framework-Individual-6E-110319.pdf

Joint Information Systems Committee. (n.d.). Building digital capability. https://digitalcapability.jisc.ac.uk/what-is-digital-capability/

Kirkwood S & Miller A. (2014). The impact of new technologies on musical learning of Indigenous Australian children. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood. Vol 39, No 1, Mar, 94-101. https://doi.org/10.1177/183693911403900113

Larrson-Lund, M. (2018). The digital society: Occupational therapists need to act proactively to meet the growing demands of digital competence. The British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 81(12), 733–735.  https ://doi.org/10.1177/03080 22618 776879

Laverty, M., McDermott, D., & Calma, T. (2017). Embedding cultural safety in Australia’s main health care standards. Medical Journal of Australia, 207(1), 15-16. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja17.00328

Media Smarts. (n.d.). Digital literacy fundamentals. http://mediasmarts.ca/digital-media-literacy/general-information/digital-media-literacy-fundamentals/digital-literacy-fundamentals

Martin, A., & Grudziecki, J. (2015). DigEulit: Concepts and tools for digital literacy development. Innovations in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences, 5(4), 249–267. https ://doi.org/10.11120/ ital.2006.05040249

McKinstry, C., Iacono, T., Kenny, A., Hannon, J., & Knight, K. (2020). Applying a digital literacy framework and mapping tool to an occupational therapy curriculum. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 67, 210-217. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1440-1630.12644

Mezirow, J. (1994). Understanding transformation theory. Adult Education Quarterly. 44(4), pp. 222-232. https://doi.org/10.1177/074171369404400403 

Mezirow, J. (2000). Transformative learning. In J. Mezirow (Ed.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 1-33): Jossey-Bass.

NAIDOC Website. News for NAIDOC Week 2023. https://www.naidoc.org.au/news/our-elders-national-naidoc-week-2023   

Queensland Government. (2020). Human Rights.  https://www.qld.gov.au/law/your-rights/human-rights

Radoll, P. (2012). Information and communication technologies in the classroom: Implications and considerations. In K. Price (Ed.), Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education (pp. 113-128). Cambridge University Press.

Reingold, H. (2014). Participation Power. In H. Reingold (Ed.), Net smart: How to thrive online (pp. 111-145). The MIT Press. http://www.jstor.com/stable/j.ctt7ztdvb.7

Rice, E., Haynes, E., Royce, P., & Thompson, S. (2016). Social media and digital technology use among Indigenous young people in Australia: A literature review. International Journal for Equity in Health, 15(81), 1-16. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-016-0366-0

Walter, M., & Suina, M. (2019). Indigenous data, indigenous methodologies and indigenous data sovereignty. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 22(3), 233-243. https://doi.org/https://doi-org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/10.1080/13645579.2018.1531228

Williams, M. (2018). Ngaa-bi-nya Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander program evaluation framework. Evaluation Journal of Australia, 18(1), 6-20. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719X18760141

Williams, R. (1999). Cultural safety – what does it mean for our work practice? Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 23(2), 213-214.

FURTHER READING

Indigenous Data Sovereignty

Bodkin-Andrews, G., Walter, M., Lee, V., Kukutai, T., & Lovett, R. (2019, 2 July). Delivering Indigenous data sovereignty. AIATSIS National Indigenous Research Conference, Brisbane.

 

Taylor, J., & Kukutai, T. (Eds.). (2016). Indigenous data sovereignty: Towards an agenda. Australian National University Press. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.22459/CAEPR38.11.2016.

 

United Nations Declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. (2007). https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples.html

 

Walter, M., & Suina, M. (2019). Indigenous data, indigenous methodologies and indigenous data sovereignty. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 22(3), 233-243. https://doi.org/https://doi-org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/10.1080/13645579.2018.1531228

 

Williamson, B. (2018). An introduction to Indigenous data sovereignty. Native Title Newsletter, 2, 17.

Sandra Kirkwood,
Occupational Therapist B.Occ.Thy, B.Music, M.Phil.
Grad Cert Education (Digital Learning and Leadership)

Mobile 061 488 624 362
Email: kirkwood13@bigpond.com