Reframing Digital Literacy: what it is and how to teach it

I did a research piece for Canadian School Libraries last winter that looked at how you might develop the complex, multi-disciplinary digital skills you find in cybersecurity in a relatively short period of time. When I first put it together I found myself spending a lot of the time at the front of the paper trying to define the digital skills we find ourselves lacking. I came to the conclusion that adopting high abstraction digital tools such as those you find in cyber, A.I. and other emerging technologies makes for an impossible leap when we don't have the basics in place.

How we've missed this in education is a good question. Anyone with a background in the field knows that there is no such thing as a 'digital native' and that this myth, which has caused so much damage as it prevents education from building meaningful digital pedagogy, kicked off what has become a multi-generational skills shortage that is doing real damage to both the economy and students' future prospects.

Digital technology has worked its way into everything in 2025, so being unable to make productive use of it damages our ability to compete in a digitally connected world. That we continue to hum and haw about what digital fluency is and how to build it suggests that we're not going to resolve this problem any time soon in Canadian classrooms.

We've seen coding and computational thinking finally worm their way into education curriculums, but this is the tip of a much bigger iceberg when it comes to understanding what digital skills are and how we should approach them.

Originally created for this post on why education is seemingly unwilling to address a persistent digital skills shortage (from 2023).

I've been pushing the boundary of what constitutes digital skills ever since I first got knocked out of digital technology by the compsci grads who had claimed the keys to the kingdom. It took me decades to recover and come around to the approach I have now that nurtures my hacking mindset rather than dismissing it.

A few weeks ago I attended a STEM space technology event put on by a partner of ours in Mississauga. Moonshot was designed to introduce students to the interdisciplinary nature of STEM careers - something we go out of our way to avoid in our departmentalized schools. If you're building space technology as an electronics engineer your job doesn't end where the wires stop, it also involves collaborating with all the other teams to ensure the electronics are working in conjunction with mechanical, communications, logistics and many other systems. Why do schools insist on siloing subjects like they do?

That siloing is also hobbling digital literacy development. The current coding/computational thinking fixation is just the latest in a long line of compsci blinkered approaches to addressing digital technology literacy. What would it look like if we represented the true breadth of digital and taught that wider scope of understanding in our classrooms? We use this technology daily to do everything from operate our schools to deliver learning across all subjects, but then avoid teaching how it all works at all costs.

At the Moonshot event I was introduced to the CEO of MineConnect, an organization that represents and works to promote the mining industry in Ontario. Our chat at Moonshot led to introductions with Science North over their Mine Evolution game. I'm hoping to get a web based version of that running on UBC's Quantum Arcade - perhaps with a quantum add-on as quantum sensing is going to drastically improve s in how we mine in the next decade.

What does this have to do with digital literacy? The fact that you're asking this question shows how little most people understand about where digital technologies come from, and that understanding should be a part of their literacy, don't you think? If you look up 'digital supply chain' you don't get what we need to build digital technologies, instead you only information on how to 'go digital'. Even industry goes out of its way to ignore what digital technology is... except in rare mineral mining, hence my work with Mine Connect and Science North.

It's incredible to me that this late in our adoption of this technology that we still go out of our way not to teach what is needed to make digital happen. The current wholesale adoption of A.I. in education is a great example of this ignorance, as was the rush to the cloud. There is no cloud (it's someone else's computer) and A.I. isn't intelligent, but we'll grasp at digital straws with willful ignorance if we think it'll make our lives easier.

In the CSL research I created a pyramid that showed how I taught digital awareness from the ground up in my rural high school. The assumption is that 'kids nowadays' know all of this, but that simply isn't the case. If you want to disable a 'digital native' it's as easy as flipping a switch they don't usually use. If you want to send a room of them into a panic unplug the Wi-Fi router (assuming you know what that is and where to find it).

Start with the physical substrata and work your way up into the more abstract realms of digital technology; starting digital fluency at coding is like starting literacy at poetry. 

In grade 9 I got a lot of digitally engrossed students who thought they knew it all because adults who lack even basic digital familiarity have been telling them that for years. Revealing that this perceived expertise is merely familiarity with a couple of devices and specific software doesn't take long. In many cases these kids had owned a series of game consoles and phones and that's it. Familiarity with software is limited to games and social media. Very few knew what an operating system was let alone the firmware that kick start it; this is literally how all computers work yet almost no one seems to know it.

Last week I was in Ottawa doing an introduction to OSes on our cyber range. The grade 5s didn't know what an OS was, but by the end of our 90 minutes they certainly did. They also learned the boot process any digital device goes through from firmware start-up to OS loading to where most users think computers start - when the desktop appears. They also got to interact with Linux as well as Windows on their Chromebooks (we use a cloud based cyber range so you're not limited to the restrictive OS on your local device). None of the students knew what Linux was, but they use it everyday because their Chromebook ChromeOS is Linux based. By the end of our afternoon they were navigating the settings in multiple OSes and understood how you could interrupt boot sequences to gain control and interrupt processes.

That we hand students tools like these without any understanding of what they are or how they work is a great failure in modern education, especially as we are only accelerating our use of these machines in classrooms. Considering how widespread their use is now, digital skills have become an ignored foundational literacy.

***

How did I tackle this ever widening digital divide in my program? We started by making our lab DIY. My seniors and I built the first iteration out of e-waste and then kept improving it as we found resources. In 2015 I returned tens of thousands of dollars in board run desktops which then got converted into half a dozen chromebook carts for other classes to use. In that first year our DIY conversion saved the board over tens of thousands of dollars.

In 2016 I contacted AMD and asked if they'd provide CPUs for our next upgrade, and they did! Our board's SHSM program provided additional funding and for a fraction of the cost of a board run computer lab we had significantly better hardware and control over installing our own OSes and software, which allowed us to provide digital learning opportunities others couldn't reach.

By 2018 we had a mix of AMD APUs that could handle the graphic modelling we were doing in our game-dev class. This meant they were also more than capable of running any other software we needed to build digital fluency from scratch. In the process my one teacher department went on to win multiple national awards across a staggering range of digital domains ranging from coding and electronics to IT & Networking, 3d modelling and cybersecurity. DIYing is essential if we're to build digital skills without those compsci coding blinkers on. Even worse is buying a ready-made 'edtech solution' which does it all for you and doesn't teach anyone (staff or students) how technology works. It also tends to trap you in a single brand rather than striving for agnostic digital comprehension.

Having a flexible digital learning environment that we built ourselves allowed us to create unique student projects. In grade 9 that means starting with Arduino micro-controllers. Not only did these open source electronics allow us to develop an understanding of the circuits that all digital technologies depend on, it also offered a tangible approach to programming where the lines of code would produce direct outputs like turning on lights or making music. By the end of the Arduino unit students were confident in building circuits and for many it was also their first opportunity to code in text as opposed to blocks.

As you can see by the gif, getting into Arduino in grade 9 means that by grade 10 students are building customized electronics solutions to everything from the PC temperature system you see to various robotics and digital art installations. One of my seniors worked out an Arduino based fuel management system for his pickup that he then sold to others. Understanding the electronics substrata that digital operates in is imperative for well rounded digital literacy.

From that basis in electronics and introductory coding we moved to information technology and networking - two subjects studiously ignored in schools even though every one of them depends on both to operate every day. We begin I.T. by walking students through PC parts in our recently delivered Computers For Schools desktops. After covering the safety requirements for tools and working with machines that can contain enough electricity to knock you out if you don't treat them with respect, we dug in.

The biggest point I make in PC building is about static management. As long as students respect the delicacy of the electronics (which they already understand thanks to Arduino), they quickly gain confidence and are never again tyrannized by this technology. After this unit no one calls a desktop PC a "CPU", because that's just one part of a much bigger device. Calling a desktop a CPU is like calling a car an engine.

We typically spend a week taking a part desktops and putting them back together. Getting them is no problem because no one wants desktops these days and CFS has piles of them they're aching to give to classrooms. When we wrap up the IT unit anyone who wants to take their computer home can - you'd be surprised how many students (and teachers) don't own a home computer. The best part? If it ever goes wrong they know how to fix it because the built it from the hardware up.

Once we got the hardware figured out we installed operating systems. This involves interrupting boot processes and learning how to navigate BIOSes and other types of firmware. Everyone gets to the point where they have Windows and Linux installed, but some students want to build an epic stack. This can involve adding extra hard drives and going through install processes on up to a dozen OSes. By the end of week two we've got OSes installed and students have explored many more than the one that came on their phone or game system (which are often Linux based). We've even had our share of Hackintoshes in the lab.

Our final step in the IT/Networking unit is to connect the desktops together on a local network and figure out IP addressing and all those other connectivity details most people have no concept of even though they use them daily. Building a network like this takes it out of theory and into tangible practice, as does the PC building. By the end of the week no one is calling connectivity 'WIFI' any more. Ethernet is ethernet and wireless is wireless and everyone knows how to configure and troubleshoot both. The motivation is that once we've got our network up and running on a domain where everyone can see each other we cue up a LAN party and everyone plays networked games on their DIY systems.

Our wide ranging and borderless approach to digital skills created interesting opportunities to mash up different technologies that are typically taught in siloed departments (if at all). In this case a student leveraged Arduino electronics, PC building and networking with robotics to build a whimsical LAN party robotrain.

We do eventually get to coding of course, but starting that far up the tech pyramid is absurd. High level coding languages (the only ones schools teach) are resource heavy because they spell out commands in easy to understand English (easier for humans = harder for machines). We did HTML and associated languages in grade 9 so the internet didn't baffle anyone anymore. In grade 10 it was Python simply because it's in such wide use. In the senior grades students choose their own coding focus, but not before I drag them through an introduction to low level 'machine language' programming so they have an appreciation for all the work those high level languages are doing for them. After you've had to do your own memory addressing, it changes you.

Leveraging this digital literacy, my seniors helped keep the tech in our building running smoothly. This not only saved money but also gave students invaluable public facing support experience. Perhaps the best example of this was our Chromebook graveyard. We would take in broken machines and then repair them with bits from others. After a couple of years of service most high schools in our board had lost over a quarter of their Chromebooks to abuse and accidents - we enjoyed a 90%+ active rate meaning more computers for more students at no extra cost.

The 'that's not your job' thinking that most boards operate under prevents this kind of innovation and cost savings. I always am left wondering to whose benefit.

The other benefit was that our digital fluency made us resilient. When COVID struck and everyone else folded up their classes and went home early, the digitally fluent students in my program didn't want to lose their semester's work and we went online, created our own Discord and landed it remotely. It took a bit of re-culturing because the students needed reminding that this isn't a gaming Discord - you're at school, but they quickly adapted and were sharing 3d models, Unity code snippets, circuit designs and network details back and forth to build complex demonstrations of their skills. In many cases they were doing it on the PCs they'd built when they were in grades 9 or 10 because many parents thinking digital technology is a toy.

So what's stopping us from graduating digitally fluent students with a wide range of skills who are ready to go into any field they choose because every one of them these days involves some kind of digital technology? I come from a time when home computers were brand new and no one had worked out how to 'do them' yet. In that primordial binary goo I hacked my own software and learned how to build my own hardware. My millwright apprenticeship turned to IT because of my familiarity with this new technology but I never came at it as a scientist might, but rather as a mechanic would. Hacking isn't bad, it's humans finding ways to approach digital technology as agents rather than consumers.

If we're going to tackle complex interdisciplinary digital technologies like artificial intelligence with anything other than willful ignorance, we need to start building an understanding of digital from the ground up so students and teachers can see beyond the box tech companies want to keep you in. If we're putting children on it, we should be showing them how it works so that they become more than what most of us are: consumers.

This is from a decade ago. FB has faded from relevance, but every 'tech' we use follows the same approach: your attention is the product being sold.

It might sound counter-intuitive, but cybersecurity offers a unique approach to tech that other subjects lack. Cyber is inherently about edge cases and encourages a 'meta' mindset when approaching digital environments. You're not a component inside the system, you've recognized its limitations and are working beyond it where being human is not only a benefit but essential. With all the 'AI doing it for you' going on these days does being human matter? Other approaches seem easier and wear 'academic credibility' better, but what is academic credibility but another system meant to contain your thinking? If we keep our current status quo we will, at best, produce another generation of passive consumers. We've tried that and it isn't going well. Time to hack this problem by putting students back in control of the technology we are using to control them. It's time to embrace your inner hacker.

Ontario Library Association Super Conference 2025

I feel great shame. I wrapped up this year's Ontario Library Association super conference a few weeks ago, but my Kawasaki needed me and I've been neck deep in engine heart surgery instead of reflecting on this fantastic conference. Mechanics that my life depends on is sufficiently engrossing.

This reaction is (in part) happening because I have begun the process of separating myself from the my decades long role in Ontario public education. I'm still committed to changing the system but it isn't, and it has processes in place to remove any foreign contaminants that try to change the status quo. I suspect my 'innovative' approach has led to some early constructive dismissal. In talking to other refugees from OntEd who tried to change it and found their return unwelcome, this is a systemic mechanism across all school boards. All that aside, here are my reflections from OLASC 2025...

 

This was my second go at the OLA Super Conference, I last went in 2023. This year, like the former one, was remarkably emotional. You can't help feeling that these are the front line people trying to hold civilization together even as it seems determined to tear itself apart. I'm left dizzied by the size of the fight against them.

Tech billionaire oligarchs are leveraging bottomless resources to direct a biblical flood of idiotic panic mongers who are happy to churn out disinformation that buys political victories. Once in power they have the tools to dismantle the critical thinking based education that we all used to aspire to.

Nothing is easier to incite than ignorant, misinformed, angry people. Our tech overlords have designed systems that encourage propaganda and reduce people to shallow, self-contradicting talking heads. I've been struggling to get pedagogically meaningful digital literacy into more classrooms throughout my career, but I'm beginning to realize that this is contrary to the direction society is going. Swimming upstream against this big money gets tiring in your mid-fifties.

Libraries standing against this political onslaught are having their resources systemically cut because libraries are precisely the institutions we designed to stop this sort of thing. How do you win such a one sided fight? I'm beginning to think that the democratic elections being gamed by this process can't produce governments capable of stopping it, and I'm getting all Asimov-Foundations about it. Perhaps it's time to save what we can for civilization until we start rebuilding again. And yes, these are my thoughts as I watched the Ontario Library Association standing against book bans and funding cuts.

Belief in the mission is one way to keep up the fight, but everyone seems worn thin by the effort. Keeping a strong front becomes difficult when your allies dwindle and everything you've built around literacy and critical information analysis is dismissed as meaningless. We live in interesting times. Being able to tie one on at the evening social with the brilliant women leading this fight was a highlight.

Carol Off's closing keynote was earth shaking. I wish they'd put it out so more people could hear it. Her retirement from As It Happens on CBC coincided with the rise in hate and division we've seen around us. Her talk cut to the quick describing the mechanics of this nastiness in vivid detail. It was a much needed rallying cry even as the barbarians hammer at the gates.

***

I'd signed up to present at the conference because I wanted to demonstrate (rather than just talk about) the importance of government, civil society and industry working together for our mutual cyber well-being. If you think that's not a priority, 2025 is only a few weeks old and dozens of Canadian school boards have already been crippled by cyber-attacks, most of which depend on clueless users to get in. The vast majority of our cyber woes are a human education problem, not a technical one.

While we were at the conference one of Ontario's bigger urban boards was off-line due to another cyberattack. This persistent problem isn't just affecting school boards. The automated nature of cyber attacks these days has clueless criminals with no technical skill buying 'cyber-crime as a service (CaaS) that lets them launch hundreds of cyber-attacks to see which one sticks. This is why you're seeing a rise in attacks on organizations that make no sense, like libraries. As a result, this year at OLASC and in addition to our talk, there were multiple well attended presentations focused on getting libraries and their patrons better cyber-defended. I wish Ontario school boards felt the same way, but they prefer to play victim rather than solve the problem.

In the spirit of cooperation I reached out to many cyber organizations, but the common response seems to be a shrug when you're sitting on a comfortable amount of funding, which isn't very mission driven of them. I did connect with Debra at Knowledgeflow who is nothing but mission driven and she worked tirelessly to help build our collaboration in a country designed against working together. This ended up being our pitch for the talk:

To demonstrate the width of our collaborative approach, Marie at the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security joined our motley crew along with Cheryl from Cyber Legends. This gave us a full complement of cyber expertise from federal government, civil society and private industry. I can only shake my head at the many other not for profits, industry and provincial organizations who weren't interested in participating because they'd rather just do their own thing poorly. Gaps caused by these little fiefdoms are why Canada is considered a prime target in global cyber-crime circles.

You might think that school boards are 'doing' cyber education locally, but the material I see (if there is any at all) is reductive, outdated, performative and not at all pedagogically valid in terms of teaching skills. Most of the cyber awareness stuff being trotted out locally looks to be made by people with no background or experience in cybersecurity. In many cases the cringy media they produce doesn't look like it was made by anyone with an instructional background either.

Cybersecurity education needs to be developed by qualified people and delivered with best pedagogical practices in mind if we're to get at the prickly subject of digital safety. A reasonable expectation would be that this outreach produces a demonstrable improvement in real world cyber-safety skills in both students and staff as evidenced by a substantial drop in the neverending reports we're getting about school boards being hacked. You can tell what we have isn't working by simply looking at the headlines.

Until we stop handing this off to "a guy in IT" or a relative of administration who is "good with computers", we're going to keep making these headlines.

Debra has this slide up in our presentation and suggested that these kinds of systemic failures aren't something that individuals can influence, but I disagree. If the vast majority (research suggests over 80%) of breaches are caused by someone clicking on something they shouldn't and letting criminals in past otherwise effective defences, then a skills based approach to cyber-education would also reduce these kinds of headlines!

Our talk can be found here: https://knowledgeflow.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/OLA-Conference-Cybersecurity-Isnt-a-Scary-Word.pdf and includes piles of material designed by cyber specialists. Whether you're working with post-secondary, K-12 or even with adults, you will find credible material designed to teach actual cyber skills rather than questionable performative marketing material that checks a box.

The talk went very well in front of a full house and many stayed afterwards to get contact information and talk about next steps. This kind of outreach is essential if we're to turn the tide. I wonder were all the other catalysts for cyber in Canada were that morning.

***

After our talk I popped over to a presentation on the role of AI in student research:

DIana and Kim took on a subject that alternately instills fear and provides hope for a better education system. The fact that we're turning to machines to create a better educational outcomes is (I would suggest) because the humans doing it have given up on that responsibility themselves - which speaks to my main concern with AI: if we let it replace us it will, and that won't be better.

 

Kim and Diana started with a look at how relationships with AI have changed over time through media, and then got into the nuts and bolts of critical uses in process driven learning. If every educator approached teaching with the same lens we wouldn't be worrying about AI's influence on an education system that has remained mired in a pre-information revolution mindset. The humour and honesty was much needed and helped clear away all the edtech marketing clutter which has become a roar in the last year.

The inconsistencies in the edtech AI sell are difficult to make sense of. No AI for students, but teachers can happily use it to replace even core human activities like reporting on student learning? This is going to end well.

If you think the solution is to ban AI you've missed the boat while also putting your students in real cyber-peril. The 'free' VPNs that students use to get around blacklisted sites on school board wifi are anything but free. The shady organizations (mainly criminal) that pay for this bandwidth get a chokehold on a user's data. Imagine school boards saying they aren't going to run buses any more but at the same time a stranger in a white van pulls up and offers them free rides. Schools do nothing to stop the white vans lining up at the front of the school day in and day out; same thing.

Students *are* using AI in their school work and I think they should if your assignments are still final product nonsense stuck in the idea that information is difficult to find (like it's 1985). If you're assessing process, AI is a powerful tool for enriching student thinking. If you're still handing out assignments that only describe the final product you're looking for that students can drop into an AI that will spit out an answer you think is real, then AI plagiarism is what you deserve. There was a moment in this year's Davos talks about it:

Go to 40:52 if the video doesn't automatically.

The worst thing we can do is ignore AI or think that board IT that can't stop breaches can stop AI from being used. This head in the sand thinking is exactly why we're in a multi-generational digital literacy crisis that is crippling democracies and making it impossible for young people to find work. Reaching for an emerging technology like AI that demands so much inter-disciplinary digital infrastructure to operate (none of which most people have a first clue about) is like reaching for a nuclear reactor when you're learning how to start a fire, but that's exactly what we're doing.

I made a point of attending talks on cyber attack recoveries to understand how mature public library policies are around dealing with them (rapidly improving because they had to is the answer). Of interest was a comment from the Toronto Public Library head of IT who mentioned that their outage resulted in a huge spike in users accessing their terminals when it finally came back on, underlining the important role public libraries play in helping many Canadians cross our widening digital divide.

There is still room to improve though, and even when an organization recognizes the need for a cyber skilled approach to breach management they seldom want to consider putting anything towards cyber in a preventative manner.

A heartwarming moment on day two was seeing Joseph Jeffries and Jennifer Casa-Todd recognizing the yawning digital skills gap in our education systems and tackling digital skills head on with the Canadian School Libraries. Seeing this happening across provincial lines gave me hope as this doesn't often occur in the true north siloed and regionally self-interested.

Though they had a first thing in the morning slot they brought together a room full of educators from coast to coast and got everyone thinking about the many skills that fall under the auspices of digital fluency. For a long time there was a reductive approach that believed that putting coding in the curriculum would solve all our digital woes, but this is like studying grammar and spelling closely and then assuming it will produce literate people. There is a reason why we call it digital literacy and not digital skill. The latest fad is computational thinking, but again this is reductive.  The skills needed to build a network, train an AI on big data, program an IoT sensor or resolve a breach are very distinct.

Like traditional literacies, digital literacies are interdisciplinary and complex. Some are more technical than others and some are more media adjacent, but they all have to be developed if we want to start producing digitally fluent graduates. The OSLA/CSL digital skills toolkit will be a good step in that direction, especially as we're all fixated on grabbing the latest magic fruit to fall from the digital tree.

No regrets about attending OLASC this year. It was heartbreaking and warming all at the same time. If we ever see the superconference quietly disappear, civilization is sure to be next.

The Global Forum for Cybersecurity Excellence (GFCE)

 I got an invite to speak on a panel at the Global Forum for Cybersecurity Excellence's Annual Meeting last week. It was my first time in DC since I went on a trip there with Air Cadets in the 1980s, so it was an exciting prospect. More so when I saw it was going to be taking place in the Organization of American States' building.

Attending these things is a high wire act for me as it looked like I was going to have to self fund my way there, but then the OAS's Cybersecurity directorate got in touch and asked if I'd sit on one of their emerging technology panels for the region of the Americas pre-GFCE meeting too, so I got hotel and flights covered.

I got in on Sunday and my hotel was in Georgetown, so I got out and about and soaked up some Washington area history - the place is thick with it! 

That night I met up with Dr Juan from Mexico who I did a presentation with in June and we enjoyed some Potomac wings at the local Irish pub (as you do) and caught up. The last time I'd seen him was as we passed through US customs on our way back from Ghana last year, so we had a good chat. The opportunity to solidify these connections was impressed upon me as an important consideration later in the week. Never underestimate the appreciation inherent in making an effort to see people live, especially post-pandemic.

Day 1

The next morning, after breakfast at the Fairmont (!), we walked to the Organization of American States building only to discover it was the wrong one. We ran into Alex from Ghana who was on the OAS panel with me later that morning and he knew where we needed to go, so we backtracked four blocks to where we should have been in the first place.

I got there sweaty (DC got up to about 30°C each day) but cooled off and our talk that morning about emerging technology impacting cybersecurity was wide ranging. Kerry-Ann, our moderator, surprised me with a question about how approaching cyber challenges as a technician gives me a different (and valuable thanks to how she framed the question) insight into the rapidly changing state of things.

Talking to engineers and the legal experts doing policy is one thing, but talking to the trades people who do the operational work of keeping the lights on does offer an interesting angle. I'd been expecting to talk about quantum technology emergence, but an opportunity to speak about the value of hands-on, applied skills in the field was appreciated and well received.

Many of the panels focused on the clear and present danger in cyber at the moment: artificial intelligence. From the automation of big data analysis that humans never excelled at on the defensive side to how criminals are leveraging GenAI to produce customized phishing material well beyond grammatically incorrect emails (stretching to include deepfake video, voice, photos and other digital media), these talks were designed to assist policy makers with understanding what has come out of Pandora's box of AI.

One theme that resonated with me was how people don't want deep technical explanations of these emerging technologies. What they want is an easy to grasp explanation of how these technologies will impact the digital spaces they work in. This remains a problem in cybersecurity and an even bigger one in the quantum world where I just finished my secondment. The urge for academics to obfuscate and complicate their explanations of these rapidly emerging technologies doesn't make them ideally suited for presenting on them, especially to the operations and policy people who are entirely focused on real world impacts and couldn't care less how the maths looks.

I've gotten a lot of static for how I've simplified deep technical details in quantum in order to get concepts across, but you honestly don't need to start neck deep in linear algebra any more than you need to have knowledge of the metallurgy involved in casting your car's engine in order to drive it. Guess what background is really helpful in bridging this information divide: 22+ years as a teacher! Early in my career I came across a quote that described teachers as, "public facing intellectuals" and took that to mean we're not about ivory towers and knowing more and more about less and less, but about the democratization of knowledge. Part of that comes with knowing what to keep out of the mix in order to help people get a handle on emerging technologies.

My age is also handy. Being a genuine digital immigrant who remembers a time before personal computers and the internet (I got my first PC, a Vic 20, in 1979 when I was 10), I have a big picture outlook that those who have always lived in this chaos find helpful. My other secret weapon is a university background focused on thinking and communications (philosophy & English).

After the OAS event we had an evening meet and greet at the Museum of the Americas right behind the main building, which had a permanent collection of powerful pieces looking at colonialism and culture. Upstairs they had a Spanish diaspora collection featuring the people who fled Spain during the Franco period; powerful stuff.

At the meet and greet I got to introduce Juan to Michelle and Nina from CyberLite, one of my favourite international cyber education organizations. We did an around the world webinar with them for Safer Internet Day in February, but it's always nice to see people in 3d rather than on a screen, and introductions like this are what GFCE is all about.

Another good example of this networking was running into Christina from Global Affairs Canada. From our talks I've come to understand the complexities and difficulties of international cyber policy. I'm also particularly aware of how important it is to shed better light on the work our federal government does internationally. Some of this needs to be kept on the down low for security reasons, but much of it (and especially on the diplomacy side) needs more media coverage so Canadians better understand the work that their representatives are doing on their behalf. Being purely insular and defensive doesn't work in sport and it won't work in cybersecurity either. If we can help other countries develop better cyber capacities, we all win, and that starts by doing the hard work and developing trust.

Day 2

The next day we were up early again and this time took an Uber to the right building (kind of, it still took us to the wrong one first), and began the Global Forum for Cybersecurity Expertise Annual Meeting.

Our panel came up quickly and Juan brought in a fantastic angle focusing on the Global South and the formation of a 'quantum divide' that will, like the digital one, further separate developed countries from everyone else. I've seen this happening with tightening restrictions on public facing quantum education resources. In some cases this may be under the auspices of national security, but the end result remains: countries that have the resources to develop quantum technologies will have capabilities that the others can only dream of.

There is also an academic ownership of quantum that favours those with the resources to spend most of their lives in post-secondary. Quantum mechanics is how the universe works, yet most schools stick to Newtonian physics because it's intuitive and easier to deliver, except that Newtonian truth is a fiction caused by our scale. If you look closer, it is (as Brian Cox says) quantum all the way. We need to demystify our best understanding of how the universe works so that everyone can grasp the technologies that are emerging out of this science.

Our panel couldn't have happened without a secure internet because our moderator was virtual in Europe and one of the panelists was in Central America. This highlights the importance of the awareness I've been doing in Canada and beyond around quantum encryption readiness in cybersecurity. In a few years that secure internet may be a thing of the past.. After we wrapped up our panel I showed Juan the William Gibson quote about the future already being here, but not evenly distributed.

The idea of a growing quantum divide is another indicator of the state of maturity of rapidly improving quantum computers. I'm motivated to continue my 'technology literacy for all' approach (which includes quantum and AI) because no one should make the technologies that have the best chance of helping us save ourselves from ourselves proprietary. I also have a nagging urge to help everyone reach their maximum potential regardless of how much they have in their bank accounts.

The end of day event on day two was both uplifting (it was a retirement party for founding GFCE president, Chris Painter), but also profoundly insightful. When someone with extensive, top draw international research resources tells me that they aren't worried about AI taking us down because climate collapse will get us first, I listen. Moments like this make me vividly aware of just how fragile the house of cards we're standing on is. If we don't come together to make it accessible, secure and safe, that house of cards is coming down.

This observation feels even more perilous because of the book a colleague suggested that I'm two-thirds through. Advocating for long term thinking in human societies that only reward short term gain is a challenge, but the most recent chapter is about how all civilizations collapse. Historically this happened regionally (Roman Empire, etc), but the global civilization we've built this time is going to crash harder, and when it collapses we're going to be wishing we had made some of Asimov's Foundations in order to recover more quickly (assuming we don't make our only habitable planet uninhabitable in the process). That's the thing about attending a GFCE event - it makes you reflect on the big things (kinda like Tamara's book recommendations).

Day 3

All of the delegates from dozens upon dozens of countries coming together in DC to make digital transformation secure and accessible.

Day three began with the women in cybersecurity breakfast. The moderator at our table told hair raising stories of her being in the first female engineering cohort in South Africa and the overt sexism they faced. I told them about Canada's tragic history with this kind of sexism, which the table found astonishing - Canada is considered forward thinking until we're a bit more forthcoming about the dark currents in our history. I also told the story of the quiet sexism that made founding the first all-female cybersecurity team in our school so difficult. It amazes me that half our population experiences these systemic prejudices and that equality isn't something we're likely to get to before the 22nd Century.

These GFCE events are thick with insights and opportunities that lift your head out of your personal context and prompt you to consider the big problems we face. I've tried to cover the main pieces here, but there are so many more that I'm still subconsciously noodling on.

The emerging tech panel on AI towards the end of the day was another of those eureka moments. The policy expert from France's advanced technologies department had a good response to my question about how we devise policy for near future AIs that will have the agency and resources to ignore them, not out of spite, but because even considering them isn't in their programming. She referenced the US Section 230 law that let social media run rampant and pointed out that if we recognized this cautionary tale we'd be able to better direct AI use now. A sharp response, but I think the AI horses are out of the barn and will shortly have the capabilities to do real damage to our digital infrastructure. I remain curious as to when AI policy to try and restrict development turns into defensive policies designed to mitigate the damage that self-directed AIs will do to our piecemeal global network.

I ended the event having lunch with Abdul, my swimming buddy from Accra, and Juan, my co-conspirator. What do you talk about at a Nigerian/Canadian/Mexican table? Abdul told me he is in 'legacy mode', which is a great way of framing your closing professional years. I enjoyed our talks in the pool at Accra City Hotel because Abdul always seems to see beyond the horizon. Taking a minute to soak up that wisdom is never wasted time. He was going to see his friend's grave and visit his cousin after the event. These seemingly technical meetings can be profoundly human, if you let them be.

We wrapped up our time at the OAS HQ, but we weren't quite done yet. At the museum event Monday night we met a Spanish attaché and that prompted an invite to the embassy for a Wednesday evening networking event. It was a short walk from the hotel and I talked to a lot of people but really got into it with Jose Manuel who runs telecoms and startups in Spain including a new one that helps you park your boat in a marina you haven't visited before. Besides travel, work life balance and entrepreneurship, we also had a good chat about the innovative quantum key distribution research around mesh networking QKD into live networks that he is in the vicinity of. I'm hoping to follow up and develop some transatlantic connections that move us all forward.

***

I must have covered 20+ kms on foot over the week (in dress shoes!), but I have no regrets about the schlepping or having to self fund some of this. Hope is hard to find in 2024, but the GFCE exhales it like plants give off oxygen. Just as the GC3B in Ghana did last fall, my mind is left turning over the complex challenges and opportunities that this meeting highlighted. If you're looking for organizations that improve your practice, expand your context, and challenge (and enable!) you to take on the seemingly insurmountable global issues we face, meeting the OAS and experiencing my second live GFCE event has done just that.

DC looking like a postcard on the ascent out of Reagan Airport.

Just over 500kms as the crow flies from DC, I was back in The Six before I knew it!

EdTech Hockey Sticks

I've been lucky enough to find myself in Canadian classrooms from St John's to Vancouver over the past year. Canada is the only developed country in the world without a national education strategy, so this isn't something many educators get to experience. The only people who do span our country are the edtech companies that have surged into being to resolve a digital skills gap that doesn't look to be going anywhere any time soon.

At its heart the widening digital divide is a inclusion and equity problem. Students who can't afford tech at home lack familiarity and fall behind when schools bring it in with no training for staff or students. It would be more productive if education in Canada did more than talk about DEI, but that would require strategic vision which we lack.

In my travels I've come across many edtech 'solutions'. These often involve off-the-shelf technology that has has been branded to meet a specific need in a 'turn-key' way so learning essential digital skills doesn't actually require any on the part of the instructor or students. The appearance of technology in a classroom is usually the goal, rather than the learning of fundamental digital skills. Of course, this bespoke marketing comes with a huge bump in price. I love seeing $15 open source Arduino microcontrollers paired with $10 in sensors and called a 'climate change' edtech kit, yours for $80! In many cases a hard sell accompanies these kits that are guaranteed to teach the STEM skills you don't have. UNESCO has something to say about this global phenomenon:

UNESCO's 2023 Technology in Education, a tool on who's terms? is well worth a read. With Canada's lack of a national education strategy, we have to find vision elsewhere. Someone asked me if I might do my Masters in Educational Technology and without hesitation I said, "educational technology is the worst kind of technology, why would I want a masters in that?"

The frustration around this has been gnawing at me and when I woke up this morning I had the edtech hockey stick floating in my head, so I made some marketing for it:

It's satire, it's supposed to be over the top or it wouldn't be satire.

The hockey metaphor brings home the absurd nature of the edtech dance we're in. Anyone who actually plays hockey will take one look at this thing and laugh. To someone who knows nothing about hockey it looks like it might work as both a player and goalie stick, but it will actually do neither thing. Edtech works the same way; it's selected and used by people who aren't skilled in technology, so this edtech hockey stick, like so many edtech solutions, is a marketing exercise bereft of pedagogical value that thrives on a lack of technical fluency. There isn't much incentive for edtech companies to address this ignorance, though branded educator 'qualifications' in edtech sure are popular.

The pedagogical solution is to learn digital technologies and media from the ground up instead of implementing simplified solutions like Chromebooks, the edtech hockey 'stickest' of them all. This is a one trick pony that ties learning to a single multi-national's browser and cannot provide any locally processed content. The cloud is where edtech solutions thrive because you can easily monetize access. The hard sell for strapped educational IT departments is that Chromebooks don't give you administration headaches because they can barely do anything, but like the edtech hockey stick they look like they can do just enough to make it look like you're doing something about the digital skills gap.

I am a relentless advocate for bringing real world technologies into our classrooms and showing students how to master them. The results speak for themselves. Whenever I bring the digital skills crisis up in Canadian education someone pipes up with "education is not just about job skills!". Indeed it isn't, but as a poor immigrant kid I can't help but see the privilege that opinion is couched in. Whenever someone suggests that it's their professional obligation to do less, I'm left wondering what they think professionalism is. I'd love to see educational professionals tackle the hard work of digital divide DEI and digital skilling like it matters instead of finding reasons to continue ignoring it while the edtech piranhas profit.

NOTES

There is no such thing as "Canadian Education". The PISA results everyone waves the flag about happen on the back of the four largest provinces. If you're elsewhere in the country you may be below the world average.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blogs/pisa-results-a-breakdown-by-province

"PISA results show each of the Big Four provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia achieving significantly higher average reading scores than all G7 member countries except, of course, Canada. The Big Four also outperformed five of these six G7 countries in math and science (the exception being Japan, which scores below Quebec in math and below Alberta in science)."

"... if we only consider PISA results for the remaining smaller six provinces, Canada fares much worse, placing 17th in reading (below the United States, the United Kingdom and Japan), 18th in science (again, below Japan, the U.K. and U.S.) and 30th in math, just below the OECD average."

That edtech companies are feeding off this siloed inequity is part of a larger problem. Next round of PISA is looking at digital skills (because we're in a global shortage). I'm curious to see how that gets politicised. Wouldn't it be something if we actually did something about our astoundingly poor digital fluency instead of buying for-profit solutions with little educational value?