{"id":243,"date":"2025-11-27T20:08:06","date_gmt":"2025-11-28T01:08:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/ccdw\/?post_type=chapter&p=243"},"modified":"2025-12-01T18:57:10","modified_gmt":"2025-12-01T23:57:10","slug":"digital-education","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/ccdw\/chapter\/digital-education\/","title":{"raw":"Contemporary perspectives on digital technologies and education","rendered":"Contemporary perspectives on digital technologies and education"},"content":{"raw":"

\u00a0i.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Culture and communication in digital learning spaces<\/h1>\r\nMuch of the recent work examines formal online learning\u2013often university courses\u2013and how culture shapes participation and interaction in [pb_glossary id=\"519\"]virtual learning environments[\/pb_glossary]<\/strong> (VLEs) (Banerjee & Firtell, 2017b; Goodfellow & Hewling, 2005; Uzuner, 2009). Research continues to demonstrate that digital spaces are key sites for<\/strong> linguistic enactments of identity and community<\/strong> that underpin online communication and learning (Campbell & Haynes, 2020). Lam (2006) synthesizes how globalization reconfigures the culture-learning nexus and sets out research directions that echo these patterns. Culture shapes social behaviour, communication, cognition, and the use of pedagogical technologies; consequently, culturally diverse cohorts bring different worldviews to online study (Kumi-Yeboah et al., 2022). Empirical work documents cultural disconnection in multicultural courses<\/strong> and shows culture\u2019s measurable influence on learning behaviours<\/strong> across national groups (Kumi-Yeboah et al., 2022).\r\n\r\nThe enduring influence of colonial ideology in digital learning spaces<\/strong> is widely discussed, with scholars arguing that prevailing epistemological frameworks tend to privilege Western approaches to knowledge and learning in educational contexts (Eijkman, 2009; Luyt, 2013; Perumal et al., 2021). The concern is that digital learning environments may inadvertently reinforce dominant practices and perspectives, including the implicit prominence of certain languages such as English within academic and online spheres (Kumi-Yeboah et al., 2022). In response, some have called for a critical re-evaluation of the dominant linguistic and cultural frameworks that currently structure digital communication, with the aim of fostering more inclusive and contextually relevant pedagogies and practices (Elf et al., 2020)\r\n\r\nSeveral studies move from general claims to concrete investigations. Goodfellow and Hewling (2005) trace how wider cultural narratives and institutional culture\u2013such as systems for content distribution, grading, and communication among students, tutors, and the university\u2013shape online learning communities. Eliyahu-Levi (2020) examines knowledge building in a collaborative course designed to expose students to different cultural contexts. Kumi-Yeboah et al. (2022) analyze learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interactions to illuminate course dynamics.\r\n\r\nOverall, current literature continues to demonstrate that culture is a multifaceted force in online learning\u2013affecting identities, interactions, and outcomes\u2013and calls for deeper, methodologically reflexive inquiry and more culturally responsive virtual pedagogy (Goodfellow & Hewling, 2005; Banerjee & Firtell, 2017b; Uzuner, 2009; Kumi-Yeboah et al., 2022).\r\n

ii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Culturally aware learning design and facilitation<\/h1>\r\nAcross the literature in this area, scholars call for culturally sensitive learning design<\/strong> and note a continuing scarcity of fine-grained studies of cultural dynamics in online education (Banerjee & Firtell, 2017b; Uzuner, 2009).\r\n\r\nMethodologically, Goodfellow and Hewling (2005) caution that researchers\u2019 own cultural assumptions and theoretical frames can skew interpretations of online cultural phenomena. They\u2013and Kumi-Yeboah et al. (2022)\u2013warn against essentialist models<\/strong> (e.g., simple individualism\/collectivism or high\/low context dichotomies) and argue for attention to \u201c[pb_glossary id=\"395\"]hidden cultures[\/pb_glossary]\u201d within national contexts (regional, generational, or upbringing-related) that may be invisible to participants themselves. Because education entails the transmission of behaviours and ways of thinking, cultural sensitivity is especially salient in online settings (Banerjee & Firtell, 2017b).\r\n\r\nIn more recent literature, studies consistently report that effective digital learning for diverse learners is shaped by facilitation that actively supports equitable participation<\/strong>. Recommendations include educator development to deepen cultural and racial knowledge, explicit framing of tasks that foster critical consciousness and counter-narratives, and the diversification of culturally relevant resources and examples (Kumi-Yeboah et al., 2022; McClure & Cifuentes, 2022).\r\n\r\nPractical emphases in design of digital learning<\/strong> include structured turn-taking and small-group routines, clear norms for disagreement, and scaffolds that make expectations for contribution visible and safe. Where multilingual cohorts are present, programs should make policy-level decisions about translation\/mediation tools (when and how they may be used) and provide guidance so that their use supports\u2013not substitutes for\u2013intercultural learning goals (Kumi-Yeboah et al., 2022; McClure & Cifuentes, 2022).\r\n\r\nIt is argued that future work should specify how platform-level affordances (e.g., visibility, threading, turn length, analytics prompts) interact with course design and facilitation to shape participation across cultures, and compare these effects across platforms and institutional contexts. Mixed methods designs linking behavioural traces with qualitative evidence of learning and belonging would sharpen claims about what designs work for whom and under what conditions.\r\n

iii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Intercultural and cross-cultural learning in digital spaces<\/h1>\r\nBy 2004, researchers had recognized that technology-supported environments could be powerful sites for [pb_glossary id=\"411\"]intercultural or cross-cultural learning[\/pb_glossary]\u2013either through intentional design or as an organic outcome of diverse participants interacting online. Early work explored how to design online spaces to support intercultural communication and reported case studies of technology-supported projects.\r\n\r\nRecent studies continue this line of inquiry (see for example Aldridge et al., 2014; Berti, 2021; Blume, 2021; Dasli, 2011; Eliyahu-Levi, 2020; Heggernes, 2021; Lindner & M\u00e9ndez Garcia, 2014; McClure & Cifuentes, 2022; Shadiev & Huang, 2016; Smilan, 2017). Much of this work examines designed interventions<\/strong>. For example, Sandel et al. (2019) link students across Malaysia, China, and the United States in an online exchange, with the goal of exploring cultural issues, family, gender, and race directly with peers from different backgrounds, and moving beyond written texts. Shadiev and Sintawati\u2019s 2020 review synthesizes evidence to guide effective designs. Across these studies, technology can enable communication among culturally diverse participants, enhancing intercultural communicative competence<\/strong> and satisfaction with both the technological and intercultural experience (Kim, 2016; Sandel et al., 2019; Shadiev & Huang, 2016; Shadiev & Sintawati, 2020). The toolset has evolved: 2004-2014 studies commonly used discussion boards, text chat, and blogs<\/strong>; 2014-2019 work more often features videoconferencing, email, social media, <\/strong>and increasingly video recording, podcasts, and microblogging<\/strong>. This shift coincides with greater attention to pedagogy\u2013<\/strong>how to design activities that genuinely facilitate exchange and how to evaluate feasibility and impact. The concept of transcultural digital literacie<\/strong>s further argues for pedagogies that treat digital texts as \u201chabitable spaces\u201d for all students\u2014not only those with migration experiences (Kim, 2016; Sandel et al., 2019; Shadiev & Huang, 2016; Shadiev & Sintawati, 2020). Studies also note the need for adequate training, guidance, and communication skills, as well as stimulating contexts, while acknowledging persistent technical and institutional constraints (Grieve et al., 2022).\r\n\r\nAlongside designed interventions, other work shows that digital environments can foster incidental cross-cultural learning<\/strong>. Kim (2016), for instance, describes young people from varied backgrounds engaging with Korean popular culture; more generally, everyday tools\u2013discussion boards, chats, and social media\u2013 routinely bring people from different linguistic and cultural communities into contact, enabling informal exposure and understanding (Shadiev & Sintawati, 2020). Framed through transcultural digital literacies, readers become \u201crenters\u201d and texts \u201chabitable spaces,\u201d highlighting how ordinary engagement with digital content can prompt movement across cultural boundaries (Kim, 2016). Complementing these findings, Croucher (2011) models how social networking sites mediate cultural adaptation in intercultural contexts.\r\n\r\nMethodologically, we suggest that the field still needs stronger designs and broader applicability.<\/strong> Some authors call for [pb_glossary id=\"428\"]longitudinal studies[\/pb_glossary] to track change and clarify causal relations; for experimental and replication studies to support causal inference and generalizability; and for larger, more diversified samples beyond single respondents or self-report (Banerjee & Firtell, 2017a; Hu et al., 2017; Ju et al., 2021; Sandel et al., 2019). As we have argued ourselves, qualitative work would benefit from clearer theoretical grounding (Uzuner, 2009). Given rapid technological change, it is noted that researchers need to examine less-studied technologies<\/strong> and keep pace with emerging tools (Avgousti, 2018). Finally, several authors urge deeper engagement with theories of multicultural learning<\/strong> and with power and colonial histories in education<\/strong>, and they underline the value of further research syntheses<\/strong> to organize a growing evidence base for practice (Banerjee & Firtell, 2017a; Avgousti, 2018).\r\n

iv.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Media, digital, and transcultural literacies<\/h1>\r\nWork uncovered in our 2004 review treated \u201cdigital literacy\u201d largely through the notions of new\/electronic literacies, linking literacy directly to culture, technology, and critical engagement with digital media (Street, 1984; Warschauer, 1999). Early authors argued that the internet, as a new communicative modality, demanded evolving literacies shaped by broader social and cultural change; notably, media literacy did not surface as a distinct theme in that earlier search. From a philosophical perspective, Vlieghe (2016) cautions against reducing \u2018digital literacy\u2019 to training, urging attention to how digitization reshapes education itself.\r\n\r\nIn the 2025 corpus, scholars differentiate several interrelated literacies:\r\n