Reflection on Open access to Literature in Nursing Practice.

Posted on by
Reply

This post was written by Lorna Luy-Kenny as part of her final assessment for the module EDM122: Digital Literacies and Open Practice.

Introduction

Nursing practice has changed and improved significantly over the years primarily because of individual research and scientific studies (Hedges,2006). The advent of the internet has fundamentally transformed the pace at which clinical knowledge and practices are disseminated on a global scale.

However, despite living in a digital era, many institutions and underdeveloped countries still lack adequate access to even half of the available research and international journals (Georgiou and Dave, 2023). In this essay I will be reflecting the broader implication of open access to literature in nursing Practice.

Description

As a Clinical Practice Facilitator, my responsibilities encompass training and development of staff and students within the operating theatre. Additionally, I also engage in teaching sessions which necessitates preparation and exploration of pertinent evidence-based studies and guidelines. Accessing high-quality research literature is crucial for my role as we oftentimes encounter new procedures, surgical equipment, and clinical challenges requiring current and credible evidence to guide and improve my practice. Due to constant evolving in medical knowledge, nurses need to regularly access literature to stay informed about new advancement in treatments, guidelines, and best practices. (Fossum, Opsal and Ehrenberg, 2022). By having free access to literature, I could provide an in-depth knowledge to help educate nurses and student in the clinical area. However, it is important that I can cite credible sources to support my teaching and training as they are more likely to trust the information and follow the recommendations which are crucial for their clinical training and development.

Challenges of Paywalls in Nursing Research

One significant obstacle I encountered during literature searches has been the prevalence of Paywalls, which limit my ability to access crucial medical research and scientific studies unless I pay subscription fees. I had previously subscribed to these services hoping in obtaining more efficient and timely access to the latest resources vital for my perioperative practice (Quick, 2022). Fortunately, throughout my postgraduate studies, the availability of Library access has provided me with much broader accessibility to journal articles. However, I frequently pondered the sustainability of this access once my affiliation with the institution ends. In my situation, the temporary relief provided by free resources through the university library addressed these challenges, yet this solution is not viable in the long term. This reflection has led me to consider the wider implications of restricted access, especially for professionals in resource-limited countries, where paywalls can significantly worsen existing disparities (Bautista & Aranas, 2023).

Upon learning the concept of Open Access and Paywalls, I experienced a sense of frustration and injustice regarding these limitations. It appeared inequitable that 78% of essential research (Khabsa and Lee Giles, 2014), frequently financed by taxpayer contributions and charity organisations, remained concealed behind Paywalls (Torok, 2024). The absence of universal open access means that obtaining the latest information on advancements in specific fields for research or teaching is contingent upon an institution’s ability to afford increasingly costly journal subscriptions (Lariviere, Haustein, and Mongeon, 2015).

My sense of frustration intensified as I recognised how these barriers not only restricted my own professional development but also hindering the nursing profession to deliver evidence-based care, which can consequently affect nurses’ decision making in clinical (Saunders & Vehviläinen‐Julkunen, 2016)

The Global Knowledge Gap

The restricted access to scientific literature highlights a broader issue within global nursing practice. I felt concern for healthcare professionals and students in under-resourced settings, who might face even greater barriers to accessing research especially Nurses in developing countries, such as the Philippines where I was originally trained. Nurses from underdeveloped countries can face challenges accessing up-to-date research, limiting their ability to contribute to international policy discussions and clinical debates (Langer et al., 2004). Teaching hospitals and institutions in low-income countries can also experience similar constraints. Without OA, nurses in resource-limited settings will struggle to stay informed on advancements, limiting their capacity to enhance global healthcare standards. Perhaps without Paywall causing the barrier, Nurses experiences from underdeveloped countries can be shared contributing more to improving global nurse’s standard of clinical practice (Ramage and Paula, 2023).

Equity in Knowledge Sharing

Research suggests that open access is beneficial only when individuals have the digital literacy skills to navigate and interpret scholarly articles (Tenopir et al., 2020). My role as a Clinical Practice Facilitator (CPF) is to ensure that all staff members, irrespective of their diverse backgrounds, have unrestricted access to vital knowledge and resources necessary to support their practice in a clinical setting. Even if educational resources are OA, clinical staff especially the new joiner and students may struggle to find these educational resources or finding complex medical or clinical information. Failure to obtain this information can have fatal consequences to health. Hence the WHO recommended sharing research data through OA.

To support equitable learning, one of my roles includes mentoring and training practitioners how to search or signposting educational resources available that can help them engaged in high-quality and continuous learning aligning with UNESCO’s advocacy for bridging knowledge gaps, thereby fostering an environment where every individual can thrive.

Advocating for Open Access Initiatives

I felt inspired after learning about initiatives such as Sci-Hub and the Open Access movement, which aim to make research freely available (Elbakyan, cited in Milova, 2017). These feelings motivated me to advocate for equitable access to knowledge by supporting the idea of Creative Common licensing allowing lawful use, reproduction, and distribution of creative work which would make them ideal for my teaching and training purposes (Creative Common, 2001).

This level of accessibility facilitates easy dissemination of nursing literature ensuring that nurses remain informed about current practices, emerging technologies, and advancements in surgical techniques (Ramage & Foran, 2023). Nurses worldwide would also benefit having the freedom to read, download, copy, distribute, print, or link to full-text articles without encountering any financial, legal, or technical barriers to the latest scientific research. (BOAI 2001),

Similarly, Gotzsche (2011) highlighted the challenge of selective research reporting by publisher which impedes healthcare professionals from making optimal treatment decisions. This disproportionately also in large affects teaching hospitals and healthcare institutions especially in developing countries (Quick, 2022).

The Role of Open Access in Clinical Practice

Many scholars and institution believed that Paywall creates global knowledge gap is a transgression of a human rights issue as exclusion from accessing research literature can harms global public health according to Yamey (2013). In situations where there are gaps in evidence, Scantlebury, Booth and Hanley, (2017) highlighted the importance of nursing research to address these deficiencies. However, without OA to scientific literature, (Smith et al.,2017) argue this knowledge gap can suppress future innovation and collaboration among students and professional. OA can level up this gap and facilitate scientific conversation between those in the rich and underdeveloped countries in which clinical evidence or new clinical reports is critiqued and discussed according to Connor and colleagues, (2023). In contrast, limited access can significantly hinder both students and researchers, as it restricts their ability to obtain the necessary resources for conducting primary research or pursuing their educational objectives. Although Publishing companies often justify Paywalls as necessary for sustaining operations, critics argue that this practice prioritises profit over public good (Smith, 2006).

One of the interesting blogs I have read was Jack Andraka’s blog on the necessity of eliminating Paywalls in scientific journals, which he profoundly influenced my perspective on open access. In his discussion, Andraka emphasises the significant progress that could be achieved through broader public access to medical research, illustrating his own experience of navigating the limited availability of non-paywalled articles online to develop an award-winning early detection test for pancreatic cancer (Andraka, 2013).

Challenges to Open Access to Literature

United Kingdom Copyright law is designed to safeguard creative works and prevent unauthorised use by others. However, my task involves sharing or downloading education material for staff training and development purposes. With copyright, I encountered difficulties either the material is not downloadable or are restricted copy making my supporting documents and teaching materials challenging to prepare. Stilglitz (2006) has described this act as a facade for monopoly power, allowing individuals or corporations to exert exclusive control over and restrict access to essential knowledge. The core of the ongoing crisis regarding limited access to research literature is fundamentally rooted in this publishing arrangement (Yamey,2013)

Many scholars such as Alexandra Elbakyan, the founder of Sci-Hub, has also expressed the same view expressing that copyright law obstructs the free exchange of information and dissemination of knowledge on the Internet. Although this idea has roused some dissenting opinions amongst some academics (Belluz, 2016). This issue highlighted the tension between intellectual property rights and the ethical principle of equitable knowledge dissemination.  

 According to Bhattad and Pacifico (2022) Open access is not only be about bringing down paywalls or building repositories, but also understanding and addressing wider accessibility issues, such as IT skills required to navigate the publishing platforms as well as discoverability of the content. An article may be freely available digitally, but this is no help to someone without online access and technical ability. As a CPF, I always ensure that theatre practitioners and students are not just being provided OA to education and training resources, but they are also supported with the skills to access, understand, apply, and engage with research resources effectively in clinical practice. Bloomberg et al, (2018) argue that without OA, nurses will be stuck in their old practice, which can potentially compromise patient safety. By utilising OA, error can be minimised as nurses are currently updated with scientific and clinical evidence to support their practice.

Another challenges Gotzsche (2011) has pointed out facing evidence-based healthcare is the selective reporting of research findings by the publisher which may impact healthcare professionals from making optimal treatment decisions for their patients.

After viewing the documentary “Paywall: The Business of Scholarship,” I felt a deep sense of injustice regarding the plight of scholars who relinquish their work to publishers without compensation, only for those publishers claim ownership and copyright over the researchers’ contributions (Baverstock, 2019). I can’t help pondering why scholars would send their work to big publishing company like Elsevier and consequently losing their right to their scholarly work. According to Elbakyan, scholars feel pressured to do this, because Elsevier is an owner of so-called “high impact” journals. Researcher who wanted to gain recognition and build a career are left with no choice but hand in their work to big publishing company such as Elsevier (Elbakyan, 2015).

Sustainable Solutions for Knowledge Access

While university and institution library access temporarily alleviate these challenges through paid subscription, long-term solutions are needed. OA resources, licensed under Creative Commons can offer a viable solution. Creative Common platform not only provide Open Access to education but also attributes the work of the scholars.

Advocating Creative commons redistributes power from the hands of the few to the minds of the many and leverage global view of knowledge as a public good and a human right (Creative Common 2001). As a CPF, this can greatly benefit my work as I can actively share free articles and journal on legal platforms with colleagues, without fear of copy right infringement, promoting an equitable environment where not only nurses or other health professionals or students benefiting from this free access to education but also the entire global community aligning with global health and educational agenda of UNESCO.

 Conclusion

Reflecting on my experience, I recognise the importance of OA in advancing nursing education and practice. While university access provided a temporary solution, systemic reliance on Paywalls persists. As a CPF, I advocate for OA models that promote equity and inclusivity (Day et al., 2020). With OA, we can create an environment where healthcare professionals can easily access research, ultimately aligning with global health agendas and equitable healthcare practices. Supporting OA not only enhances our nursing practice and educational development of students but also ensures that knowledge remains accessible for the betterment of humanity and society.

I fully support and advocate for creative common licencing and I share the organisation ethos that Knowledge must be accessible, discoverable, and reusable. I will be publishing my essay under

CC BY-NC 4.0

Creative Commons Attribution- 4.0 International@ https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/

This license requires that reusers give credit to the creator. Allowing reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format, for noncommercial purposes only.

References:

Andraka, J (2013) ‘Why science journal paywalls have to go’, PLOS Blogs.

Available at: https://yoursay.plos.org.( Accessed: 27 December 2024)

Bautista, M and Aranas, V. (2023) ‘The learning crisis in Philippine education: An overview’, Philippine Institute of Development Studies.

Available at: https://edcom2.gov.ph (Accessed: 20 January 2025)

Baverstock, A. (2019) “5. Who Takes Legal Responsibility for Published Work? Why Both an Understanding and Lived Experience of Copyright Are Becoming Increasingly Important to Writers”. Whose Book Is It Anyway, edited by Janis Jefferies and Sarah Kember, Open Book Publishers.

 https://books.openedition.org/obp/8299. (Accessed: 20 December 2024)

Belluz, J. (2016) ‘Meet the woman who’s breaking the law to make science free for all’, Vox, 18 February.

Available at: https://www.vox.com (Accessed: 22 December 2024).

Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities BOA (2003). Max Planck Society.

Available at: https://openaccess.mpg.de/Berlin-Conferences. (Accessed: 30 December 2024)

Blomberg, A.C., Bisholt, B. and Lindwall, L. (2018) ‘Responsibility for patient care in perioperative practice’, Nursing Open, 5(3), pp. 414–421. doi: 10.1002/nop2.153.

Bhattad PB, Pacifico L. (2022) Empowering Patients: Promoting Patient Education and Health Literacy. Cureus. 2022 Jul 27;14(7):27336. doi: 10.7759/cureus.27336. PMID: 36043002; PMCID: PMC9411825.

Connor, L. et al. (2023) ‘Evidence-based practice improves patient outcomes and healthcare system return on investment: Findings from a scoping review’, Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 20, pp. 6–15. doi: 10.1111/wvn.12621.

Creative Common (2001)https://creativecommons.org/ (Accessed 15 December 2024)

Day, S., Rennie, S., Luo, D. et al. (2020) ‘Open to the public: paywalls and the public rationale for open access medical research publishing’, Research Involvement and Engagement, 6, 8. doi: 10.1186/s40900-020-0182-y.

Elbakyan, A. (2015) ‘Case 1:15-cv-04282-RWS Document 50’ (PDF). Archived at: https://torrentfreak.com (Accessed: 15 November 2024).

Fossum M, Opsal A, Ehrenberg A. (2022) Nurses’ sources of information to inform clinical practice: An integrative review to guide evidence-based practice. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs.  doi: 10.1111/wvn.12569. Epub 2022 Mar 4. PMID: 35244324; PMCID: PMC

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9790517/#wvn12569-bib-00239790517. (Accessed: 27 December 2024)

Gheorghiu, C. and Dave, M. (2023) ‘Promoting inclusivity in research’, British Dental Journal, 235, pp. 11–12. doi: 10.1038/s41415-023-6073-5.

Gøtzsche, P.C. (2011) ‘Why we need easy access to all data from all clinical trials and how to accomplish it’, Trials, 12, p. 249. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-12-249.

Hedges, C. (2006) ‘Research, evidence-based practice, and quality improvement’, AACN Advanced Critical Care, 17(4), pp. 457–459.

Khabsa, M. and Lee Giles, C. (2014) ‘The number of scholarly documents on the public’, PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0093949.

Lariviere, V., Haustein, S. and Mongeon, P. (2015) ‘The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era’, PLoS One, 10(6), p. e0127502. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127502.

Langer, A. et al. (2004) ‘Why is research from developing countries underrepresented in international health literature, and what can be done about it?’, Bulletin of the World Health Organisation, 82(10), pp. 802–803.

National Institute of Health and Care Research, NIHR (2021) Knowledge is Power: Public perspective on Open Access publishing.

https://www.nihr.ac.uk/about-us/who-we-are/policies-and-guidelines/open-access-policy/knowledge-is-power-public-perspectives-on-open-access-publishing#Appendix%20A (Accessed: 15 January 2025)

Piwowar, H. et al. (2018) ‘The state of OA: a large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles’, PeerJ, 6, e4375. doi: 10.7717/peerj.4375.

Pogge, T. (2005) ‘Human rights and global health: a research program’, Metaphilosophy, 36(1–2). doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9973.2005.00362.x.

Quick, J. (2022) ‘Evidence-based practice: The cornerstone of clinical decision making’, Journal of Perioperative Practice. doi: 10.1177/17504589221133933.

Ramage, B. and Foran, P. (2023) ‘Evidence-based practice in perioperative nursing: Barriers and facilitators to compliance’, Journal of Perioperative Nursing, 36(2), Article 6. doi: 10.26550/2209-1092.1265.

Saunders, H. and Vehviläinen‐Julkunen, K. (2016) ‘The state of readiness for evidence‐based practice among nurses: an integrative review’, International Journal of Nursing Studies, 56, pp. 128–140. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.

Scantlebury, A., Booth, A. and Hanley, B. (2017) ‘Experiences, practices and barriers to accessing health information: a qualitative study’, International Journal of Medical Informatics, 103, pp. 103–108.

Smith, E., Haustein, S., Mongeon, P., Shu, F, Ridde V, and Lariviere, V (2017) Knowledge sharing in global health research – the impact, uptake and cost of open access to scholarly literature. Health Res Policy Sys 15, 73.

 Available at https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-017-0235-3d (Accessed: 27 December 2024)

Smith, R. (2006) ‘The highly profitable but unethical business of publishing medical research’, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99(9), pp. 452–456. doi: 10.1177/014107680609900916.

 Stiglitz, J. (2006) “Scrooge and Intellectual Property Rights,” British Medical Journal 333 (2006): pp. 1279–1280.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1761163/ (Accessed: 15 January 2025)

Tenopir, C., Christian, L., Kaufman, J., & Nicholas, D. (2020). Seeking, reading, and use of scholarly articles: An international study of perceptions and behavior. Library & Information Science Research, 42(3), 101034.

Torok, E. (2024) ‘Who loses when scientific research is locked behind paywalls?’, Gates Foundation.

Available at: https://www.gatesfoundation.org (Accessed: January 5 2025)

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (1948). U.N.G.A. Res. 217A (III). Available at: https://www.un.org. (Accessed: 16 December  2024)

UNESCO Open Access Publications. https://en.unesco.org/open-access/what-open-access

https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read/( Accessed: 29 December 2024)

Yamey G. (2013) Excluding the poor from accessing biomedical literature: a rights violation that impedes global health. Health Hum Rights. 10(1):21–42.

Digital Literacy in Quantitative Social Science Teaching

Posted on by
Reply
Digital Literacy Essay Word Cloud

I am Sandra Vucevic, a Visiting Lecturer at City, St George’s University of London, teaching introductory quantitative modules. This reflective essay, submitted for the EDM122 module of my MA in Academic Practice, explores my experiences navigating the complexities of digital literacy in the teaching of quantitative methods.

In preparing for this essay, I realised that my understanding of digital literacy, while frequently used, was perhaps incomplete. Therefore, I will begin by outlining what I consider to be the most comprehensive recent definition, as offered by Radovanovic (2024, p.2).

“Digital literacy encompasses the set of capabilities and skills and values; it is the ability to mindfully analyse, process, design, and produce information; to develop and employ critical thinking skills in the landscape of mis- and disinformation practices at digital platforms; to create, collaborate, engage, and communicate with others in a respectful and meaningful way; to understand the algorithms’ mechanisms and strategically interact with artificial intelligence and similar platforms; to use the internet in a responsible, safe, and ethical manner having in mind the data privacy and digital footprint; to be accountable and respectful for one’s actions online, and to be able to understand the consequences of one’s behaviour.”

I find this definition particularly compelling because it acknowledges the complex interplay of technical skills, critical thinking, and ethical considerations that constitute digital literacy. It moves beyond a simplistic understanding of digital literacy as mere tool-based competence and recognizes the broader social and cultural implications of technology use.

Early Encounters with the Digital Literacy Gap

Growing up surrounded by technology, I consider myself a digital native (Prensky, 2001), which perhaps led me to overestimate others’ digital fluency. My background in computer engineering and early coding experience have made many digital tasks feel intuitive, so it’s always a stark reminder of the digital divide when students struggle with what seem like basic operations. I recall a student who attempted to centre a title in Word by using the spacebar. It was a small thing, but that single incident highlighted the digital divide that I’ve come to realise is far more widespread than I initially thought, particularly within universities. It’s become clear that many students starting university lack the digital skills necessary to truly participate in a digital learning environment (Russo & Emtage, 2024).

My initial surprise at the mentee’s spacebar struggles was quickly reinforced by everyday teaching experiences. I remember one student emailing me with “Hi bro, where to find assessment instructions?” While that example was quite informal, it wasn’t entirely unusual. Many students were clearly unfamiliar with email etiquette. I also noticed how few of my 350 students had LinkedIn accounts when I suggested they connect with me there. Students often struggled with software installation, simple tasks like cropping screenshots, and formatting documents. Referencing proved a major hurdle for their assessments. I encountered numerous instances of students copying entire paragraphs without attribution, using unreliable sources (e.g., the Daily Mail) and referencing the same literature inconsistently. Formatting inconsistencies, like varying font sizes within paragraphs, were also commonplace.

Beyond these technical skills, I also observed a broader struggle with critical thinking and information evaluation. Some students couldn’t distinguish credible online information from ‘fake news’ or separate opinion from fact. Others struggled to interpret even simple graphs. These issues weren’t simply about a lack of knowledge; they reflected deeper gaps in digital literacy and, consequently, academic preparedness.

Teaching introductory quantitative modules for the past four years has been a steep learning curve. I initially assumed students possessed the necessary digital and academic skills to navigate university systems and engage with the material. I believed my role was simply to deliver the curriculum. How wrong I was! Students consistently faced digital challenges, from accessing university email and Moodle to navigating library resources. These recurring difficulties revealed a substantial digital literacy gap, especially concerning the digital tools crucial for quantitative data analysis. I quickly realised that simply explaining statistical concepts wasn’t enough; I had to explicitly teach the underlying digital skills they lacked. “Working with data is a cluster of competencies rather than a single skill” (Ruediger et al., 2022, p. 10), and my students needed support across the board, from file management and software proficiency to data wrangling, analysis, and discipline-specific methodologies. This often-consumed significant class time, frequently at the expense of core statistical content. I often felt, and still feel, torn between teaching essential software skills and core disciplinary knowledge – a tension Ruediger et al. (2022) identify as a common concern among instructors.

Challenging Assumptions About Digital Natives

The idea of the digital native (Prensky, 2001) – that young people, having grown up surrounded by technology, are inherently fluent with digital tools, unlike digital immigrants – is a widely held view. However, this concept has been criticised for its oversimplification (Riordan, Kreuz & Blair, 2018; Bennet, Maton & Kervin, 2008). Different studies have found no significant difference in digital skills or literacy between young people and older generations (Akcayir, Dundar & Akcayir, 2016; Guo, Dobson & Petrina, 2008). This prompts me to examine my own assumptions: have I, too, generalised about young people’s digital abilities based solely on age?

Moreover, young people’s apparent confidence with devices like smartphones often hides gaps in their ability to use technology effectively for academic work (Passey et al., 2018). I’ve seen this myself: many students who are constantly using their phones struggle with basic tasks like formatting documents, understanding data charts, or creating academic references. This highlights that familiarity with technology doesn’t equal competence. It reinforces the need for explicit instruction in digital literacy skills, even for students who appear tech-savvy. Research indicates that factors such as socio-economic status, education, and access to technology are far more influential determinants of digital competence than age (Kincl & Strach, 2021; Pangrazio, Godhe & Ledesma, 2020; Creighton, 2018; Selwyn, 2009). This is consistent with my own experience of observing varying levels of digital proficiency among students.

Another pervasive myth is that educators must be technical experts to support students’ digital learning. Assuming students’ inherent digital superiority can create undue pressure on academics (Radovanovic, Hogan & Lalic, 2015), as both staff and students often lack confidence using technology for education, despite personal comfort with it (Garcia et al., 2013). Levy (2018) rightly argues that educators don’t need to master every single tool; instead, they should focus on facilitating meaningful engagement with technology. This is something I encourage in my graduate teaching assistants – it’s about empowering effective use of technology, not just demonstrating button-pressing.

The myth that students inherently know how to learn effectively online is compounded by universities often taking digital literacy for granted (Murray and Perez, 2014). Many students lack the initiative to meaningfully explore educational technologies (Burton et al., 2015). The COVID-19 pandemic exposed this, highlighting the impact of the digital divide on educational equity (Summers, Higson & Moores, 2022; Bashir et al., 2021; Pentaris, Hanna & North, 2021). This divide, exacerbated by differing digital experiences, resources, and usage, disproportionately affects students from disadvantaged backgrounds. As Radovanovic (2024, p .5) argues, this digital poverty affects the entire learning ecosystem, becoming magnified during crises like COVID-19, where a lack of digital skills and access leads to digital exclusion. The pandemic underscored the urgent need to address this divide and abandon simplistic assumptions about digital fluency.

Prensky (2001) also described digital natives as adept multitaskers thriving on instant gratification. However, this is often just task-switching, which can negatively affect learning (Kirschner & De Bruyckere, 2017). I’ve certainly observed this myself; students constantly switching between tasks seem to overload their cognitive resources, hindering their ability to focus and process information effectively. While students may have preferred delivery modes or feel comfortable with certain technologies, I’ve found that establishing clear ground rules for classroom technology use is essential. It’s not about simply giving them free rein with devices, but about creating a conducive learning environment. Setting clear expectations for classroom technology use has been key to fostering a more focused and productive learning environment.

Beyond these myths, educators can develop more effective strategies by shifting from assumed competence to fostered competence. This is a continuous process requiring reflection and professional development. Having established the need to move beyond these misconceptions, it is imperative to consider how digital literacy can be effectively integrated into the curriculum.

Bridging the Gap: Integrating Digital Literacy into the Curriculum

Integrating digital literacies is challenging because they are not just technical skills but learned practices that build upon those skills (Bennet & Folley, 2018). This distinction, between the technical aspects of a tool (skills) and its purposeful application (practices), is crucial for effective digital literacy instruction.

Reflecting on my own practice, I’m now more confident that I was four years ago in understanding my students’ digital literacy needs but effectively addressing them requires a strategic approach. The most effective method is for academic teachers to take full responsibility for integrating digital literacy development directly into the core curriculum (Nicholls, 2018). Rather than relying solely on external support services (IT, librarians, academic skills teams), I have found it more effective to embed digital literacy instruction directly within my teaching. I’ve realised that small, targeted interventions can significantly improve students’ digital literacy. For example, a brief five-minute lecture introduction to online reference generators, while not ideal for teaching proper referencing, offers a practical way to reduce unattributed work in the assessments. Similarly, instead of simply marking down for poor grammar and spelling, I demonstrate how students can ethically use AI tools or Word’s Editor to identify and correct writing errors. This improves submissions and, more importantly, helps students recognise their own mistakes, something assessment feedback alone can’t always achieve. These small adjustments reinforce the importance of integrating practical, accessible, and empowering digital skills into the curriculum.

To address specific digital literacy gaps in relation to quantitative research methods that I teach, I create video tutorials or dedicate class time to demonstrating essential skills, tailoring instruction to student needs and module context. I supplement this by incorporating existing resources—library guides, IT support pages, academic misconduct policies—directly into the module’s Moodle page for easy access and increased engagement. However, simply providing links isn’t enough; many students need more structured support, such as platform-specific tutorials (e.g., Windows and iOS versions). To improve accessibility and promote collaboration, I’m developing my video tutorials into open educational resources. Finally, a bank of task-specific tutorials, organised by function (e.g., using SPSS), is available on the module’s Moodle page for easy reference.

As Seargeant & Tagg (2018) rightly emphasise, navigating online information is a learned skill, not an innate ability. Education plays a vital role in raising awareness of how information flows and influences engagement with opinions and values, including understanding the interplay of opinion and fact in online sources and how the creators’ aims influence this balance (Seargeant & Tagg, 2018). Finally, digital inclusion is complex. Micklethwaite (2018) points out that digital exclusion can be difficult to identify, as even frequent social media users may lack access to or confidence with other essential digital tools. Barriers to digital inclusion can stem from various factors, including financial constraints, lack of access to reliable internet connectivity, disabilities, and cultural or linguistic backgrounds. Furthermore, digital inclusion is not linear; individuals move in and out of engagement as they develop and refine their skills. As educators, we must recognise these barriers and create a supportive environment for all students to develop their digital competencies.

While the responsibility for addressing digital literacy gaps often falls on educators, it is important to acknowledge the crucial role of institutions in providing comprehensive support. This includes offering professional development opportunities and integrating digital skills training into the curriculum. As Secker (2018) suggests, if a digital literacy framework does not exist, universities should consider creating one, either across the institution or tailored to specific schools/departments, using perhaps the JISC (2024) model of digital capabilities as guidance.

Conclusion

While many of the practices I now use to support students’ digital literacies were developed organically through teaching over the past four years, the EDM122 module provided a structured lens through which to understand and enhance these efforts. Prior to the module, I had not engaged deeply with the literature on digital literacy, although my experiences had already highlighted its importance. Exposure to key readings, particularly Radovanovic (2024), Bennet and Folley (2018), and Secker (2018), encouraged me to reflect more critically on my assumptions and inspired new approaches. For example, I now plan to incorporate scaffolded digital literacy checkpoints into each module—short, embedded tasks that progressively develop students’ capabilities, from academic communication to data evaluation. I am also exploring ways to co-create digital learning resources with students, supporting both digital production skills and a greater sense of ownership over their learning.

My experiences have shaped my understanding of what it means to be an educator. It’s not simply about teaching content, but meeting students where they are and fostering their digital competence. As digital literacy evolves with technology, so too must our approaches. Like Radovanovic (2024), I believe future curricula must integrate these developments to equip students for a digital and data-driven workforce, empowering them to understand, navigate, create, and collaborate within the digital world of AI, augmented reality, robotics, algorithms, and virtual platforms. While moments of frustration or surprise are inevitable, I now see these moments as valuable growth opportunities for both my students and me as an educator.

This reflection on my journey as an educator aligns with Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle (1984), progressing through its four stages: concrete experience (observing students’ digital struggles), reflective observation (questioning my assumptions), abstract conceptualization (understanding digital literacy’s complexities), and active experimentation (implementing interventions). This cyclical process has shaped my teaching and fostered students’ digital competence.


This essay is published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license, enabling open sharing while ensuring proper attribution. It grants the right to copy, distribute, modify, and adapt the material, including for commercial use, as long as the original author is credited and allows re-licensing of derivative works.



References

Akcayir, M., Dundar, H. and Akcayir, G. (2016). What makes you a digital native? Is it enough to be born after 1980? Computers in Human Behaviour, 60, pp.435–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.089.

Bashir, A., Bashir, S., Rana, K., Lambert, P. and Vernallis, A. (2021). Post-COVID-19 Adaptations; the Shifts Towards Online Learning, Hybrid Course Delivery and the Implications for Biosciences Courses in the Higher Education Setting. Frontiers in Education, [online] 6(1). https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.711619.  

Bennet, L. and Folley, S. (2018). D4 curriculum design workshops: a model for developing digital literacy in practice. In: K. Reedy and J. Parker, eds., Digital Literacy Unpacked. [online] Cambridge University Press, pp.111–121. Available at: https://doi.org/10.29085/9781783301997.

Bennett, S., Maton, K. and Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), pp.775–786. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00793.x.

Burton, L.J., Summers, J., Lawrence, J., Noble, K. and Gibbings, P. (2015). Digital Literacy in Higher Education: The Rhetoric and the Reality. In: Myths in Education, Learning and Teaching. Palgrave Macmillan London, pp.151–172. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137476982_9.

Creighton, T.B. (2018). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, Digital Learners: An International Empirical Integrative Review of the Literature. Education Leadership Review, 19(1), pp.132–140.

Garcia, E., Dungay, K., Elbeltagi, I. and Gilmour, N. (2013). An Evaluation of The Impact of Academic Staff Digital Literacy on The Use of Technology: A Case Study of UK Higher Education. In: EDULEARN13 Proceedings. pp.2042–2051.

Guo, R.X., Dobson, T. and Petrina, S. (2008). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants: An Analysis of Age and ICT Competency in Teacher Education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38(3), pp.235–254. https://doi.org/10.2190/ec.38.3.a.

Jisc (2024). Individual digital capabilities. [online] JISC. Available at: https://digitalcapability.jisc.ac.uk/what-is-digital-capability/individual-digital-capabilities/ [Accessed 5 Feb. 2025].‌

Kincl, T. and Strach, P. (2021). Born digital: Is there going to be a new culture of digital natives? Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science, 31(1), pp.30–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/21639159.2020.1808811.

Kirschner, P.A. and De Bruyckere, P. (2017). The myths of the digital native and the multitasker. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67(67), pp.135–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.001.

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 8(4).

Levy, L. A. (2018). 11 Digital Literacy Myths, Debunked. Available at:
https://rossieronline.usc.edu/blog/digital-literacy-myths [Accessed 25 Jan. 2025].

Micklethwaite, A. (2018). Onwards! Why the movement for digital inclusion has never been more important. In: K. Reedy and J. Parker, eds., Digital Literacy Unpacked. [online] Cambridge University Press, pp.191–201. Available at: https://doi.org/10.29085/9781783301997.

Murray, M.C. and Perez, J. (2014). Unravelling the Digital Literacy Paradox: How Higher Education Fails at the Fourth Literacy. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 11, pp.85-100. https://doi.org/10.28945/1982.

Nicholls, J. (2018). Unpacking digital literacy: the potential contribution of central services to enabling the development of staff and student digital literacies. In: K. Reedy and J. Parker, eds., Digital Literacy Unpacked. [online] Cambridge University Press, pp.17–28. Available at: https://doi.org/10.29085/9781783301997.

Pangrazio, L., Godhe, A.-L. and Ledesma, A.G.L. (2020). What Is Digital literacy? a Comparative Review of Publications across Three Language Contexts. E-Learning and Digital Media, 17(6), pp.442–459. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753020946291.

Passey, D., Shonfeld, M., Appleby, L., Judge, M., Saito, T. and Smits, A. (2018). Digital Agency: Empowering Equity in and through Education. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 23(3), pp.425–439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9384-x .

Pentaris, P., Hanna, S. and North, G. (2021). Digital poverty in social work education during COVID-19. Advances in Social Work, 20(3), pp.x–xii. https://doi.org/10.18060/24859.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, [online] 9(5), pp.1–6. Available at: https://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf [Accessed 5 Feb. 2025].

Radovanovic, D. (2024). Digital Literacy and Inclusion. 1st ed. Springer Cham.

Radovanovic, D., Hogan, B. and Lalic, D. (2015). Overcoming digital divides in higher education: Digital literacy beyond Facebook. New Media & Society, 17(10), pp.1733–1749. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815588323.

Riordan, M.A., Kreuz, R.J. and Blair, A.N. (2018). The digital divide: conveying subtlety in online communication. Journal of Computers in Education, 5(1), pp.49–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-018-0100-6.

Ruediger, D., Cooper, D.M., Bardeen, A., Baum, L., Ben-Gad, S., Bennett, S., Berger, K., Bonella, L., Brazell, R. … & Yatcilla, J. (2022). Fostering Data Literacy Teaching with Quantitative Data in the Social Sciences. [online] Ithaka S+R. Available at: https://sr.ithaka.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/SR-Report-Fostering-Data-Literacy-092722.pdf [Accessed 5 Feb. 2025].

Russo, K. and Emtage, N. (2024). The Digital Divide and Higher Education. In: Digital Literacy and Inclusion. Springer Cham, pp.81–97.

Seargeant, P. and  Tagg, C. (2018). Critical digital literacy education in the ‘fake news’ era. In: K. Reedy and J. Parker, eds., Digital Literacy Unpacked. [online] Cambridge University Press, pp.179–189. Available at: https://doi.org/10.29085/9781783301997.

Secker, J. (2018). The Trouble with Terminology: Rehabilitating and Rethinking ‘Digital Literacy’. In: K. Reedy and J. Parker, eds., Digital Literacy Unpacked. [online] Cambridge University Press, pp.3–16. Available at: https://doi.org/10.29085/9781783301997.

Selwyn, N. (2009). The digital native – myth and reality. Aslib Proceedings, 61(4), pp.364–379. https://doi.org/10.1108/00012530910973776.

Summers, R., Higson, H. and Moores, E. (2022). The impact of disadvantage on higher education engagement during different delivery modes: a pre- versus peri-pandemic comparison of learning analytics data. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(1), pp.1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.2024793.

Impact of Open Educational Resources in Healthcare Technology Teaching Practices

Posted on by
Reply

Impact of Open Educational Resources in Healthcare Technology Teaching Practices by Dr Gousalia Sukumar

This blog post was written Gousalia Sukumar as part of the final assignment for the module EDM 122 at City University of London

Introduction

In this essay, I reflect on the importance of integrating Open Educational Resources (OER) into my teaching practices aligned with the existing digital world.  Through critical analysis, I will be exploring how I incorporate OER to adapt my teaching strategies and their impacts on healthcare technology.

Initially, the term “Open” means universal access of inclusive education, and equity for all learners. This term is used for open education defined by the European Commission (EU Science Hub, European Commission, 2016) as “a way of delivering education, frequently using digital technologies by eliminating barriers and making learning reachable, abundant, and adaptable for all …”

I recognised OERs are fundamentally a pool of high-quality teaching and learning resources that can be accessed freely and openly. I have been using a few OERs in my teaching, learning, and research activities in addition to the online resources. However, I was not familiar with the term “OER” until I followed the EMD 122.

My research explores the ambiguity of open/openness and free/non-free controversial aspects of OER. OER classified teaching and learning materials as available for free, open to access: a set of right “5Rs of Openness” Retain, Revise, Remix, Reuse & Redistribute by re-users (Wiley et al., 2014). Certain resources appear to be free under some restrictions (Winn, 2012). I recognise that they require registration, restricting modifications, or imposing commercial purpose bans. Non-free OERs grant free access, and do not allow full permission to modify the content (Creative Commons, 2019).

I acknowledge the most common definition for OERs is any format of teaching, learning, and research resources that exist in the public domain, with an open license providing no-cost access, reuse, adaption, repurpose, and redistribution by others (UNESCO, 2019). These resources have a Creative Common license (CC) that indicates how the resources may be used, reused, adapted, and shared. I was not familiar with Creative Commons before following this course. Understand that this grant free tools and copyright licenses (CC BY, CC BY-SA, CC By-ND, CC BY-NC, CC BY-NC, CC BY-NC-SA; CC BY-NC-ND) that assist scholars/designers share their resources with others while keeping some rights (Creative Commons, 2019).

My scholarly reviews highlighted that the OER is a part of an Open Educational Practice (OEP). This explains the ways academics use OER in teaching/learning to create, use, reuse, and share in pedagogical practices (Karunanayaka & Naidu, 2020). Some scholars mainly focus on OER predominantly (Hogan et al., 2015). The idea of OEP has been shifted from resources to practice and applications. Researchers have analysed the effect of academics on knowledge creation and sharing as a form of pedagogical practice (Beetham et al., 2012). When analysing these views, the resource-centric view is highlighted by Wiley (2014) as education would improve by using OER. But Cronin (2017) argued the practice-centric approach which fosters open pedagogies and learner empowerment. Also, OEP includes OER, open pedagogies, and open sharing of teaching practices that promote collaboration and engagement Cronin (2017).

I teach Healthcare/Clinical technology, realised that digital innovation in Health technology evolves continuously but the integration and delivery of this knowledge in education remain limited. It urges a high demand for a workforce with specialised knowledge and skills to meet current expectations and minimise the gap between academia and employment on practical experience (Weeks et al., 2019). I have challenges in providing hands-on experience with expensive wearable devices, work placement opportunities, curriculum design, and policies of institutions etc. I integrate a range of online resources and a few OER in my teaching to better prepare the students for the workforce, however, I was not clear about OER’s features and confusion over copyright policies (Rolfe, 2012). This course enhanced my OER literacies and supported to integrate of more OERs in teaching to reduce the gap. Many scholars showcased OER related to my discipline as open textbooks, Open access journals, streaming videos, and digital learning objects (Bauch et al., 2020); open access clinical resources in the Osmosis library (Hassall & Lewis, 2017); Wikis, e-textbooks and podcast (Purdy, 2015); virtual patients (Lehmann et al., 2015); surgery stimulators (Funke et al., 2012); Massive open online courses-MOOC (Frey et al., 2010) promote the teaching and learning.

 Integrating OER effectively replaces traditional online-based teaching to meet all learner’s needs (Parsley et al., 2018). My learners are from different backgrounds and experiencing setbacks such as language barriers, financial, health issues, dyslexia, etc. UNESCO imagined OER as a “Universal educational resource available for the whole of humanity” (UNESCO, 2002, p.28). Adil et al. (2022) categorised the benefits as “stretched access to knowledge; support lifelong learning, pedagogical advantages and boost students’ outcomes”. Moreover, benefits learners by being cost-effective (Parsley et al., 2018), the high-quality resources are accessible (Pande, 2018), openly reachable, customisable, and adaptable (Write et al., 2019), and globally accessible (Tang, 2020).

I become aware, that following e-courses upskill the knowledge in modern healthcare (MH). An e-health online course attaches with Health Education England, MOOC/OER support to connect the existing knowledge by integrating MH into education. Telemedicine and telehealth are offered by the University of Edinburgh to deliver remote healthcare services. I recognise following these courses provide invaluable experience for life-long education.

Active learning

Active learning is more effective than the traditional teacher-centred approach (Zhou et al.,). My usual teaching and learning strategies are primarily student-centred approach (Lee, 2018) and promote learners’ knowledge and interpreting skills (Fuad et al., 2018). OER has been very demanding in higher education (Baker et al., 2019); and enhances learning through practice and implementation (Amornrit et al., 2018). I design my activities tailored to meet all learner’s needs and learning styles (visual, auditory & kinaesthetic) (Kolb, 1984). I integrate Gamification, problem-based learning (PBL), case studies, and digital technology-based activities to improve learners’ outcomes and students’ satisfaction (Garcia et al., 2022). This evidence – high attendance, participation, and outcomes of assessments, validate my outcomes. Regarding pedagogical innovation (Rolfe, 2012), I intend to embed more suitable OER in my active learning strategies to shift from online-based activities such as Wikimedia videos, Pixabay for images, DOAJ for open-access journals; and employment-based group activities/projects and class discussion (Driessen et al., 2020).  When I incorporate the OER in active learning, I recognise that three main parts are crucial: awareness of guidelines and selection of OER; assisting learners with resources and network facilities, and delivering content through tasks (Amornrit et al.,2018).

I analysed a few selected active learning strategies as follows:

My favourite strategy is implementing practical-based PBL. Currently, I ask students to interpret patients’ clinical data (Asthma, BP, ECG, Blood Glucose level, etc). This method is very effective for clinical learning as it focuses on patient-based learning (Dring, 2019). I provide clinical practical for hands-on experience & patients’ clinical readings from different backgrounds aligned with NMC guidelines to meet the discrimination code (online digital resources from NHS, BUPA, and Diabetes websites). Integrating OER-based active learning strategies is valuable for “theory to practice” gap implementation (Dewsbury et al., 2022). To implement OERs, I am planning to integrate OER-based activities with Wikimedia Commons for medical tests/clinical videos (eg- Asthma, blood glucose test, urine test- videos on clinical medicine, medical diagnosis);  BioiXiv – operated by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (Cancer biology resources-case studies) that are available under a Creative Commons CC0 license (public domain – anyone can use for any purpose without attribution; enable to distribute, remix, adapt and build) which is valuable for “theory to practice” gap implementation (Hills et al., 2022).

Moreover, I use YouTube videos on clinical/wearable devices and virtual learning to bridge the gap between theoretical and real-world practical skills. Students enjoy these activities by doing and thinking (Patiño et al., 2023) is very effective for clinical learning as it focuses on patient-based learning (Dring, 2019). I use Khan Academy YouTube videos to explain pathophysiology and create activity sheets for group activities. I was not aware that these pages could be accessed via Creative Commons and lack of knowledge of licenses (Ertmer, 1999).  I now understand Khan Academy has CC-BY-NC-SA and academics can remix, adapt, and build for non-commercial purposes. Currently, I integrate online-based case study analysis where students write their views, and feedback from peers, and groups in forums. I write my feedback in the forum as well (synchronous and asynchronous). I create a forum in Moodle to share ideas among learners. Now I understand that Moodle is a search engine, this is not open accessed platform. I need to learn how to set up for open forum discussion. Moreover, I expect that it increases my workload to give continuous feedback, and it is time-consuming. In the future, I plan to do more research on open license and free access resources and copyright literacies (Atenas et al., 2015).

I integrate activities with online journals, especially on wearable clinical devices from Google Scholar, and ask learners to download, annotate, and summarise the articles. In addition, I am not aware of the copyright policies of Google Scholar journal articles. I now updated my knowledge as Google Scholar is a search engine to access journals, OERs must be open access and come through Creative Commons with open licenses this organisation allows users to reuse, retain, revise, remix, and redistribute (5Rs) the content. Many of them are behind paywalls or have copyright restrictions. Therefore, not all Google Scholar journals are freely accessible and open-licensed. I should search it through Creative Commons which is freely accessible without a paywall as teachers identified this as a barrier for adaptation Nkuyubwatsi (2017).

When I integrate activities, I apply Roger’s (2003) diffusion of innovation theory which has five key elements knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation, and confirmation. Also, I ask, “Will the innovation be beneficial to me in my particular situation?”. On some occasions, I found this process unproductive ultimately rejecting the innovation (Nkuyubwatsi, 2017) due to some learners’ poor IT skills (Kaosaiyaporn, 2011); lack of motivation & suitable platform (Hu et al., 2015) and internet access (Adil et al., 2022).

Many hardcopy textbooks are replicated by e-textbooks (Gu et al., 2015). I use e-textbooks for making notes, research-based projects, etc. I now admit that not all e-books are OER. Many eBooks are purchased by commercials and copyrights. They cannot be repurposed or adapted the open access e-textbooks through Creative Commons allows to revise, adapt, or adjust (Wiley et al., 2014). I use OER e-textbooks from the library that support to develop of my healthcare learners’ inter-professional experience (free & high-quality materials). Open-access E-textbooks have multiple tools such as highlighter, magnification, copy and paste, download, print, and search within the book to fulfill learners’ differentiated needs. However, students and I struggled to read continuously on the computer screen, and it caused eye strain (Casselden & Pears, 2020). Some OERs are non-editable. Sometimes, I print journal/book pages to minimise this challenge. In the future, I am dedicated to integrating OER repositories like DOAJ, PubMed Central, POLS – medical journals or institutional open-access archives, and Elsevier open-access journals.

I incorporate images into my teaching resources to enhance learning making difficult concepts more understandable and creating an imaginative learning atmosphere for learners. Also, I persuade learners to use it in their tasks to improve visual communication. I extract images from Google images, my pictures, and institutional repositories. I use the Fair Use copyright clause. I understand that OER images need to be in the public domain and contain Creative Commons attributes or permission needs to be granted from the copyright holders. In the future, I am planning to use Wiki images, and Pixabay which are OERs (Perez, 2017).

Future Implementation:

  • Integrate Wikipedia pedagogy. Create active learning tasks to engage students in the Wikipedia community, asking learners to take part in encyclopaedic articles as formative assignments. It will develop digital literacy skills, research skills, and subject knowledge. Moreover, develop collaborative learning and knowledge sharing with a global audience (McDowell et al., 2022).
  • Organise training sessions for both teaching & support staff and learners due to their limited knowledge of OER. Moreover, I would attend CPD to update my knowledge (Ertmer, 1999).
  • Integrate open networks supported by social media and Web 2.0 tools (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram (Luo et al., 2020)
  • Feedback from students and support staff for further improvement

Conclusion:

The Integration of OER into healthcare technology enhances inclusive teaching and learning practices and supports scholars to adapt to evolving technologies and bridge the gap between academia and employment. However, there are several challenges addressed that could be resolved in the future to promote developed teaching practices.

I plan to publish this essay on the course blog EDM 122: “Digital Literacies and Open Practice” blog under the Creative Commons license CC- BY-NC-SA to ensure accessibility and attributions. This license allows for adaptation, remixing, adaptation, and building on the materials as long as the creator and adaptors are shared under the same licensing terms and not allow for commercial purposes (Creative Commons, 2019). I trust this license protects authoring rights and permits to develop of knowledge and thoughts impartial to future users as it needs to be shared under the same terms and in a non-commercial way.

References

‌Adil, H.M., Ali, S., Sultan, M., Ashiq, M. and Rafiq, M. (2022), ‘Open education resources’ benefits and challenges in the academic world: a systematic review’, Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 274-291. Available at:  https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-02-2022-0049 (Accessed: 12 December 2024).

Amornrit, P., Na-Songkhla, J. and Wannapiroon, P. (2018) ‘A Study of Use and Supporting Factors to Effective Use of Open Educational Resources Towards Active Learning in the Context of Higher Education in Thailand’, Suranaree Journal of Social Science, 12(1), pp.17–36. Available at: https://doi.org/10.55766/nsjp2368 (Accessed: 2 January 2025).

Atenas, J., Havemann, L. and Priego, E. (2015) ‘Open Data as Open Educational Resources: Towards Transversal Skills and Global Citizenship’, Open Praxis, 7(4), pp. 377-389. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.7.4.233 (Accessed: 3 Jan 2025).

Baker, A.D. (2019) ’Open Educational Resources in Teacher Preparation Programs’, International Journal of Teacher Education and Professional Development, 2(1), pp.52–65. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4018/ijtepd.2019010104 (Accessed: 27 December 2024).

Bauch, A., Pellet, J., Schleicher, T., Yu, X., Gelemanović, A., Cosimo Cristella, Fraaij, P.L., Polasek, O., Auffray, C., Maier, D., Koopmans, M. and Jong (2020) ‘Informing epidemic (research) responses in a timely fashion by knowledge management – a Zika virus use case’, Biology Open. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1242/bio.053934 (Accessed: 3 November 2024).

Beetham, H., Falconer, I., McGill, L., & Littlejohn, A. (2012) ‘Open practices: Briefing paper’, JISC. Available at:

https://oersynth.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/58444186/Open%20Practices%20briefing%20paper.pdf (Accessed, 30 January 2025).

Casselden, B. and Pears, R. (2020) ‘Higher education student pathways to ebook usage and engagement, and understanding: Highways and cul de sacs’, Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 52(2), pp. 601–619. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000619841429 (Accessed: 27 December 2024).

Creative Commons (2019) About CC licenses. [online] Creative Commons. Available at: https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/cclicenses/ (Accessed: 27 December 2024).

Cronin, C. (2017) ‘Openness and Praxis: Exploring the Use of Open Educational Practices in Higher Education’, The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(5), pp. 15-34. Available at: https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i5.3096 (Accessed: 27 December 2024).

Dewsbury, B.M., Swanson, H.J., Moseman-Valtierra, S. and Caulkins, J. (2022) ‘Inclusive and active pedagogies reduce academic outcome gaps and improve long-term performance’, PLOS ONE, 17(6). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1371/jounal.pone.0268620. (Accessed: 15 January 2025).

Driessen, E.P., Knight, J.K., Smith, M.K. and Ballen, C.J. (2020) ‘Demystifying the Meaning of Active Learning in Postsecondary Biology Education’, CBE—Life Sciences Education, 19(4), p.ar52. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-04-0068 (Accessed: 16 January 2025).

Dring, J.C. (2019) ‘Problem-based learning – experiencing and understanding the prominence during medical school: Perspective’, Annals of Medicine and Surgery, 47, pp. 27–28. Available at: https://doi:10.1016/j.amsu.2019.09.004 (Accessed: 3rd November 2024).

Ertmer, P.A. (1999) ‘Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration’, Educational Technology Research and Development, [online] 47(4), pp.47–61. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02299597 (Accessed 1 February 2025).

EU Science Hub. (2016). What is open education? [online] Available at: https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/what-open-education_en (Accessed: 15 Dec 2024).

Frey N, Fisher D, Gonzalez A. (2010) Literacy 2.0: Reading and Writing in the 21st Century. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

Fuad, M., Deb, D., Etim, J. and Gloster, C. (2018) ‘Mobile response system: a novel approach to interactive and hands-on activity in the classroom’, Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(2), pp. 66–73.

Funke, K., Bonrath, E.M., Mardin, W.A., Becker, J.U., Haier, J., Senninger, N., Vowinkel, T., Hoelzen, J.P. and Mees, S.T. (2012) ‘Blended learning in surgery using the Inmedea Simulator’, Pub Med, 398(2), pp.335–340. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-012-0987-8 (Accessed: 7 November 2024).

Garcia, S., Sandro and da, E. (2022) ‘Application of a Teaching Plan for Algorithm Subjects Using Active Methodologies: An Experimental Report’, International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning,17(07), pp.175–207. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v17i07.28733 (Accessed: 3 December 2024).

Gu, X., Wu, B., and Xu., X. (2015) ‘Design, development, and learning in e-textbooks: What we learned and where we are going’, Journal of Computer Education, 2(1), pp.  25–41. Available at:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-014-0023-9 (Accessed: 8 November 2024).

‌ Hassall, C. and Lewis, D.I. (2017) ‘Institutional and technological barriers to the use of open educational resources (OERs) in physiology and medical education’, Advances in Physiology Education, 41(1), pp.77–81. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00171.2016 (Accessed 15 January 2025).

Health Education England Digital Literacy Framework – Digital Capability Toolkit (2017). Available at: https://digitalcapabilitytoolkit.wp.derby.ac.uk/resource-health-education-england-digital-literacy-framework/ (Accessed: 20th November 2024).

Hills, M., Overend, A. and Hildebrandt, S. (2022) ‘Faculty Perspectives on UDL: Exploring Bridges and Barriers for Broader Adoption in Higher Education’, The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 13(1). Available at: https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotlrcacea.2022.1.13588 (Accessed: 7 January 2025).

‌Hogan, P., Carlson, B., & Kirk, C. (2015). Showcasing: Open educational practices’ models using open educational resources. Open Education Global Conference, Banff Calgary, Alberta,

Canada. Available at: http://conference.oeconsortium.org/2015/presentation/showcasingopen-educational-practices-models-using-open-educational-resources/ (Accessed: 25 November 2024).

Hu, E., Li, Y., Li, J. and Huang, W.-H. (2015) ‘Open educational resources (OER) usage and barriers: a study from Zhejiang University, China’, Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(6), pp.957–974. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9398-1 (Accessed: 22 November 2024).

Kaosaiyaporn, O. (2011) ‘Development of a Virtual Network Model for Multicultural Classrooms to Enhance Knowledge Construction and Cultural Awareness for Graduate Students’, Journal of Education Prince of Songkla University Pattani Campus, 24, pp. 58-69.

Karunanayaka, S.P. and Naidu, S. (2020) ‘Ascertaining impacts of capacity building in open educational practices’, Distance Education, 41(2), pp.279–302. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1757406 (Accessed: 12 November 2024).

Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experimental learning. Experience as the Source of learning and Development. Prentice Hall PTR, New Jersy.

Lee, L. (2018) ‘Active Learning’, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506326139.n19 (Accessed: 2 December 2024).

Lehmann, R., Thiessen, C., Frick, B., Bosse, H.M., Nikendei, C., Hoffmann, G.F., Tönshoff, B. and Huwendiek, S. (2015) ‘Improving Pediatric Basic Life Support Performance Through Blended Learning With Web-Based Virtual Patients: Randomized Controlled Trial’, Journal of Medical Internet Research, 17(7), p.162. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.4141 (Accessed: 1 December 2024).

Luo, T., Hostetler, K., Freeman, C. and Stefaniak, J. (2020) ‘The power of open: benefits, barriers, and strategies for integration of open educational resources’, Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 35(2), pp.1–19. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2019.1677222 (Accessed: 2 January 2025).

McDowell, Z.J. and Vetter, M.A. (2022) ‘Wikipedia as Open Educational Practice: Experiential Learning, Critical Information Literacy, and Social Justice’, Social Media + Society, 8(1), pp. 1-11. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051221078224 (Accessed 1 February 2025).

‌Nkuyubwatsi, B. (2017) ‘Willingness to Engage in Open Educational Practices among Academics in Rwandan Public Higher Education and Responsive Actions’, Journal of Learning for Development, 4(3). Available at: https://doi.org/10.56059/jl4d.v4i3.223 (Accessed: 26 December 2024).

Pande, J. (2018) ‘Opportunities and challenges in the adoption of open educational resources for course development: a case study of Uttarakhand Open University’, International Journal of Information Technology, 10(3), pp.339–347. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41870-018-0126-z (Accessed: 23 November 2024).

Parsley, S., Leck, A. and Patel, D. (2018). Assessing the impact of a global health MOOC/OER. [online] Available at: https://iceh.lshtm.ac.uk/files/2018/05/Assessing-the-impact-of-a-global-health-MOOC-OER-OE-Global-2018.pdf (Accessed: 1 February 2025).

Patiño, A., Ramírez-Montoya, M.S. and Buenestado-Fernández, M. (2023) ‘Active learning and education 4.0 for complex thinking training: analysis of two case studies in open education’, Smart Learning Environments, 10(1). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00229-x (Accessed: 5 January 2025).

Perez, J.E. (2017) ‘Images and the Open Educational Resources (OER) Movement’, The Reference Librarian, 58(4), pp.229–237. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/02763877.2017.1346495 (Accessed: 25 January 2025).

Purdy, E., Thomas, B., Bednarczyk, J., Migneault, D. and Sherbino, J. (2015) ‘The use of free online educational resources by Canadian emergency medicine residents and program directors’, CJEM, 17(2), pp.101–106. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/cem.2014.73 (Accessed: 26 December 2024).

Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. New York: The Free Press.

Rolfe, V. (2012) ‘Open educational resources: staff attitudes and awareness’, Research in Learning Technology, 20(1). Available at: https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v20i0.14395.

Tang, H. (2020) ‘A Qualitative Inquiry of K–12 Teachers’ Experience with Open Educational Practices: Perceived Benefits and Barriers of Implementing Open Educational Resources’, The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 21(3), pp. 211-229. Available at: https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v21i3.4750 (Accessed: 8 January 2025).

United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (2019), ‘Open educational resources (OER): UNESCO recommendation on OER’, Available at: https://en.unesco.org/themes/building-knowldege-societies/oer/recommendation (Accessed: 16 December 2025).

United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (2002) ‘UNESCO Promotes New Initiative for Free Educational Resources on the Internet’, Available at: http://www.unesco.org/education/news_en/080702_free_edu_ress.shtml (Accessed: 10 January 2025).

Weeks, K.W., Coben, D., O’Neill, D., Jones, A., Weeks, A., Brown, M. and Pontin, D. (2019) ‘Developing and integrating nursing competence through authentic technology-enhanced clinical simulation education: Pedagogies for reconceptualising the theory-practice gap’, Nurse Education in Practice, 37(37), pp.29–38. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2019.04.010 (Accessed: 11 November 2024).

Wiley, D. (2014). The Access Compromise and the 5th R. [online]. Available at: http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/3221 (Accessed: 11 January 2025).

Wiley, D., Bliss, T. J. and McEwen, M. (2014). Open educational resources: A review of the literature. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. Springer, New York, N.Y. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614- 3185-5_63 (Accessed: 2 December 2024).

Winn, J. (2012). Open education. From the freedom of things to the freedom of people. [online] Available at: https://josswinn.org/2012/05/01/open-education-from-the-freedom-of-things-to-the-freedom-of-people/  (Accessed: 1 February 2025).

Wright, R.E., Goldman, J.M. and Reeves, J.L. (2019) ‘Open educational resource (OER) Adoption in Higher education: Examining institutional perspectives’, Staff Presentations, Proceedings, Lectures, and Symposia. 33. Available at: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/asl_staffpres/33/ (Accessed: 6 November 2024).

Zhou, L., Rudhumbu, N., Shumba, J. and Olumide, A. (2020) ‘Role of Higher Education Institutions in the Implementation of Sustainable Development Goals’, Sustainable Development Goals and Institutions of Higher Education, pp.87–96. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26157-3_7 (Accessed: 11 January 2025).

Image with a pile of books and text Open Access Resources
Created using Adobe Firefly

Digital health literacies: maximising service-user equity in the digitised healthcare landscape 

Posted on by
Reply

Image licensed under Creative Commons from www.FreePic.com

About me

I am a London-based Speech and Language Therapist (SLT). After starting my clinical career in the National Health Service (NHS) nearly 2 decades ago, I moved to City St George’s in 2017 where I am currently a Senior Lecturer and Doctoral Researcher. I teach pre- and post- registration SLTs in my clinical area of head and neck oncology and voice disorders. My research focuses on improving services for people with voice and swallowing difficulties on the suspected head and neck cancer pathway. The disparate digital health literacies skills among the population I work with presents clinical challenges, with a clear anecdotal impact on health and wellbeing outcomes based on Service Users’ (SU’s) abilities and motivations to connect with others online, access health information, and to use this information to make health decisions. In research, those with higher digital literacies skills are often those who become involved with patient and public involvement groups through their confidence to join online meetings, and their knowledge of the health system and the changes they would like to see. For SUs without smart phones, without email and without access to virtual meeting platforms, it is increasingly difficult for them to engage with research activity. I have therefore chosen this topic to explore how I might increase digital literacies skills in my client group and increase participation and equity for those with lower digital literacies skills in my research. I studied module EDM122 because open practices and digital literacies are vital to healthcare education, provision, and research, and I am passionate about all 3!

Digital Literacies

The term Digital Literacy was coined by Gilster1 almost 3 decades ago to describe a person’s ability to navigate, find, use, and evaluate information from various digital sources. Digital Literacies (DL) is now preferred, recognising the breadth of skills this encapsulates which originally included the three areas of cognitive, technical and socio-emotional as defined by Ng et al. in 20122.

More recently, the JISC Digital Capabilities Framework3  model included 6 components, with Health Education England (HEE) adapting the model (Figure 1) to 7 areas of capability4. HEE’s model was designed to support health professionals to develop their DL skills, with 4 levels in each domain so that levels of proficiency can be developed and evaluated in each.  

Figure 1: HEE Digital Literacy Capability Framework (2018). Licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA.

Digital Literacies in the context of Health Literacy

While the concept of health literacy emerged in the 1970’s5, the term has evolved alongside healthcare developments. Liu et al.6 defined health literacy as having 3 main components: knowledge of health, healthcare and health systems; processing and using information in various formats in relation to health and healthcare; and ability to maintain health through self-management and working in partnerships with health providers. Better health behaviours are more common among those with higher health literacy levels, which are associated statistically with higher education level and socio-economic status7. Bujnowska-Fedak and Węgierek (2020) found in their study that a high proportion of patients adopted healthier lifestyles based on internet health information8. They also found that patients were using the internet to make informed choices about whether or not to make an appointment to see a doctor, and to select a doctor to make an appointment with. In an exponentially digitised healthcare system, it is unsurprising that health literacies and digital literacies intersect greatly, a concept known as digital health literacy (DHL)9 – sometimes e-health literacy. Moreover, digital tools are commonly proposed as the method by which the population’s health literacy may be increased, including medication reminders and virtual support groups and information sources for certain conditions10. Ban et al., defined DHL as ‘the capacity to translate health knowledge acquired from digital environments into actions7’. Norman and Skinner’s11‘Lily model’ sought to illustrate the various DL encapsulated by DHL, or e-Health Literacy (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Norman and Skinner’s Lily Model of e-Health Literacy©. Image from Gilstad, H. (2014)12. Licensed with permission to copy for personal and academic use.

The 2020 SARS-CoV-2 pandemic necessitated and drove many digital solutions to be implemented at pace13. While it was assumed these developments would be embraced and retained post-pandemic, this has not always been reality. For example, while telemedicine became commonplace during the pandemic out of necessity, more than 70% of patients still preferred a face to face consultation post-pandemic14 in a study of more than 1000 patients. Of note, the largest age group of respondents was under 25 years old, and both recruitment and the survey itself were conducted via social media platforms and online. This is a significant limitation given that SUs without knowledge of the survey or the ability to respond, i.e. those with poor digital literacy skills, were unable to share their views regarding preferences for telemedicine or face to face care. Iyanna et al.15 identified DHL as a key barrier to health technology acceptance and implementation whereby healthcare professionals reported that patients found platforms and tools difficult to understand, hard to interact with or too complicated. Older patients, and those who speak English as an additional language experienced the most difficulty, with other studies reporting lower DHL skills in older populations16 due to a variety of factors. It is therefore conceivable that an even larger percentage of patients prefer face to face care if those without DHL skills and older adults were facilitated to participate in Moulaei et al.’s survey14.

Interventions have been trialled to increase older adults’ DHL skills17  with other studies across all age groups having also shown benefits in increasing DHL skills18. The studies used a variety of assessments and frameworks to increase DHL skills, usually in the context of a training programme that included topics such as how to locate health information on the internet, how to evaluate the trustworthiness of the source and how to avoid health scams. The training programmes used a variety of pedagogical methods including classroom based approaches, individual training, and peer learning. In addition to these skills, access to resources is vital to develop DHL skills. Internet access and hardware/ device availability, affordability and compatibility were cited as key barriers for patients in utilising digital health tools16. Other studies reported data security concerns and the need for digital healthcare tools that are more culturally sensitive and adaptable19. Negative feelings towards technology including mistrust and a perception that it is a further barrier to accessing healthcare have also been documented20. People with disabilities, lower educational level and lower housing tenure have also been found to have less access to the internet21 and are therefore less able to develop and use DHL skills. HL has been shown to improve functional and mental health outcomes for people with long term conditions such as stroke22. With HL becoming increasingly dependent on DL, it may be hypothesised that patients with higher DHL may experience better health outcomes. However, a systematic review recommended that more treatment studies should measure participants’ DHL to elucidate this23.

Digital Literacies as a Social Determinant of Health (SDoH)

SDoH are defined by the World Health Organisation as ‘non-medical factors that determine health outcomes’24. With the increasing digitisation of healthcare, DL are now integrated as a key SDoH25 with a growing ‘digital divide’ in health outcomes for SUs based on their DHL26. While advancements such as access to health information on the internet are improving the health of many SU’s, there is poor equity owing to the digital divide and digital exclusion often impacting people with mental health difficulties, women, people of colour, and those in social deprivation27. Van Kessel et al.28 assert that DL is not merely an additional SDoH but a ‘super determinant’ of health owing to the pervasive nature of digital literacies and their intersections with all other SDoH.

Informing my practice

With reference to Driscoll’s reflective model29, I have identified key learning points for my practice both in clinical care and in research.   

What?

Putting patients at the centre of their care and involving them in decisions about their health are core principles of all healthcare professions30. When conducting health research, it is best practice to involve patients as co-applicants or advisors regarding key decisions that directly impact patient care31. More recently, co-design methodologies involve SUs in designing improvements to their own services32. With the increasing digitisation of the health sector, and growing opportunity to impact services, patients’ involvement and empowerment are increasingly dependent on DHL skills.

So what?

SLTs frequently increase SUs’ DL skills to support their communication difficulties33, for example to use text to speech software, to communicate with family abroad using a virtual platform, or to use a smart phone to re-order medical equipment. However, as a head and neck cancer clinician, a disease affecting a large number of people experiencing social deprivation34, I am aware that digital disadvantage and low DHL skills lead to under-representation of many of my SU population in research35. Supporting people to participate in research or improve services through increasing their DHL skills is rarely a focus of therapy itself. Some of the most under-represented voices in our society owing to communication disability and difference may be silenced further by a lack of DHL and resources to develop these. Empowering patients in their care and improving services in response to patients’ needs necessitates DHL skills to ensure all views are represented given that many patient and public consultations are conducted online and involve reading electronic meeting minutes, grant proposals, study workplans, plain language summaries and so on. When research such as mine explores how services are being configured and adapted, often involving digital solutions to increase efficiency, it is vital that people of all DHL abilities can contribute their views on service accessibility. Some studies have shown the value of including patients in research that develops technological advancements to increase patients’ DHL whilst including them in the rapid advancement of health digitisation36.

NHS England’s Framework for inclusive digital healthcare37 includes 5 domains: access & connectivity, inclusive design, building skills and capability, belief & trust, and leadership & partnerships. Wilson et al.38 proposed 3 key recommendations towards such digital inclusion that address some of the barriers outlined earlier. Firstly, providing user-friendly tools that are easy and engaging to navigate and culturally appropriate. Secondly, provision of devices, opportunities to connect, and retaining non-digital options to maximise inclusivity. Lastly, they acknowledged the important role of support and education to facilitate SUs in interacting with and using digital health tools.

Now what?

Based on this framework and the recommendations, I feel my role provides opportunities to address many of these areas. Firstly I feel able to support and educate SUs to enhance and apply their DHL skills to augment their health outcomes through both clinical practice and research. For example, I plan to work with SUs to support their access to social media sites, virtual support groups and online fora and tools relevant to their healthcare conditions as part of their therapy. To retain non-digital options and maximise participation, I will budget in my research costings to support digital and non-digital participation options for SU group members. Costing for devices, connectivity, travel and ensuring adequate infrastructure and support for hybrid options will maximise participant diversity and facilitate under-represented voices to be heard, while increasing SUs’ DHL skills wherever possible. With regards to user-friendly tools that are easy to navigate and culturally sensitive, I will support SUs to disseminate our research findings to lay audiences on open access platforms to grow their DHL skills while increasing open access information for the public about my research. Through actively inviting people with lower DHL skills to my patient advisory group wherever possible, I will also ensure that any tools and information developed in my research are accessible to those with all levels of DHL.

In conclusion, rapid technological growth is changing how healthcare and health information are delivered and accessed. Health outcome gaps are widening as result of the digital divide, posing a significant equity issue. Clinicians and health researchers are well-placed to enhance service-users’ DHL in response to the increasingly digitised health landscape. 

References

  1. Gilster, P. Digital Literacy. 1997. Wiley. ↩︎
  2. Ng, W. Empowering scientific literacy through digital literacy and multiliteracies. 2012. New York: Nova Science Publishers. ↩︎
  3. Jisc. Building digital capability. 2018. Available at: https://www.jisc.ac.uk/rd/projects/building-
    digital-capability [Accessed: 08 January 2025] ↩︎
  4. Health Education England. Digital Literacy Capability Framework. (2018). Available at: Digital-Literacy-Capability-Framework-2018 [Accessed 03 February 2025]. ↩︎
  5. Simonds SK. Health education as social policy. Health Educ Monogr. 1974; 2:1–10. ↩︎
  6. Liu, C., Wang, D., Liu, C., Jiang, J., Wang, X., Chen, H., et al., What is the meaning of health literacy? A systematic review and qualitative synthesis. Family Medicine and Community Health. 2020;8:e000351. ↩︎
  7. Šulinskaitė K, Zagurskienė D, Blaževičienė A. Patients’ health literacy and health behaviour assessment in primary healthcare: evidence from a cross-sectional survey. BMC Primary Care. (2022) 23(1):223. ↩︎
  8. Bujnowska-Fedak, M.M. and Węgierek P. The Impact of Online Health Information on Patient Health Behaviours and Making Decisions Concerning Health. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; 31;17(3):880. ↩︎
  9. Ban S, Kim Y, & Seomun G. Digital health literacy: A concept analysis. Digital Health. 2024;10. ↩︎
  10. Fitzpatrick PJ. Improving health literacy using the power of digital communications to achieve better health outcomes for patients and practitioners. Front Digit Health. 2023;17;5:1264780. ↩︎
  11. Norman C.D. & Skinner H.A. eHealth literacy: essential skills for consumer health in a networked world. J Med Internet Res. 2006;8:0. ↩︎
  12. Jaatun, E. Brooks, K.E. Berntsen, H. Gilstad, M.G. Jaatun, E.A.A. (eds.): Proceedings of the 2nd European Workshop on Practical Aspects of Health Informatics (PAHI 2014), Trondheim Norway. (2013). Available at: http://ceur-ws.org [Accessed 5th January 2025]. ↩︎
  13. Budd, J., Miller, B.S., Manning, E.M. et al. Digital technologies in the public-health response to COVID-19. Nat Med. 2020; 26:1183–1192. ↩︎
  14. Moulaei, K., Sheikhtaheri, A., Fatehi, F., Shanbehzadeh, M., and Bahaadinbeigy K. Patients’ perspectives and preferences toward telemedicine versus in-person visits: a mixed-methods study on 1226 patients. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2023; 15;23(1):261. ↩︎
  15. Iyanna, S., Kaur, P., Ractham, P., Talwar, S. & Islam, A.K.M.N. Digital transformation of healthcare sector. What is impeding adoption and continued usage of technology-driven innovations by end-users?, Journal of Business Research, 2022;153:150-161. ↩︎
  16. Song, Y., Qian, C. & Pickard, S. Age-related digital divide during the COVID-19 pandemic in China. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18:11285. ↩︎
  17. Dong Q, Liu T, Liu R, Yang H, Liu C. Effectiveness of digital health literacy interventions in older adults: single-arm meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25:e48166. ↩︎
  18. Barbati, C., Maranesi, E., Giammarchi, C. et al. Effectiveness of eHealth literacy interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies. BMC Public Health. 2025; 25:288. ↩︎
  19. Alsahli, S., Hor S. & Lam M.K. Physicians’ acceptance and adoption of mobile health applications during the COVID-19 pandemic in Saudi Arabia: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology model. Health Information Management Journal. 2024;0(0). ↩︎
  20. Padalkar, T. V., Hildreth, K., Rocque, G. B., Ingram, S. A., Whitlow, O., Chu, D., et al. Understanding Multi-Level Factors Impacting Digital Health Literacy in the Deep South of the United States. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2025;22(1):41. ↩︎
  21. Ueno, A., Dennis, C., & Dafoulas, G.A. Digital exclusion and relative digital deprivation: Exploring factors and moderators of internet non-use in the UK, Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2023; 197: 122935. ↩︎
  22. Flink M, Lindblom S, von Koch L, Carlsson AC, Ytterberg C. Health literacy is associated with less depression symptoms, higher perceived recovery, higher perceived participation, and walking ability one year after stroke – a cross-sectional study. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2023 Dec;30(8):865-871. ↩︎
  23. Neter, E. & Brainin, E. Association Between Health Literacy, eHealth Literacy, and Health Outcomes Among Patients With Long-Term Conditions: A Systematic Review. European Psychologist. 2019; 24(1), 68–81. ↩︎
  24. World Health Organisation. Social Determinants of Health. Available at: Social determinants of health. [Accessed 5th January 2025]. ↩︎
  25. Arias López MdP, Ong BA, Borrat Frigola X, Fernández AL, Hicklent RS, Obeles AJT, et al. Digital literacy as a new determinant of health: A scoping review. PLOS Digit Health. 2023; 2(10): e0000279. ↩︎
  26. Badr, J., Motulsky, A. & Denis J-L. Digital health technologies and inequalities: A scoping review of potential impacts and policy recommendations, Health Policy. 2024; 146:105122. ↩︎
  27. Saeed SA, Masters RM. Disparities in Health Care and the Digital Divide. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2021;23;23(9):61. ↩︎
  28. van Kessel R, Wong BLH, Clemens T, Brand H. Digital health literacy as a super determinant of health: More than simply the sum of its parts. Internet Interv. 2022 Feb 7;27:100500. ↩︎
  29. Driscoll, J. (1994). Reflective practice for practise. Senior Nurse, 14(1), 47-50. ↩︎
  30. NHS England. Involving People in Healthcare Guidance. (No date). Available at: ppp-involving-people-health-care-guidance.pdf [Accessed 03 February 2025]. ↩︎
  31. INVOLVE. Eastleigh: INVOLVE; 2012. Briefing notes for researchers: Involving the public in NHS, public health and social care research. 2012. ↩︎
  32. Francis-Auton, E., Cheek, C., Austin, E., Ransolin, N., Richardson, L., Safi, M., et al., Exploring and Understanding the ‘Experience’ in Experience-Based Codesign: A State-of-The-Art Review. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2024;23. ↩︎
  33. Smith, M.M. Innovations for Supporting Communication: Opportunities and Challenges for People with Complex Communication Needs. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2019;71(4):156-167. ↩︎
  34. Al-Dakkak, I. Socioeconomic status and head and neck cancer. Evid Based Dent. 2010;11, 57–58. ↩︎
  35. National Institute of health Research. Available at: Improving inclusion of under-served groups in clinical research: Guidance from INCLUDE project | NIHR [Accessed 03 February 2025]. ↩︎
  36. Barony Sanchez RH, Bergeron-Drolet LA, Sasseville M, Gagnon MP. Engaging patients and citizens in digital health technology development through the virtual space. Front Med Technol. 2022 Nov 25;4:958571. ↩︎
  37. NHS England. Inclusive Digital Healthcare: A Framework for NHS Action on Digital Inclusion. (2018) Available at: NHS England » Inclusive digital healthcare: a framework for NHS action on digital inclusion. [Accessed 03 February 2025]. ↩︎
  38. Wilson, S., Tolley, C., Mc Ardle, R. et al. Recommendations to advance digital health equity: a systematic review of qualitative studies. npj Digit. Med. 2024;7:173. ↩︎

Openness in IP Law Education: A cross-disciplinary approach?

Posted on by
Reply

The Author & Licence

This blog, by Nouf Ali S. AlGazlan, a final-year PhD student and graduate teaching assistant at City, St George’s University of London, and a visiting lecturer at the University of Hertfordshire, is part of the final assignment for the EDM122 Digital Literacies and Open Practices. It is published under a CC BY (Creative Commons Attribution Licence). You are free to copy, redistribute, and adapt the material in any medium or format, even commercially (Creative Commons, n.d.; Cambridge, n.d.). The rationale behind this licence is that, because the course is on digital literacies and open practices, offering maximum flexibility and accessibility better aligns with those principles and encourages the sharing of open knowledge.

Introduction

A few years ago, I had a conversation with my PhD supervisor about Posner’s paper, The Decline of Law as an Autonomous Discipline (Posner, 1987). We explored Posner’s critique of the traditional view of law as a self-contained field, isolated from the influence of other disciplines. This perspective resonated with me again several months ago when I began taking EDM122 and learned about Open Practice. This piece aims to demonstrate how Posner’s perspective holds true by examining openness and its role in fostering cross-disciplinary learning and teaching in the field of Intellectual Property (IP).

I begin by explaining the relevance and significance of open practice to my role, looking at the literature on open practice, exploring what openness means, and focusing on open educational resources (OERs) and open educational practices (OEPs). I then explain how openness can aid in cross-disciplinary learning and teaching in IP law through two main examples: the MA Academic Practice programme and Institute for Creativity and AI (ICAI). Throughout this piece, I reflect on the role of openness in cross-disciplinary education and how it has influenced my future practice.

Open Practice & My Role

Teaching IP law at City St George’s takes an open approach. Lectures provide foundational knowledge (e.g., an introduction to patent law), while tutorials focus on advanced materials (e.g., the implications of patent law on Artificial Intelligence (AI)). Advanced materials are strategically chosen to reflect current legal debates. Previous topics have included Covid-19 vaccines and weapons relating to patent law, and the trademarking of fictional characters and celebrity names.

Although I try to find open resources to engage students, a key challenge is ensuring access to the most up-to-date materials. Many of these resources are not open access and require either a fee or institutional access. On Day 2 of EDM122, we examined the Jisc Digital Experience Survey which highlighted the impact of the cost of living on students: over 52% of students reported taking on paid work (Jisc, n.d.). While the survey did not explicitly address access to paid resources, it suggests that financial pressures may limit students’ ability to access materials that require payment. This issue must be addressed to ensure all students have equal access to resources. A practical approach is to leverage existing materials at City St George’s while exploring ways to expand open-access legal content. The next section will review relevant literature and practical examples.

What does openness mean?

As Cronin (2017) highlights, there are several interpretations of openness in education. Broadly speaking, openness can be identified as “open admission, open as free, OERs and OEPs” (Cronin, 2017, p.2).  In short, open admission refers to education policies that remove entry requirements for learning allowing learners to enroll without prior qualifications. Open as free refers to educational resources that can be used freely (e.g., YouTube videos and massive open online courses (MOOCs)) (Moe, 2015). OERs are teaching and openly licenced learning materials, meaning users can retain, reuse, revise, remix, and redistribute them, to promote adaptable education (Wiley et al., 2014). Finally, OEPs are about moving beyond a content-centred approach, changing the attention from resources to practices, with both learners and teachers collaborating in the creation of knowledge (Ehlers, 2011).

For this blog, OEPs and OERs are of primary importance. While OEPs lack a single, universally accepted definition, Open.Ed (n.d.) describes it as encompassing teaching methods and academic practices that leverage open technologies, pedagogies, or OERs to foster collaborative and flexible learning experiences. This includes but is not limited to, the co-creation of learning experiences by educators and learners, as well as the use or development of OERs.

The UNESCO definition of OERs demonstrates the significance of freely accessible educational materials in developing open education practices globally (Camilleri and UNESCO, 1970). This can be creating or reusing OERs (materials that are out of copyright or are licenced to allow reuse). Nevertheless, open education goes beyond such resources. It can involve practices such as involving open science in teaching and sharing educational strategies (UCL, n.d.).

Encouraging OERs is crucial for both legal and educational institutions, particularly in the context of achieving Sustainable Development Goal 4, which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote opportunities for lifelong learning (Moulitharun, 2024). For legal entities, such as governments, one way to encourage OER adoption is by having laws that require publicly funded educational resources to be freely available to the public. This ensures that educational content is open and accessible and that copyright laws are less of a barrier to sharing information.

For educational institutions, such as universities, it is important to integrate OERs into their policies and encourage the use of OERs in teaching (Moulitharun, 2024). One effective way to achieve this is through promoting cross-disciplinary learning, a practice that can greatly benefit legal education, particularly in areas like IP. In my view, OERs extend beyond access to resources; it is about exploring and engaging with other disciplines to foster a more inclusive approach to knowledge. This allows for cross-disciplinary teaching and learning, where collaboration between fields like technology, business, art, and law can be very important.

How can openness aid in cross-disciplinary learning and teaching in IP law?

There are countless examples of how openness can help cross-disciplinary learning and teaching in IP law. This blog will examine two in detail.

  1. MA Academic Practice: Open Education Principles

The MA Academic Practice is a part-time postgraduate taught programme aimed at staff with an educating role with students in Higher Education (City, n.d.). Throughout my time in the course, I’ve had the opportunity to engage with staff from various disciplines including computer science, politics, health, and employability. As a result, my teaching of IP law was enriched in ways I had not initially anticipated. Such experience resonates with the broader principles of open education. As the Cape Town Open Education Declaration (2007) rightly asserts, open education is not limited to just open educational resources. It involves open technologies that aid collaborative, flexible learning and the open sharing of teaching practices, allowing educators to benefit from the best ideas of their colleagues. This vision aligns closely with my own experience in the MA programme, where collaboration across disciplines has been important in expanding my teaching approach.

For example, in one module, Student Support and Personal Tutoring, I collaborated with other staff members from Computer Science and Policy and Global Affairs to create a guide on the responsible use of AI for students. Not only did this project allow me to explore how AI can impact learning and provide valuable information on how to teach students to engage with AI responsibly, but it also has relevance in IP law education. One of the pressing challenges in IP law is ensuring that students understand the ethical considerations of their current and future practice. This goes beyond issues like plagiarism and copyright infringement to include growing challenges such as ownership of data. Dalton (2002) stated that one of higher education’s key tasks is to help students link intellectual and ethical development, preparing them to live lives of both achievement and responsibility (p. 1). This is especially crucial in teaching ethical decision-making in IP law, especially as technology introduces new ethical problems such as the potential for AI to infringe upon creative works.

Moreover, open education can expand to include new ways of assessments, accreditation, and collaborative learning, all of which mirror the European Commission’s definition of open education. According to the EU, open education is a method of carrying out education, usually using digital technologies, intending to widen access and participation (e.g., removing barriers, making learning accessible, etc) (EU Science Hub, European Commission, 2016; Jhangiani et al., 2024). It encourages multiple ways of teaching and learning, as well as building and sharing knowledge. These principles are reflected in the MA Academic Practice.

For instance, in the Curriculum Development and Evaluation module, peers reviewed video assessments, providing constructive feedback and learning from each other. Similarly, in Assessment Design and Feedback (EDM126), peers wrote formative feedback for assessment briefs, encouraging a collaborative learning environment. In Digital Literacies and Open Practices (EDM122), online forums were used as a discussion tool (e.g. on day 4, staff reflected on embedding digital literacies and open practice in the curriculum, answering questions such as whether it was useful and how to implement it in their own teaching). The use of digital tools within the MA course, such as online discussion forums and collaborative platforms, has allowed for flexible learning and easy access to materials tailored to individual needs.

Moreover, Huitt and Monetti (2017) offer an insightful comparison between open education and traditional methods, particularly in the areas of assessment, teaching philosophy, and learning resources. Traditional assessments, such as standardised tests, are often artificial and focus solely on end results. In contrast, open education stresses that assessments should mirror real-world processes and encourage authentic learning (Jhangiani et al., 2024). This approach is exemplified in modules of the MA Academic Practice, such as creating a video in EDM122 or developing an assessment brief in EDM126. These methods not only align with the principles of open education but also contribute to a more inclusive and adaptable learning environment. In my future teaching of IP law, I plan to incorporate these principles, using authentic assessments, fostering collaborative learning, and using flexible digital tools to engage students and accommodate diverse learning styles.

2. Institute for Creativity and AI (ICAI): Open Access Research

Another example of how openness can help cross-disciplinary learning and teaching in IP law is through ICAI. Recently, City St George’s established the ICAI to explore the strategic impacts of creativity, creative work, and AI technologies (City, n.d.). This initiative brings together academics and students from various fields across the university, including law, business management, healthcare, journalism, and the arts, fostering an interdisciplinary approach to research and education. As Gamsby (2020) highlights, open access, that is, making research freely available to everyone, and interdisciplinarity, that is combining knowledge from different fields, are closely connected. While open access and interdisciplinarity may initially seem unrelated, Gamsby argues that these two concepts fundamentally support each other.

Thus, although the ICAI’s goals may not explicitly mention open access research, its interdisciplinary nature, which bridges various academic fields through research involving AI, aligns with the principles of open access. Sharing knowledge openly supports the core tenets of interdisciplinarity, such as fostering collaboration and breaking down barriers between disciplines. By publishing research findings and making them openly accessible, the ICAI has the potential to contribute significantly to open-access research. This, in turn, can provide valuable resources not only to City St George’s staff and students but also to the broader academic and professional community.

Finally, the ICAI could organise public events, such as workshops and conferences, focusing on the relationship between AI and IP law. For instance, when teaching IP law to second-year LLB students, a recurring theme is AI, particularly in copyright and patent law. It would be beneficial if experts from various disciplines participated in these events to share their insights. By making these events open and accessible to all, the ICAI would promote the open sharing of knowledge, ensuring that information is available to everyone without barriers, much like OERs have done for course materials.

Making these events open-access would allow both students and professionals to benefit from cross-disciplinary perspectives without financial barriers. This mirrors the impact of OERs, which provide affordable, accessible educational content and help alleviate the financial burdens faced by students. Over the past few decades, the rising costs of commercial textbooks have posed a significant barrier for many students (Jhangiani et al., 2024). This issue has been further exacerbated by the shift to digital learning, particularly after the COVID-19 pandemic (Lederman, 2022). In response, OERs have emerged as a solution, providing affordable and accessible course materials. These efforts align with the broader principles of open practice and open access, which seek to make educational content more widely available. Just as OERs ensure equity in learning, open-access events foster inclusivity and broaden participation, supporting both academic and professional communities.

Conclusion

Reflecting on Posner’s critique and the concepts of Open Practice from EDM122, I see how these ideas challenge traditional boundaries of law and knowledge. The MA Academic practice and the ICAI are prime examples of how openness fosters cross-disciplinary learning and teaching in IP law. Sustainability, art, and other areas offer further opportunities to explore these connections, which future blogs can explore.

Reference list:

  1. Camilleri, A. & UNESCO (1970). ‘Open educational resources’. UNESCO. Available at: https://www.unesco.org/en/open-educational-resources [Accessed: 1 January 2025].
  2. Cape Town Open Education Declaration (2007). Cape Town Open Education Declaration. Available at: http://www.capetowndeclaration.org/ [Accessed: 3 February 2025].
  3. City (no date b). Ma Academic Practice – Master’s Degree, City, University of London. Available at: https://www.city.ac.uk/prospective-students/courses/postgraduate/academic-practice [Accessed: 3 February 2025].
  4. City, University of London (no date). The Institute for Creativity and AI. Available at: https://www.city.ac.uk/research/centres/the-institute-for-creativity-and-ai [Accessed: 13 January 2025].
  5. Creative Commons (n.d.). ‘About the licenses’. Available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ [Accessed: 13 January 2025].
  6. Creative Commons (no date). Deed – Attribution 4.0 International – Creative Commons. Available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ [Accessed: 3 February 2025].
  7. Creative Commons Licenses (no date). Cambridge Core. Available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/open-research/creative-commons-licenses [Accessed: 3 February 2025].
  8. Cronin, C. (2017). ‘Openness and Praxis: Exploring the Use of Open Educational Practices in Higher Education’. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(5). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i5.3096.
  9. Dalton, J.C. (2002). ‘Debunking the campus culture of detachment’. Journal of College & Character: What They’re Reading!. Available at: www.collegevalues.org/ethics.cfm?id=683&a=1 [Accessed: 3 February 2025].
  10. Digital Experience Insights (no date). Jisc. Available at: https://www.jisc.ac.uk/digital-experience-insights [Accessed: 1 February 2025].
  11. Ehlers, U.-D. (2011). ‘Extending the territory: From open educational resources to open educational practices’. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 15(2). Available at: http://www.editlib.org/p/147891/ [Accessed: 3 February 2025].
  12. EU Science Hub (2016). ‘What is open education?’ EU Science Hub. Available at: https://joint-researchcentre.ec.europa.eu/what-open-education_en [Accessed: 3 February 2025].
  13. Gamsby, P. (2020). ‘The common ground of open access and interdisciplinarity’. Publications, 8(1), p. 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications8010001 [Accessed: 13 January 2025].
  14. Huitt, W. & Monetti, D. (2017). ‘Openness and the transformation of education and schooling’. In: R. Jhangiani & R. Biswas-Diener, eds., Open: The philosophy and practices that are revolutionizing education and science. London: Ubiquity Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5334/bbc.d [Accessed 3 February 2025].
  15. Jhangiani, R., Farrelly, T., Ó Súilleabháin, G. & Coakley, D. (2024). ‘Open education practices in higher education: Focusing on responsiveness, innovation & inclusivity’. N-TUTORR Stream 3, May 2024. Available at: https://www.transforminglearning.ie/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Open-Educational-Practices_green-paper1405.pdf [Accessed: 3 February 2025].
  16. Lederman, D. (2022). ‘Turnover, burnout and demoralization in higher ed’. Inside Higher Ed. Available at: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/05/04/turnover-burnout-and-demoralizationhigher-ed [Accessed 3 February 2025].
  17. Moe, R. (2015). ‘The brief and expansive history (and future) of the MOOC: Why two divergent models share the same name’. Current Issues in Emerging eLearning, 2(1). Available at: http://scholarworks.umb.edu/ciee/vol2/iss1/2 [Accessed: 1 January 2025].
  18. MOULITHARUN, S. (2024). ‘Unlocking knowledge: The intersection of open educational resources (OER) and copyright in achieving Sustainable Development Goal 4’. Articles. Available at: https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/UNLOCKING-KNOWLEDGE-THE-INTERSECTION-OF-OPEN-EDUCATIONAL-RESOURCES-OER-AND-COPYRIGHT-IN-ACHIEVING-SUSTAINABLE-DEVELOPMENT-GOAL-4?utm_source=chatgpt.com [Accessed: 13 January 2025].
  19. Posner, R. (1987). ‘The decline of law as an autonomous discipline: 1962-1987’. Harvard Law Review, 100, pp. 761-779.
  20. UCL (no date). ‘Open educational resources and copyright: What do you need to consider?’. OpenUCL Blog. Available at: https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/open-access/2024/11/07/open-educational-resources-and-copyright-what-do-you-need-to-consider/ [Accessed: 1 January 2025].
  21. What is open education practice? (no date). Open.Ed, University of Edinburgh. Available at: https://open.ed.ac.uk/what-is-open-education-practice/ [Accessed: 1 January 2025].
  22. Wiley, D., Bliss, T.J. & McEwen, M. (2014). ‘Open educational resources: A review of the literature’. In: Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. New York: Springer.

Digital Games and Digital Education Tools: Transforming Digital Literacy in Engineering Education

Posted on by
Reply

This blog post was written by Maria Livada as part of the final assignment for the module EDM122: Digital Literacies and Open Practice.

As a lecturer in Engineering, I’ve spent years oscillating between excitement and anxiety about technology’s role in education. Excitement because tools like simulations and AI-driven platforms can unlock creativity in ways whiteboards never could. Anxiety, because the pace of digital change demands that we rethink how we teach – not just what we teach. Industries now demand engineers who aren’t just technically skilled but digitally literate: thinkers who can collaborate virtually, critically evaluate digital systems and innovate with tools that didn’t exist a decade ago. But how do we prepare students for this reality?

This question led me to explore digital games and educational tools – not as plain activities but as transformative bridges between theory and practice. In this post, I’ll share how these tools are reshaping my teaching, what the research says (and where it falls short), and how we can tackle the challenges of integrating them meaningfully. First, I will provide some context and valuable statistics on digital literacy.

Digital literacy consists of the ability to effectively communicate and create using digital tools and the development of skills such as critical thinking, problem-solving and collaboration (JISC, 2022).

According to the 2023/24 UK HE Students’ Digital Experience Insights Survey by JISC, although 85% of students perceived their university’s digital learning environment as above average, only 37% believed they had adequate opportunities to build digital skills needed for future employment (JISC, 2023).

When I started teaching, I focused on ensuring students were fluent with software like MATLAB and Simulink. But I soon realised this wasn’t enough. One student, for example, could model a control system in Simulink but struggled to troubleshoot why it failed under real-world constraints. At the same time, another had difficulties translating their findings into a collaborative report using shared digital platforms.

This disconnection reflects broader concerns in the literature. As Aoun (2017) and Chakrabarti et al. (2021) argue, automation and AI aren’t just changing what engineers do – they’re redefining their thinking. Technical proficiency alone won’t cut it; students need resilience, creativity, and the ability to “learn how to learn” in a digital ecosystem. For me, this means using digital tools like virtual labs and digital games not just to simulate experiments but to push students to ask: Why a system does or does not behave differently in simulation and reality? What assumptions used to build this software?

For instance, using Falstad’s circuit simulator, an MSc student a few years back helped me redesign a lab experiment – an exercise that I currently use in my Electronics I class to test students’ understanding of that concept.

But digital literacy isn’t just about tools; it’s about mindset. I’ve noticed that current students (who grow up with technology) often assume they’re “digitally literate” simply because they can navigate apps or social media. Yet, when asked to evaluate the reliability of an online source or adjust the parameters of a system designed using a digital tool according to a set of specifications, many hesitate. This aligns with Caratozzolo et al.’s (2021) observation that digital literacy requires not just technical skills but also critical thinking and adaptability.

Let’s address the elephant in the room: many of us still see games as distractions. One of my most memorable teaching moments was when I introduced Kahoot, an educational platform for designing quizzes, to my Probability and Statistics class. With Kahoot, you can experiment with gamification features, introducing social learning into your teaching practice. My main goal at the time was to validate if students had met the learning outcomes of that lecture. Hence, I introduced the game at the end of the class, and I asked them to split into teams of 3 people. A member from each team would use a smartphone to answer the questions. The game was timed, so the team that answered most of the questions in less time would be the winning team. The game allows to create a leader board and keep track of a team’s progress for quite some time. At first, students were quite hesitant with this approach, and I thought they felt that it would be a waste of their time. But I was mistaken. Students enjoyed it a lot and the attendance didn’t drop as much for the remaining teaching weeks.

Research backs this up. Educational games have been shown to strengthen specific aspects of digital literacy, including information finding, critical thinking, and social understanding (Rohmani and Pambudi, 2023). These outcomes align closely with constructivist learning principles, which emphasise the importance of active, learner-centred experiences. Likewise, Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning theory highlights how digital tools can support practical exercises, reflection, and the process of building to improvements. Games like SimCity or Bridge Constructor create “authentic” learning environments where students confront trade-offs (e.g., cost vs. safety in engineering design) that mirror real-world challenges (Udeozor et al., 2023). But here’s my critique: most studies focus on what games teach, not how they foster critical digital literacy. But it is not just that, when students are playing a digital game, they’re not just learning systems thinking – they’re also navigating the game’s interface, modding tools, and online forums. These “hidden” skills—troubleshooting, collaborating in digital spaces, and evaluating user-generated content are where true literacy develops.

Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR) tools take this further. Tang et al. (2010) highlight how VR games improve decision-making under pressure, like managing a virtual disaster scenario. But in my experience, the real magic happens after the simulation. When students debrief in Microsoft Teams, sharing screenshots and debating choices, they’re practising the kind of digital collaboration they’ll need in remote engineering teams.

Yet, games aren’t the answer to all problems. Students can become so fixated on “winning” that they can overlook crucial features, like safety margins or certain specifications (in an engineering setting). According to Kilgore et al. (2007) gamification can sometimes prioritise competition over critical reflection. To address this, I am thinking of pairing gameplay with reflective journals. After each game, students will be asked to write about ethical dilemmas they encounter (e.g., cutting costs vs. risking safety) and how they would apply these in real engineering contexts.

Beyond games, collaborative platforms like Microsoft Teams, Miro, and Notion play a vital role in engineering education. These tools support project-based learning, enabling students to collaborate on designs, manage workflows, and communicate effectively. AI-powered systems further enhance learning by offering personalised feedback and recommendations, empowering students to take control of their progress.

Virtual labs, such as Labster, are another game-changer. For example, students can simulate fluid dynamics experiments, exploring theoretical principles without needing physical lab equipment. This not only makes learning more accessible but also ensures that students from diverse backgrounds can engage with high-quality STEM education.

But here is where I see a gap in the literature. While studies like Gilliot et al. (2010) emphasise the importance of digital tools in fostering 21st-century skills, they often overlook the emotional and social dimensions of learning. For instance, when students use Miro to brainstorm ideas, they’re not just collaborating – they’re building trust, negotiating roles, and managing conflicts. These “soft” skills are just as critical as technical ones, yet they’re rarely measured or discussed in research. Consider AI-driven feedback systems. While they can easily identify coding errors or structural flaws, they can’t replicate the mentorship of a professor who notices a student’s frustration and offers encouragement. This tension between efficiency and humanity is something I tackle with daily. As Pool et al. (2019) note, emotional intelligence is a cornerstone of adaptability – but how do we teach it in a digital-first world?

Of course, integrating these tools isn’t easy. Early on, I assumed students would naturally adapt to digital collaboration. Then I assigned a Miro whiteboard exercise – only to watch one group dominate the board while other groups waited passively. This taught me that digital literacy isn’t just about access; it’s about equity in participation.

Another problem is accessibility. While in my teaching practice I try to use lightweight tools like Falstad, not every student has reliable internet or a capable device. This aligns with Gilliot et al.’s (2010) warning that tech-heavy curricula risk excluding marginalised learners. My solution? Pair high-tech and low-tech tasks. For example, students might design a system in a virtual lab but present their findings via a video recorded on a smartphone which aligns with Frydenberg’s (2015) emphasis on creativity over specs.

Teaching staff resistance is another barrier. Instructors may feel unprepared to integrate digital tools effectively due to a lack of training or familiarity. Institutions must provide professional development programs that equip educators with the necessary skills and confidence. Peer-led workshops and open access to resources can further support staff in embracing digital tools.

Assessment is perhaps the trickiest challenge. Traditional exams often fail to capture the creativity and collaboration nurtured by digital tools. Inspired by Craifaleanu and Craifaleanu (2022), I now use “gamified group assessments” where students as part of a group solve engineering problems within simulations imitating real-world remote teamwork.

Looking ahead, I’m excited and cautious. Tools like AI-driven analytics promise personalised learning, but I worry about over-reliance on algorithms. Instead, I would like to further explore co-creation, i.e., students to build their own simulations, then evaluate each other’s designs. It’s messy, but as one student said, “Building a game taught me more about user bias than any lecture.”

I’m also hopeful for institutional support for OER. I hope that my department will adopt openly licensed textbooks. This helps to overcome barriers and guarantee that all students have access to good materials. By implementing these measures, we can make the learning environment more inclusive and efficient. This aligns with Niño and Evans’ (2015) vision of students as active knowledge producers, not passive consumers.

But perhaps the most transformative step is fostering critical pedagogy, a term associated with educational theorist Paulo Freire (Freire, 2005). It’s about acknowledging the challenges of digital inequality and algorithmic bias while empowering students to reshape the tools they inherit.

Digital literacy isn’t just about keeping up with technology – it’s about empowering students to question, adapt, and reshape the tools they’ll inherit. Games and simulations are powerful, but their true value lies in initiating conversations: Who decides what a “valid” simulation result is? How do we design inclusive digital spaces? As educators, we’re not just teaching engineers. We’re fostering citizens of a digital world. And that’s a challenge worth playing for.

I have chosen to publish this blog post under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (CC BY-NC-SA) license. I think this kind of licence aligns with my values of openness, accessibility, collaboration, inclusivity and, finally, knowledge sharing. It enables people to share, adapt, and build on this work for non-commercial purposes if they attribute the original author and any derivative works released under the same citation. This hopefully will contribute to the discussion on digital literacy and will urge educators to use open approaches to help all students have a fair chance to learn. Digital games and digital educational tools can be great tools in transforming engineering education, enhancing digital literacy, and preparing students for a world that is increasingly dependent on technology. They offer ways of learning by doing, critical problem solving and teamwork and provide a solution to the problems of accessibility and equity. Digital literacy is not just a skill; it is a skill for life in the modern world.

References

Aoun, J.E. (2017) ‘Robot-proof’, MIT Press.

Caratozzolo, P., Alvarez-Delgado, A. & Sirkis, G. (2021) ‘Fostering digital literacy through active learning in engineering education’, 2021 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), pp. 1–6.

Chakrabarti, S. et al. (2021) ‘Preparing engineers for lifelong learning in the era of industry 4.0’, 2021 World Engineering Education Forum/Global Engineering Deans Council (WEEF/GEDC), pp. 518–523.

Craifaleanu, A. and Craifaleanu, I.G. (2022). ‘A co‐creation experiment for virtual laboratories of mechanics in engineering education’, Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 30(4), pp.991-1008.

Dacre Pool, L., Gurbutt, D. and Houston, K. (2019) ‘Developing employable, emotionally intelligent, and resilient graduate citizens of the future’, Employability via Higher Education: Sustainability as Scholarship, pp. 83–97. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-26342-3_6.

Freire, P. (2005). ‘Pedagogy Of The Oppressed: 30Th Anniversary Edition’, Trans. By Myra Bergman Ramos. Editorial: New York Continuum.

Frydenberg, M. (2015) ‘Achieving digital literacy through game development: An authentic learning experience’, Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 12, pp. 256–269.

Gilliot, J.M., Garlatti, S. & Simon, G. (2010) ‘Impact of digital literacy on the engineering curriculum’, Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Education (ICEE), pp. 1–6.

JISC. (2022). Individual digital capabilities. [online] Available at: https://digitalcapability.jisc.ac.uk/what-is-digital-capability/individual-digital-capabilities/.

JISC (2023). 2023/24 UK higher education students digital experience insights survey findings. [online] Available at: https://digitalinsights.jisc.ac.uk/reports-and-briefings/our-reports/2023-24-uk-higher-education-students-digital-experience-insights-survey-findings/.

Kilgore, D. et al. (2007) ‘Creative, contextual, and engaged: Are women the engineers of 2020?’, 2007 Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings [Preprint].

Kolb, D. A. (1984) ‘Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Niño, M. & Evans, M.A. (2015) ‘Fostering 21st-century skills in constructivist engineering classrooms with digital game-based learning’, IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologias del Aprendizaje, 10, pp. 143–149.

Rohmani, R. & Pambudi, N. (2023) ‘A critical review of educational games as a tool for strengthening digital literacy’, International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research, 4(1), pp. 23–36.

Tang, Y., Shetty, S.S. & Chen, X. (2010) ‘Empowering students with engineering literacy and problem-solving through interactive virtual reality games’, 2010 2nd International IEEE Consumer Electronics Society’s Games Innovations Conference, pp. 1–6.

Udeozor, C., Russo-Abegão, F. & Glassey, J. (2023) ‘Perceptions and factors affecting the adoption of digital games for engineering education: A mixed-method research’, International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), p. 45.

Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International

Welcome to Digital Literacies and Open Practice 2024-5

Posted on by
Reply

I can’t believe we are about to start this module again for the sixth time as the module was first created in 2018. How time flies! We have a new cohort of students, and I’ve just completed some research on the impact of teaching on this module. The findings about what staff think of their own and their students’ digital literacies are really interesting and going to be the subject of a LEaD Learning Circle event in November. We also collected data on their attitudes towards open educational practices. Watch this space as I have also just submitted the first of a few planned journal articles on this research.

Definitions and terminology are both topics for discussion in next week’s first teaching day. I am really looking forward to meeting the new cohort, as this continues to be a really fascinating area to teach (and do research) in. We’ve got some introductory reading on what are digital literacies (from AdvanceHE) and a similar short piece on what open educational practices are from University of Edinburgh. A key part of the day is also going to be learning about where understanding copyright fits in this whole process and we have a link to last year’s guest lecture from Chris Morrison as he sadly can’t join us next week. But, it’s going to be a great term and good luck to everyone taking the module!

Library and Digital Literacy in Indonesia: A reflective essay

Posted on by
Reply

This blog post was written by Khosyi Maulana as part of the final assignment for the module EDM122 at City, University of London and licensed under CC BY-ND-SA 

Introduction

Digital literacy is important for me as a librarian in Indonesia, particularly if we talk about today’s world, where technology continues to be more advanced, and it creates a“tsunami” of information, something that people cannot avoid. The ability to access, understand, and utilise digital information and technologies has become more crucial for individuals to survive in this era. This is particularly relevant to Indonesia because, by 2035, Indonesia is expected to benefit from a demographic bonus, as around 70% of its population will be within the working age range. According to some experts, this demographic shift can be a crucial turning point for Indonesia to emerge as a developed country. To make the most of this demographic bonus, the Indonesian government has implemented numerous strategies to enhance the quality of Indonesian people. One of the strategies is developing digital literacy skills because it can make people understand and use the information in the digital world to their benefit (Republic of Indonesia, 2020).

As a part of the Indonesian government, the National Library of Indonesia (NLI) has a significant role in promoting digital literacy in Indonesia. In the National mid-term development plan (2020-2024), the library sector is considered a social institution that drives literacy and innovation. As a social institution, it is the library’s duty to improve society through knowledge creation, and promoting digital literacy is one of the actions the library should take. Digital literacy is essential not only for library patrons but also for the librarian. It is a prerequisite competency before promoting digital literacy to the users.

Undoubtedly, digital literacy is a critical skill that people should have in this century. Digital literacy encompasses a range of skills and knowledge required to effectively use digital technologies for various purposes, including reading, writing, and critical thinking. It is not merely about the functional ability to use technology but also involves a deeper understanding and critical evaluation of digital content and environments (Secker, 2018; Bawden and Robinson, 2022). Secker also highlights the importance of digital literacy in navigating the complexities of the digital world, emphasising that it is more than just technical skills. In shorter words, digital literacy is the capability required to thrive, i.e. be effective and responsible in a digital society, and these abilities allow individuals to adjust to the ever-changing digital environment (Radovanović, 2024; Advance HE, no date). Digital literacy is also related to other literacy, such as information, media, and data literacy.

Fig.1 Digital capabilities framework: the Six Elements (JISC, 2024)

One of the digital capabilities is digital proficiency and productivity. Digital productivity is how individuals use digital skills to accomplish tasks, and it is related to how digital technology is changing practices such as the business (JISC, 2024). Libraries in Indonesia are concerned about developing these skills; for instance, Endang, a micro-entrepreneur from Ponorogo (Indonesia), attended the online business training conducted by the Ponorogo public library-bukalapak (e-commerce platform) and increased her sales and income through the social media (Alfatih, 2021). In this training, Endang learns how to create a” store” in e-commerce, use the right keywords for the products, promote her online store on social media and manage the content, which is all needed to sell products digitally. This fact proves that digital literacy could improve the quality of people’s lives. Furthermore, the impact of digital literacy on people’s income also happened in Pucheng County (China). Digital activities related to work and learning are identified as significant contributors to the increase in household wealth and field (Yao, Qin and Gao, 2022).

Digital literacy is a must-have skill for librarians to serve library users in a digital environment. In the digital age, information is not only limited to physical forms but extends to digital resources such as databases, e-books and online journals. Therefore, librarians must be proficient in navigating these digital resources to provide accurate information and support to library users (Bawden and Robinson, 2022).  As a librarian at the Center of Librarian Development, National Library of Indonesia, I did not directly serve the library users, but I was involved in ensuring the quality of librarians’ services through development programs such as training, workshops and seminars. The expected outcomes from the programs are to improve the librarians’ digital literacy skills and promote digital literacy to the patrons, as exemplified by Ponorogo Public Library.

Indonesian library community in promoting digital literacy

The library community is not a single player in developing digital literacy skills within society. In Indonesia, several institutions play a role in developing digital literacy, such as the National Library of Indonesia, the Ministry of Education and Culture, and the Ministry of Communication and Informatics. As a part of the government, the National Library of Indonesia is a leading institution in developing digital literacy through library services. A notable effort that NLI has made is to develop a digital library platform called iPusnas (https://ipusnas.id/). iPusnas enable Indonesian citizens to access digital books and comment or share their thoughts about the book.

Figure 2. iPusnas interface

Besides providing digital books, one of the NLI’s duties is to ensure the libraries in Indonesia deliver the services and meet users’ information needs. This task is carried out through several things, such as composing regulations, creating practical guides and training for librarian development. In 2022, I was involved in a team that organised online workshops about technology-based information literacy for librarians. 3,400 library staff from 34 provinces in Indonesia attended this series of workshops.

This workshop was held in partnership between NLI and the Indonesia Academic Library Association. I represented NLI in that collaboration, and my tasks included drawing up the budget, setting technical details of the event (zoom), being involved in training materials preparation, and giving a report to the Head of the Center of Librarian Development. The main focus of this workshop was to enhance information literacy skills in a digital environment by combining accessible advanced technology with five critical parts of information literacy skills: identifying information needs, finding information, evaluating sources, analysing the information and disseminating information. It will help the librarians to be agile in providing information or resources to the users in digital landscape. For instance, using Vos viewer as a tool to draw a correlation between subjects related to the users’ information needs and determine sources that have the most influence on a particular subject.

Besides NLI, various libraries, particularly public libraries, promoted digital literacy. Numerous public libraries in Indonesia have done tremendous activity in promoting digital literacy. Digital infrastructure and digital skills in Indonesia are quite varied, some regions are advanced, and others are behind. These circumstances affect the variety of digital literacy promotion. For example, Cukangkawu Village Library (West Java) provide access to the internet and trains local people to use it for their own benefit. Intan, one of the participants, used the skills that she had from the training to develop her “online shop” (Alfatih, 2021). Basic computer skills are needed to be digitally literate, so Pulang Pisau Public Library (Central Borneo) provides basic computer training for local people who have never learned computers before.

School libraries in Indonesia are also involved in promoting digital literacy. In Yogyakarta province, even though it was limited, elementary school librarians engaged with students in teaching specific information literacy skills. On rare occasions, classroom teachers may invite librarians to teach students internet exploration skills to find references and differentiate between trusted and untrusted websites or digital resources (Suwarto, Setiawan and Machmiyah, 2022)

Library institutions are not the only players who promote digital literacy in the library field. Information professional organizations such as the Indonesian Library and Information Science Scholars Associations (ISIPII) also promoted digital literacy through many seminars. One of the notable seminars was about the Creative Commons license, which was held in partnership with Creative Common Indonesia. The seminar successfully informed the Indonesian library community about open access and licensing in digital content.

Despite all the efforts and activities to promote digital literacy through the library, there is much room for improvement and development.

Further Improvement

I think learning digital literacy is related to learning or understanding human beings because digital literacy skills are not only about hard skills or technical skills in handling information in a digital environment. The side of digital literacy that only a few people are concerned about is the value within it. It is related to inclusivity, ethics, freedom of expression, intellectual property and data privacy or, in a single word, “humanity”. Librarians should be more concerned and efforts to address these issues, particularly in developing countries like Indonesia. Why is this important? The purpose or intention of using technology depends on the people, not the technology itself. The nature of technology is neutral, neither inherently good nor bad. Various entities, including governments, financial institutions, and parents, are responsible for determining the most ethical and sensible ways of utilising it (Schmid and Cohen, 2013).

One of the issues in finding information or resources in the digital environment is copyright. Legal and ethical considerations in using information as a core component of the digital literacy (Morrison and Secker, 2017). Moreover, Awareness of copyright and its implications is essential when creating, interacting with, or sharing content using digital technologies, making it intertwined with all critical aspects of digital literacies and capabilities, especially in the context of the ethics of sharing (Morrison, 2018). The first thing I want to develop as an Indonesian librarian is an awareness of copyright, not only for librarians but also for library patrons. It is ironic if library users use an internet connection in the library to access illegal streaming websites. Undeniably, the website owner is the bad guy, but people who access it, also violate copyright. Do they have digital literacy skills (technical skills)? There is no research about it, but some of them may have digital skills. Librarians should uphold and educate their users about copyright as professionals who work for knowledge and society. A society that upholds the copyright creates a better environment for creativity and innovation and contributes to the people involved in the works. Other than that, violating copyrights in the digital world leads users to a worse problem like online gambling, data scamming and pornography as illegal website streaming sets a lot of banners that directly to online gambling sites and pornography.

Preserving and digitising ancient manuscripts is mandatory for the National Library of Indonesia. Over the last decade, NLI has digitised many ancient manuscripts, old newspapers, and old literature, and understanding copyright and how it is implemented in those digitised files become more important. When libraries and institutions digitise copyrighted materials, they must ensure that their actions comply with copyright laws to avoid legal repercussions (Morrison and Secker, 2017). Besides that, understanding copyright is also needed in cataloguing digitised materials, the digital license of the materials must be clear.

The communication gap between generations did happen in NLI, and it started with the discussion in the WhatsApp group. Since I am in the middle of those generations, unofficially, my boss asked me to bridge the gap. I frequently communicated with senior group librarians and tried to understand what they were thinking about younger librarians and expect. The elder group knew that the younger generation had more talent and skill but needed to learn how to express their criticism and think in the right manner. Besides that, in social media like X, Instagram, and TikTok, many lecturers, teachers and HR professionals tell the story about how badly the millennial generation, Generation Z, and the next generation communicate through personal messages. For instance, they usually use “P” “P” P” at the beginning of the chat. P means Ping. In Indonesia, we usually use it to get immediate responses, but only for our peers.  That is why “Digital etiquette” in digital literacy training for librarians/library users is the other thing I want to put in. Digital etiquette might seem a little problem, but at a certain point, it will impact their (younger generation) future.

Last, when I was involved in creating workshops and training for librarians, people who were involved sometimes did not think about the habits of the librarians, especially in online learning. I will propose to the training or workshop organiser to assess librarian habits in the digital world. It can be done using David White’s visitor and resident concept. A Visitor uses the web only to get what they need, taking care to leave no trace of themselves, whilst the Resident lives a portion of their life online, leaving behind a visible form of self on the web (White, 2012). With a better understanding of librarian habits in the digital world, the organiser could choose the right methods to deliver training or materials and ensure every training participant will gain new knowledge and skills.

 

To meet the required assessment criteria, this essay will be shared on the EDM122 Blog platform under the Commons Creative Licence. This licence will grant complete copyright permission for both academic and creative work. We appreciate your cooperation and look forward to your contribution.

 

 

References

Advance HE (no date) Digital literacies | Advance HE. Available at: https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/digital-literacies.

Alfatih, M.I. (2021) Impact stories of library transformation based on social inclusion. National Library of Indonesia. Available at: https://oer.perpusnas.go.id/items/fdcb921f-7297-4d8b-8592-bd1e57159d65.

Bawden, D. and Robinson, L. (2022) Introduction to Information Science. Second Edition. London: Facet Publishing.

JISC (2024) ‘Building digital capabilities framework – the six elements’. Available at: https://repository.jisc.ac.uk/8846/1/2022_Jisc_BDC_Individual_Framework.pdf.

Morrison, C. (2018) ‘Copyright and digital literacy: rules, risk and creativity’, in K. Reedy and J. Parker (eds) Digital literacy unpacked. London: Facet Publishing.

Morrison, C. and Secker, J. (2017) ‘Understanding librarians’ experiences of copyright: Findings from a phenomenographic study of UK information professionals’, Library Management, 38(6/7), pp. 354–368. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/LM-01-2017-0011.

Radovanović, D. (ed.) (2024) Digital Literacy and Inclusion: Stories, Platforms, Communities. Cham: Springer International Publishing. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30808-6.

Republic of Indonesia (2020) ‘The National medium-term development plan for 2020-2024’. Ministry of National Development Planning. Available at: https://perpustakaan.bappenas.go.id/e-library/file_upload/koleksi/migrasi-data-publikasi/file/RP_RKP/Narasi-RPJMN-2020-2024-versi-Bahasa-Inggris.pdf.

Schmid, E. and Cohen, J. (2013) The New Digital Age: Transforming Nations, Businesses, and Our Lives. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.

Secker, J. (2018) ‘The Trouble With Terminology: Rehabilitating and Rethinking “Digital Literacy”’, in K. Reedy and J. Parker (eds) Digital Literacy Unpacked. 1st edn. Facet, pp. 3–16. Available at: https://doi.org/10.29085/9781783301997.003.

Suwarto, D.H., Setiawan, B. and Machmiyah, S. (2022) ‘Developing Digital Literacy Practices in Yogyakarta Elementary Schools’, Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 20(2), pp. pp101-111. Available at: https://doi.org/10.34190/ejel.20.2.2602.

White, D. (2012) ‘Visitors and residents and learner-owned literacies.pdf’, Multimedia & Information Technology, 38(1). Available at: https://web.p.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=e070828a-27d5-4f97-aaa1-e7f03d40e37b%40redis.

Yao, Y., Qin, S. and Gao, Y. (2022) ‘Research on the Impact of Digital Literacy on the Overall Income of Rural Households: A Case Study of 410 Questionnaires in Pucheng County, Shaanxi Province’, Highlights in Business, Economics and Management, 1, pp. 285–292. Available at: https://doi.org/10.54097/hbem.v1i.2589.

 

Healthcare Publishing in Open Access Journals

Posted on by
Reply

This post is written by Asma Ashraf, a Lecturer in Adult Nursing at City University of London. This is part of Asma’s assignment for EDM122 and is licensed under CC BY. Asma writes:

Publishing in open access journals – to do or not to do!

I clicked on a link to read an article on the university library website. A message appeared asking do I want to ‘Get Open Access version’ and to click on the red button.  I wondered if it is correct, surely this is not a ‘paywall’. I laugh nervously as I think to myself, I do not need to worry about this, I have access!

As an academic, I am privileged to have access to most journals. As I proceed, I think to myself, is this a test? Are the module leaders trying to point out the challenges that others face? This is not a message I have seen before and I decide that it is reminding me that there are free versions available to access.

This is very telling about the challenges that those wanting to access academic journal articles experience.  I have been on the receiving end of hitting ‘paywalls’ and it invokes stress. In this essay, I will be exploring whether healthcare workers should only publish in open access journals. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) in their ‘Recommendation on Open Science’ guide want scientific research to benefit all globally (UNESCO, 2023).

Let me rewind a little and explain what I mean by ‘paywall’.  Paywalls are also known as digital subscriptions. It is where you make regular payments to gain access to digital content (Myllylahti, 2019). A paywall in the academic setting is when you must pay per article or choose to have a digital subscription to access peer-reviewed articles (Open Society Foundations, 2018).  Paywalls are used by online news sources such as newspapers and have been used in journalism since 2010 when the phrase was coined (Myllylahti, 2019).  In journalism, the reasons for paying for news are not quite the same as open access for scientific knowledge. Paywalls preventing users from accessing scientific publications are denying access to scientific knowledge and not fostering an open science culture (UNESCO, 2023).

As a nurse lecturer, I am interested in knowing what the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) website say about open access to support nurses and nursing students.  There is no direct discussion about open access; however, the NMC do discuss modernising of education for nursing students. This has become more relevant particularly since leaving the European Union and new standards dictating nurse education require access to evidence and best practice (NMC, 2023).

 

My Hunger for Knowledge

As a nurse working in the National Health Service (NHS) since the late 1990s, I can remember attempting to access journal articles and there was a limit to the access.   I wanted safe and evidence-based health research, so I was constantly searching for free access through Athens.  Now called NHS OpenAthens, this provides free online access to NHS funded resources including journals and e-books to healthcare workers (Health Education England, 2024). Although the NHS funding will have paid for the research through publicly funded research (National Institute for Health and Care Research [NIHR], 2021). The cost to the NHS to access medical literature is steep. I was not able to find exact costs; however, in my search I came across an example from Daly et al.’s (2020) research discussing the merger of the library and knowledge services within one hospital NHS trust project.  The cost to access one database was £11.5K (Daly et al., 2020), this is the cost for one hospital trust. There were 215 NHS hospital trusts in England alone in 2022 (The King’s Fund, 2023), and if they are all paying individually for open access this cost runs into the millions just for access to one database.

Open access was propelled internationally in 2001 after a meeting in Budapest which was sponsored by Open Society Foundations.  The outcome of the meeting was to encourage researchers to publish and disseminate their findings outside of the billion-dollar academic publishing industry (Open Society Foundations, 2018). The UK NIHR in 2021 published the Open Access publication policy setting out key principles to ensure that publicly funded research is available openly (NIHR, 2021).  However, this does not mean that it is entirely free, because an open access fee is paid by the NIHR to ensure the publisher allows open access.

For those with access to the internet that can look up information themselves, open access to journals means more people have access to good quality evidence-based research.  This is important as a healthcare provider; however, it is important that patients can have open access to scientific information too (NHS England Workforce, Training and Education, 2020).

I believe access to information should be a priority and open access can support equity and inclusion for those that produce and use knowledge by enabling knowledge to be shared in diverse ways (UNESCO, 2023).

 

Blinded by Ego

Since 2012 I have published several peer-reviewed articles.  In the beginning in my naivety, I was blinded by the grandeur of being a published academic. The prestige of publishing research results that I worked hard to write up in a journal with a high impact of dissemination (Chang, 2017), or so I thought.

Until recently, I did not understand the importance of publishing in an open access peer reviewed article.  Whilst undertaking the Digital Literacies and Open Practice module (EDM122), I was so shocked when I learned how much money the academic publishing companies make.  I watched Paywall: The Business of Scholarship. The Movie (2018) and I am still feeling angry that public money goes into funding research, yet access is restricted to the public, including those who conduct the research (Moore, 2014).  Publishers receive public money. For example, the NIHR provide funds into grants they provide to ensure evidence-based research is published and available. Unless the researchers have access through their academic institution, someone is still paying and if you leave and your next organisation does not have access you lose access to your own work.

It is unfair that publishers are exploiting researchers (Moore, 2014).  Researchers who submit manuscripts for publication want to have their work peer reviewed so they will pay a fee to the publisher.  A group of experts will look at your manuscript and essentially proofread and provide feedback. The scam here is that those reviewing the manuscript do this for free they do not get any remuneration for their time.  The publisher is taking money from those that want to publish and commissioning free work to others.

 

Benefits, Challenges and Limitations

I have been approached by publishers requesting me to publish and write for their journals.  I remember the first time I got an email I was so excited.  When I inquired further there was mention that I would need to pay money. My colleague recommended that I not entertain these publishers because they were not looking to improve evidence base (Logullo et al., 2023).  Although I am now more aware of such scams, it does leave me with a bitter taste.  As someone who wants to share knowledge and support nursing care, I feel sad at the manipulative nature of the publishing industry (Logullo et al., 2023).  Golden open access is an approach used where authors pay the publishers fees, meaning that only those who have the funds can afford to pay. Open access journal publication still does not benefit those in lower income countries because you need access to the internet (Logullo, 2023).

On a positive note, I have worked with stakeholders including patients and advocacy groups who benefit from open access. They are better informed when making decisions and supporting others. Behind a paywall these important stakeholders would not have access to vital information.  Open access journal publication also enables findings to be looked at critically (Logullo et al., 2023). This is essential to developing and evolving evidence-based healthcare practice.  Logullo et al. (2023) have published their article under a CC BY comms licence, which provides others the opportunity to build on their work.

Open access journal publication also ensures that people are not duplicating work, because when they search for publications, they can see the detail of what has already been studied (Logullo et al., 2023).

 

Enlightened or not really!

I have developed awareness and feel that I only want to publish in open access journals going forward.  Although my last four articles were all published in peer-reviewed open access journals. I did not realise the significance of this until now.  I had become part of an unfair system that goes against my idea of social justice to access free resources (Bali et al., 2020).

As a nurse, equality, diversity, and inclusion plus equity are crucial for me and this is part of the UNESCO (2023) recommendations.  I would like nursing colleagues and nursing students to be able to embed evidence-based practice in their day-to-day work.  However, if scientific knowledge is behind a paywall this can only mean inequity and limited access for the majority (Moore, 2014).

Having previously worked in research and now academia, within the last 10 years my access to published research has been unlimited through the academic institutions have been employed with.  This is great for me, however, there is a huge cost to the university.

Working as a lecturer, I do not need to have too many publications at this stage of my career.  However, if I want to progress in academic rank there is a requirement for me to engage in scholarly activity and publishing in peer-reviewed journals (Cade, 2022). On a positive note, it is important that knowledge is shared openly (Cade, 2022), and I am keen to do this.

 

Honing My Skills

I have spent some time trying to understand where open access fits in the wider context of publishing.  Is it open educational practice or part of open educational resources? Is it just about publishing in peer-reviewed journals, or does it include books?  I realise now that it is both (Bali et al., 2020).

My experience is limited to publishing in peer-reviewed journals; however, having access to textbooks is important too. I have learnt whilst completing this module that public scholarship can also be done from writing blogs, using social and professional networking. These are powerful tools for disseminating knowledge such as X (formerly Twitter), LinkedIn (Bali et al., 2020; Ross, 2020) and other open platforms (Logullo et al., 2023). In terms of social justice, access to a blog or a social media post is available to more people than information that is guarded by a paywall. This means that information from these sources is not restricted to only those with enough capital to view it. However, quality needs to be considered and can be opinion rather than evidence based (Bali et al., 2020).

In terms of licensing for this essay, I looked through the different choices and considered the options used by previous students before me for their blog. During the game, ‘The Publishing Trap,’ which we played in class to help us better understand publishing in academia. I was nervous and reluctant to contribute because I was concerned my academic thinking would be challenged and felt I didn’t know enough.  This is odd because I am usually happy to talk about my experiences and give permission for others to use my stories and examples.  Yet during this game, I found that I did not want to yield, mostly because I feel like an imposter in academic publishing (Berna, 2020).  This is not out of fear that someone will steal my idea, but more that I am concerned about my knowledge being questioned.  This is called imposter syndrome and it is well known that this psychological block is a coping mechanism (Berna, 2020).

What will I do?

In summary, I will ask students to consider how they access publications and if they go onto publish to prioritise open access so their work can be available to everyone. I encourage students to strive for evidence-based practice in healthcare and ensure they have open access wherever they work.

Now that I have more knowledge, I will continue to promote open access and share what I have learnt.  This is to ensure peer reviewed scientific information is shared and it will in turn promote digital literacy through its use (UNESCO, 2023).

The learning for this module has enabled me to delve further into my own practice and to understand the political and social need for open access publications.

 

References

Bali, M., Cronin, C. and Jhangiani, R.S., 2020. Framing Open Educational Practices from a Social Justice Perspective. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2020(1), p.10. https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.565

Berna, J. S. (2020). Unblocking scholarly writing – Minimizing imposter syndrome and applying grit to accomplish publishing. Scholar Chatter, 1(1), 1 – 7, https://doi.org/10.47036/SC.1.1.1-7.2020

Cade, R. (2022). Publishing in Peer-Reviewed Journals: An Opportunity for Professional Counselors, Journal of Professional Counseling: Practice, Theory & Research, 49(2), 61-62. https://doi.org/10.1080/15566382.2022.2157595

Chang, Y.-W. (2017). Comparative study of characteristics of authors between open access and non-open access journals in library and information science. Library & Information Science Research, 39(1), pp 8-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2017.01.002

Health Education England (2024). OpenAthens [online] Available at: http://tinyurl.com/27tl9fwl [Accessed on 13 January 2024]

Logullo, P., de Beyer, J.A., Kirtley, S., M Maia Schlussel. And Collins G.S. (2023). “Open access journal publication in health and medical research and open science: benefits, challenges and limitations”. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2023/09/28/bmjebm-2022-112126

Moore, S. A. (Ed.). (2014). Issues in Open Research Data. Ubiquity Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv3t5rd3  [Accessed on 28 January 2024]

Myllylahti, M. (2019). Paywalls. In The International Encyclopedia of Journalism Studies, pp 1-6. Wiley Online Library.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118841570.iejs0068

‌National Institute for Health and Care Research (2021). NIHR Open Access publication policy – for publications submitted on or after 1 June 2022. [online] www.nihr.ac.uk. Available at: https://www.nihr.ac.uk/documents/nihr-open-access-publication-policy-for-publications-submitted-on-or-after-1-june-2022/28999 [Accessed on 13 January 2024]

NHS England Workforce, Training and Education (2020). [online] Available at : https://youtu.be/8WufUDDkP58?si=o2mUdHiLgAXKPCbt [Accessed on 27 January 2024]

Nursing and Midwifery Council (2023). [online]  Available at: https://www.nmc.org.uk/news/news-and-updates/council-to-decide-on-modernisation-of-education-programme-standards/ [Accessed on 27 January 2024]

Open Society Foundations (2018). What Is “Open Access”? [online] Opensocietyfoundations.org. Available at: https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/explainers/what-open-access [Accessed on 13 January 2024]

Paywall: The Business of Scholarship. The Movie (2018). [online] Available at: https://youtu.be/zAzTR8eq20k?si=VRvu4v3V84JFGclL [Accessed on 13 January 2024]

Ross, P. (2020). “Blog it: Free open access to nursing education (#FOANed)”. Australian nursing & midwifery journal (2202-7114), 26 (9), p. 40.

The King’s Fund (2023). [online] Available at:

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/audio-video/key-facts-figures-nhs#:~:text=How%20many%20NHS%20hospitals%20are,trusts%2C%20including%2010%20ambulance%20trusts. [Accessed on 27 January 2024]

UNESCO (2023). UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science [online] Available at: https://www.unesco.org/en/open-science/about [Accessed on 27 January 2024]

The mini-podcast series for AST: openness from a social justice perspective

Posted on by
Reply

ON AIR

Image by Michi S from Pixabay

This blog post was written by Agnieszka Marciszewska as part of the final assignment for the module EDM122 at City, University of London

Introduction 

Podcasting has become popular for both amateurs and professional contexts and its research as well as practice in HE continues to grow. Its appeal in HE learning environment is the ability to disseminate knowledge asynchronously, working within the blended-learning approach which allows a degree of flexibility and freedom that in turn links to student motivation (Bolliger, Supanakorn and Boggs, 2010). There is evidence suggesting podcasts are effective in supporting students’ study skills development (Edirisingha and Salmon, 2007). Podcasting is also a tool to increase public impact of research and scholarship (Singer, 2019) and to facilitate HE transformation by enhancing open educational practice (Waldron, Covington and Palmer, 2023). As such, its potential needs to be considered in any team that attempts to support students’ academic skills via open pedagogy approaches. 

In my role in the Academic Skills Team, I predominantly produce student-facing materials. Last year I took on a project in which I designed, produced and recorded a podcast mini-series for my team. The project was based on a number of guest speakers contributing to the episodes I wrote, all of which dealt with students embracing their role at university in some way. My colleagues from City University generously donated their time and collaboration with them meant that current and prospective students would have some information about who’s who. This essay presents a brief review of literature on podcast pedagogy justifying my choices on this project and further presents my reflections on the notion of openness in this context using the five realms of openness by Hodgkinson-Williams (2014). I selected three episodes from the podcast to evidence my points.  

Literature review 

Podcasting has been extensively researched and promoted in HE for their educational content in a range of disciplines (Kao, 2008; Facer, Abdous and Camarena, 2009; Cho, Cosimini and Espinoza, 2017; Killean and Summerville, 2020; Kinkaid, Emard and Senanayake, 2020; Prata, Avelar and Martins, 2021; Kelly et al., 2022). It is also been effective as a tool to develop students’ listening skills (Harahap, 2020). Podcasting supports HE students in their learning as it engages active learning and critical thinking skills, especially for student-led podcasting (McLoughlin and Lee, 2007; Ferrer, Lorenzetti and Shaw, 2020). McGarr (2009) suggests literature names three main reasons for a podcast to be used in HE – one of them is to provide additional guidance and learning material to supplement information to students, which is particularly relevant in this project.  

A number of podcasts have been developed by research institutes and bodies to tackle the issues revolving around research skills, e.g. Royal Geographical Society’s Social Research Methods Podcast (Social Research Methods podcast – RGS). These have typically been aiming its content at graduates and early career researchers. However, relatively little is known about its potential to help UG students develop their skills. There is a wave of podcasts created by amateur social media influencers who record videos with advice for university students and post them on social media platforms. However, such content is not typically based on any pedagogical frameworks or include concrete learning material. While some researchers (Cann, 2007) argue that videos are superior to audio podcasts, the actual purpose of using non-traditional learning tool needs to be considered.  

There is a close relationship between open educational practices and podcasting. Freire’s seminal work on critical pedagogy (Freire, 1970, 1973) focuses on strategies that foster active learning and collaborative construction of knowledge in the spirit of freedom. As such, it Podcasting is also informed by transformative experiential learning (Mezirow, 2003). This is true for student-led podcasts as well as teacher-led ones. As Harter (2019) puts it, “I have no desire to produce podcasts for passive listeners. Instead, I envision podcasts as social activities that involve dialogue between hosts and guests and include the presence of spectators who enter the conversation…”. The aim of a critical pedagogy is to promote social change and a podcast is a strong example of a vehicle that allows it. 

HEs continuously try to make podcasts a part of their online dialogue, which was especially relevant during the pandemic (e.g. The unmissable podcasts and blogposts of the year | LSE Higher Education). Podcasting is common in UK universities (e.g. UCL has a page dedicated to podcasts alone: Podcasts | UCL Minds – UCL – University College London). LEaD has also recently adopted this technique to disseminate knowledge among academics (https://blogs.city.ac.uk/isla/2023/01/27/teaching-here-and-there-a-podcast-resource-for-learning-more-about-hybrid-teaching/). While within City there has been a recent push to engage students via non-traditional VLE-based platforms, such as using social media (e.g. AST’s Instagram account), the AST still does not use a podcast as a regular tool in its work with students. Not discussing tools that can assist learners in developing their study habits creates a gap. In light of the positive literature on podcasting pedagogy I chose to explore the value of the tool. 

Reflections on openness in three sample podcast episodes  

Dynamic connections and accessibility (guest: Catie Tuttle)  

AST have a Moodle page with a robust repository of self-study resources and programme-run and university-wide webinar videos. However, after a detailed review of the repository I concurred there were two issues with it. Firstly, all resources relied on visual skills in some way (e.g. video presentations, narrated PowerPoints, handouts, written guides and checklists). Thus, my aim was to create a resource that would accommodate different needs and learning preferences of students (Ausburn, 2004) and employ an innovative tool not currently used by AST. Audio podcast as a medium suits specific needs of learners (Kukulska-Hulme and Traxler, 2005) and allows to create dynamic inputs (Rajic, 2013), thus broadening AST’s resources. It is underpinned by the departmental objective to increase accessibility of the resources produced by the AST. I also liked the fact that it would allow us to target commuters, who form a large percentage of City students. This determined the length of episodes I chose to record to 45 minutes maximum.  

The second problem was the repository was a static space which needed a new dimension to become more engaging. Inviting students to listen to a podcast, which would link back to the repository and to the social media of guest speakers and the AST, could allow dynamic community-building. “Networked learning promotes connections: between people, between sites of learning and action, between ideas, resources and solutions, across time, space and media” (Networked Learning Editorial Collective, 2021a, p. 319). I wanted to use that concept to blur the rigid duality of learning vs non-learning online environments, demonstrating cultural openness (Hodgkinson-Williams, 2014). I decided to focus on research skills in order to collaborate with a City librarian to deliver content that would link to the two teams. Once I started working on the episode, I thought it would be a shame not to link any materials from City Library repository as well as the AST ones. I thought this would add a further dimension to our online community (Preece and Maloney-Krichmar, 2005).  

Going forward, I know I need to continue to network with academics in other teams within City to find out how we could deliver collaborative projects in the future. I plan to support my team in designing similar inclusive activities, in particular engaging in 5R activities (Wiley and Hilton, 2018) and potentially taking the podcast initiative further.  

Shared practice (guest: Ruth Windscheffel) 

While OERs and OEPs are increasingly common in education (Bali et al., 2020), Armellini and Nie (2013) note locating subject-specific OERs poses a challenge. I found many YouTube videos on writing a strong essay, but no academic-led audio podcasts on assessment at university level. Kukulska-Hulme (2012) stresses the importance of adopting mobile technologies in a HE classroom setting. Having a podcast discuss the importance of understanding marking criteria and considering terminology typically used in assignment briefs could allow lecturers to share the resource with their students within a session outlining the details of the assignment they have been set for instance or using it to adopt a flipped classroom, an effective pedagogical strategy replacing a traditional lecture-based model (Guy and Marquis, 2016). This was in my mind when I decided to focus on assessment as a meta-skill. At the time I did not know why this was important to me, frankly, but having researched the topic I realise what was appealing to me was the focus on open practices, sharing ideas that could go beyond a simple open-resource instruction (Cronin, 2017). 

The decision to host the podcast outside the City’s intranet was a major decision, which demonstrates technical openness (Hodgkinson-Williams, 2014); it had significant consequences, e.g. how I approach staff to seek answers to challenging questions and how I convince academics to join the project. I found myself to have to convince some academics to participate, not always successfully, as some feared the resource being made open. I also realised that I embarked on this project due to the confidence from knowing how to apply a Creative Commons licence to the material, which tied in with legal openness (Hodgkinson-Williams, 2014). This was one of the reasons I decided to collaborate with a lecturer from LEaD, knowing that would carry some weight with City academics. In this sense I don’t just see the series as a solo project but a resource to be reused and adapted. The aim of this resource was always to encourage collaboration among academics, also in the sense of ease of sharing both internally and externally.   

Going forward, I see that my development in this area can serve students and academics immensely. I hope to create projects that will impact students directly but also indirectly by supporting academics with materials that could be adapted for their cohorts. This will require me to align with open pedagogy attributes (Hegarty, 2015), especially in terms of embedding open educational practice in my work. 

Social justice: OERs and LGBT+ representation (guest: Raf Benato) 

From a social justice perspective, I thought of two different uses for the podcast. Firstly, I wanted this project to predominantly result in an OER – to counter a financial paywall imposed by institutional access; therefore, I decided to host the podcast on a free platform, Soundcloud, to assure financial openness (Hodgkinson-Williams, 2014). However, I also aimed to create resource which would allow a free flow of information to students and aspiring students alike. That meant I was trying to simplify the language used in order to avoid a psychological paywall (Figueroa, 2022), which also tied in with pedagogical openness (Hodgkinson-Williams, 2014). I see that my aim to empower individuals in this way stems from a critical pedagogy perspective which uses education to help “make the world a more socially just place” (McElroy and Pagowsky, 2016).  

Secondly, I was deeply moved by the homophobic attacks happening on our campus and wanted to provide a space to promote inclusivity and diversity. Following calls for action to promote representation (Cerezo and Bergfeld, 2013; Medium, 2020; The Queerness, 2022) as well as guidance on embedding inclusivity in HE curriculum (Bittker, 2022; National Education Union, 2022a), I decided to use this platform to collaborate with City LGBT+ support network to design an episode which would be relevant to students (and staff) who may not be represented. “Social justice and emancipation are as important as ever, yet they require new theoretical reconfigurations and practices fit for our socio-technological moment” (Networked Learning Editorial Collective, 2021b, p. 327). The LGBT+ Framework (National Education Union, 2022b) advocates a curriculum promoting a sense of belonging and I think that openness of a podcast is a perfect catalyst to share a message of inclusivity.  

Going forward, I would like to find other ways to support the LGBT+ population and other marginalised groups in a meaningful way. 

ConclusionsThe experience of conceiving the mini-podcast series for the AST was very informative in many ways as it showed me my conscious design principles like accessibility affected the final outcome and my intuitive choices, e.g. on the selection of topics were guided by values such as human rights and social justice. As there is evidence combining podcasts with reflective thinking activities has positive outcomes (Yilmaz and Keser, 2016), my future steps are to explore creating additional reflective resources to complement the mini-podcast series I have created.  

 

References 

Armellini, A. and Nie, M. (2013) ‘Open educational practices for curriculum enhancement’, Open Learning, 28(1), pp. 7–20. doi: 10.1080/02680513.2013.796286. 

Ausburn, L. J. (2004) ‘Course design elements most valued by adult learners in blended online education environments: an American perspective.’, Educational Media International, 41(4), pp. 327–337. doi: doi:10.1080/0952398042000314820. 

Bali, M. et al. (eds) (2020) Open at the Margins: Critical Perspectives on Open Education. Rebus Community. Available at: https://press.rebus.community/openatthemargins/front-matter/table-of-contents/. 

Bittker, B. (2022) ‘LGBTQ-Inclusive Curriculum as a Path to Better Public Health.’, ABA Human Rights Magazine 47 (3/4). Available at: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/intersection-of-lgbtq-rights-and-religious-freedom/lgbtq-inclusive-curriculum-as-a-path-to-better-public-health/. 

Bolliger, D. U., Supanakorn, S. and Boggs, C. (2010) ‘Impact of podcasting on student motivation in the online learning environment’, Computers and Education, 55(2), pp. 714–722. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.03.004. 

Cann, A. J. (2007) ‘Podcasting is Dead. Long Live Video!’, Bioscience Education, 10(1), pp. 1–4. doi: 10.3108/beej.10.c1. 

Cerezo, A. and Bergfeld, J. (2013) ‘Meaningful LGBTQ Inclusion in Schools: The Importance of Diversity Representation and Counterspaces’, Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 7(4), pp. 355–371. doi: 10.1080/15538605.2013.839341. 

Cho, D., Cosimini, M. and Espinoza, J. (2017) ‘Podcasting in medical education: A review of the literature’, Korean Journal of Medical Education, 29(4), pp. 229–239. doi: 10.3946/kjme.2017.69. 

Cronin, C. (2017) ‘Openness and praxis: Exploring the use of open educational practices in higher education’, International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 18(5), pp. 15–34. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v18i5.3096. 

Edirisingha, P. and Salmon, G. (2007) ‘Pedagogical models for podcasts in higher education’, in Proceedings of the EDEN Conference, pp. 3–8. Available at: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Pedagogical+models+for+podcasts+in+higher+education#0. 

Facer, B. R., Abdous, M. and Camarena, M. M. (2009) ‘The Impact of Academic Podcasting on Students’ Learning Outcomes’, in Marriott, R. de C. V. and Torres, P. L. (eds) Handbook of Research on E-Learning Methodologies for Language Acquisition. IGI Global, pp. 339–351. 

Ferrer, I., Lorenzetti, L. and Shaw, J. (2020) ‘Podcasting for social justice: exploring the potential of experiential and transformative teaching and learning through social work podcasts’, Social Work Education, 39(7), pp. 849–865. doi: 10.1080/02615479.2019.1680619. 

Figueroa, M. (2022) ‘Podcasting past the paywall: How diverse media allows more equitable participation in linguistic science’, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 42, pp. 40–46. doi: 10.1017/S0267190521000118. 

Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum. 

Freire, P. (1973) Education for critical consciousness. New York: Continuum. 

Guy, R. and Marquis, G. (2016) ‘The Flipped Classroom: A Comparison Of Student Performance Using Instructional Videos And Podcasts Versus The Lecture-Based Model Of Instruction’, Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 13, pp. 1–13. doi: 10.28945/3461. 

Harahap, S. (2020) ‘PODCAST IMPACTS ON STUDENTS’ LISTENING SKILL: A CASE STUDY BASED ON STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS.’, Jurnal Inovasi Penelitian, 1(4), pp. 891–900. doi: https://doi.org/10.47492/jip.v1i4.166. 

Harter, L. M. (2019) ‘Storytelling in acoustic spaces: Podcasting as embodied and engaged scholarship.’, Health Communication, 34(1), pp. 125–129. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2018.1517549. 

Hegarty, B. (2015) ‘Attributes of Open Pedagogy: A Model for Using Open Educational Resources’, Educational Technology, (August), pp. 3–13. 

Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2014) ‘Degrees of ease: Adoption ofOER, open textbooks and MOOCs in the global South.’, in Symposium conducted at 2nd Regional Symposium on Open Educational Resources: Beyond Advocacy, Research and Policy, OER Asia. Penang, Malaysia. 

Kao, I. (2008) ‘Using video podcast to enhance students’ learning experience in engineering’, in Proceedings of 115th Annual ASEE Conference and Exposition, pp. 1–10. Available at: http://www.asee.org/activities/organizations/zones/proceedings/zone1/2008/Professional/ASEE12008_0131_paper.pdf. 

Kelly, J. M. et al. (2022) ‘Learning Through Listening: A Scoping Review of Podcast Use in Medical Education’, Academic Medicine, 97(7), pp. 1079–1085. 

Killean, R. and Summerville, R. (2020) ‘Creative podcasting as a tool for legal knowledge and skills development’, The Law Teacher, 54(1), pp. 31–42. doi: 10.1080/03069400.2019.1568675. 

Kinkaid, E., Emard, K. and Senanayake, N. (2020) ‘The Podcast-as-Method?: Critical Reflections on Using Podcasts to Produce Geographic Knowledge’, Geographical Review, 110(1–2), pp. 78–91. doi: 10.1111/gere.12354. 

Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2012) ‘How should the higher education workforce adapt to advancements in technology for teaching and learning?’, The Internet and Higher Education, 15(4), pp. 247–254. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.12.002. 

Kukulska-Hulme, A. and Traxler, J. (eds) (2005) Mobile Learning: a handbook for educators and trainers. London: Routledge. 

McElroy, K. and Pagowsky, N. (eds) (2016) Critical Library Pedagogy Handbook, Volume One: Essays and Workbook Activities. Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries. 

McGarr, O. (2009) ‘A review of podcasting in higher education: Its influence on the traditional lecture’, Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(3), pp. 309–321. doi: 10.14742/ajet.1136. 

McLoughlin, C. and Lee, M. J. W. (2007) ‘Listen and learn: A systematic review of the evidence that podcasting supports learning in higher education.’, in Montgomerie, C. and Seale, J. (eds) Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2007–World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications. Vancouver, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education, pp. 1669–1677. 

Medium (2020) Representation Matters: The Impact of Inclusive Education & Teaching LGBTQ+ History., Medium. 

Mezirow, J. (2003) ‘Transformative learning as discourse.’, Journal of Transformative Education, 1, pp. 58–63. 

National Education Union (2022a) ‘LGBT+ inclusion guidance for schools and colleges’. London. 

National Education Union (2022b) LGBT+ inclusion LGBT+ Framework. Available at: https://neu.org.uk/latest/library/lgbt-inclusion. 

Networked Learning Editorial Collective, N. (2021a) ‘Networked Learning: Inviting Redefinition’, Postdigital Science and Education, 3(2), pp. 312–325. doi: 10.1007/s42438-020-00167-8. 

Networked Learning Editorial Collective, N. (2021b) ‘Networked Learning in 2021: A Community Definition.’, Postdigital Science and Education, 3, pp. 326–369. Available at: chrome-extension://dagcmkpagjlhakfdhnbomgmjdpkdklff/enhanced-reader.html?openApp&pdf=https%3A%2F%2Flink.springer.com%2Fcontent%2Fpdf%2F10.1007%2Fs42438-021-00222-y.pdf. 

Prata, N., Avelar, K. and Martins, H. C. (2021) ‘Podcast: a research trajectory and emerging themes’, in Congresso Brasileiro de Ciências da Comunicação, da Intercom. ociedade Brasileira de Estudos Interdisciplinares da Comunicação. Available at: https://doi.org/10.34629/cpublica.67. 

Preece, J. and Maloney-Krichmar, D. (2005) ‘Online Communities: Design, Theory, and Practice’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(4). 

Rajic, S. (2013) ‘Educational use of podcast’, in The Fourth International Conference on e-learning, pp. 90–94. 

Singer, J. B. (2019) ‘Podcasting as social scholarship: A tool to increase the public impact of scholarship and research’, Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 10(4), pp. 571–590. doi: 10.1086/706600. 

The Queerness (2022) The importance of LGBTQ+ representation in Higher Education., The Queerness. Available at: https://thequeerness.com/2022/11/17/the-importance-of-lgbtq-representation-in-higher-education/. 

Waldron, L. M., Covington, B. and Palmer, S. (2023) ‘Critical pedagogy, counterstorytelling, and the interdisciplinary power of podcasts.’, Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy. doi: 10.1080/15505170.2023.2169972. 

Wiley, D. and Hilton, J. (2018) ‘Defining OER-Enabled Pedagogy’, International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(4). 

Yilmaz, F. G. K. and Keser, H. (2016) ‘The impact of reflective thinking activities in e-learning: A critical review of the empirical research’, Computers and Education, 95, pp. 163–173. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.01.006. 

The mini-podcast series for AST: openness from a social justice perspective. © 2024 by Agnieszka Marciszewska is licensed under CC BY 4.0