Digital Technologies and Instructional Practices

Digital technology emerged during the 1980s, and has gained widespread adoption, including transforming numerous aspects of educational delivery (Conroy, Reference Conroy2010; Duff, Carter, Spangenberg, & Miller, Reference Duff, Carter, Spangenberg and Miller2010; Paechter & Maier, Reference Paechter and Maier2010; Seeley Brown & Adler, Reference Seeley Brown and Adler2008; Smith & Caruso, Reference Smith and Caruso2010). Since their introduction, digital technologies have been embraced by the Australian tertiary educational sector for the delivery of its programs. In 2001, a national Australian survey found that more than half of the then 43 Australian universities offered 207 fully internet based courses (a course is a structured combination of approved units, generally leading to an award). Another key finding in that study was that 50,704 university units (a unit is a discrete component of study within a subject area that is part of a course) had web-based content (Bell, Bush, Nicholson, O'Brien, & Tran, Reference Bell, Bush, Nicholson, O'Brien and Tran2002). Recent studies have shown that web based education has become a standard offering across most Australian universities (Preston et al., Reference Preston, Phillips, Gosper, McNeill, Woo and Green2010; Taplin, Lee, & Brown, Reference Taplin, Lee and Brown2011).

The popularity of online learning is due to the temporal and proximal flexibility provided to learners (Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, Reference Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia and Jones2009) and the fact that it provides new forms of communication (Kirkwood, Reference Kirkwood2008). There is a considerable body of empirical research that shows the superiority of online or computer based learning over face-to-face instruction in many circumstances with respect to increasing student performance (Angus & Watson, Reference Angus and Watson2009; Li & Xin, Reference Li and Xin2010; McKee, Costello, Adams, & Porter, Reference McKee, Costello, Adams and Porter2010; Means et al., Reference Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia and Jones2009) and eliciting student engagement (Chen, Lambert, & Guidry, Reference Chen, Lambert and Guidry2010; Oliver, Reference Oliver2008). Such access and achievement relate to the nature of digital technologies which are beginning to erode the boundaries between learning and socialising.

As distinct from the initial web technologies that were focused on information dissemination, the term Web 2.0 represents an entire series of new applications that facilitate group collaboration to produce online digital content (O'Reilley, Reference O'Reilley2007). This interactive, social and read–write web format has enabled knowledge to be readily collected and disseminated (Senior, Reference Senior2010), which has broadened the narrow institutionally defined concept of e-learning (as content that is delivered through a learning management system) to one that is much more all-encompassing. Web 2.0 applications are those such as wikis, weblogs and social networking sites (which are able to facilitate collaboration and information sharing); podcasts, and RSS feeds. However, while there have been a number of innovative Web 2.0 initiatives undertaken by early adopters worldwide (McLoughlin & Wee, Reference McLoughlin and Wee2010), this potential has not yet been realised in mainstream higher education (Schulmeister, Reference Schulmeister, Ebner and Scheifner2010; Williams, Karousou, & Mackness, Reference Williams, Karousou and Mackness2011).

Mobile learning tools have the potential to support remote groups. One domain that has shown promising developments is in the area of literacy and language learning. This was demonstrated in an action research project by Kim (Reference Kim2009) that proved to be highly effective and well received by migrant Indigenous children in Latin America. In this particular context, mobile learning was shown to be a suitable learning tool for Indigenous populations lacking adequate internet access to information technology. The content that was utilised by these learners was in the form of pre-packaged material loaded into a handheld machine, and podcasts. Mobile learning tool characteristics that are particularly suitable for ‘at risk’ learners are that they are generally ubiquitous; hidden (integrating so seamlessly into the user's personal context that it is not apparent to others); personal (placing the learner in full proximal and temporal control of the device); and integrated (bringing learning into the learner's personal context which can be highly motivational for their learning; Böck, Reference Böck2010).

Mobile learning has also been used as a platform for launching other methods of digital learning which can engage the learner on a number of levels. Augmented reality games refer to ‘virtual experiences that are played out in real-world spaces . . . players can discover contextualized clues only via the digital interface where he or she arrives at the right location with a mobile device’ (Bidarra & Martins, Reference Bidarra and Martins2010, p. 176). Games such as these offer the learner a multisensory experience, which is contextualised in reality, and adds an emotional dimension to learning which makes for a holistic and therefore powerful learning experience.

A related technical innovation that has attracted interest as a means of improving online learner engagement is the animated pedagogical agent (APA) which is defined as a computerised persona that guides the learner through multimedia learning environments (Craig, Gholson, & Driscoll, Reference Craig, Gholson and Driscoll2002; Heidig & Clarebout, Reference Heidig and Clarebout2011). It is argued that the endowment of APAs with lifelike properties encourages learners to interact with environments inhabited by them (Lester et al., Reference Lester, Converse, Kahler, Barlow, Stone and Bhoga1997). The anthropomorphic qualities of such personas are thought to activate the social interaction schema (Domagk, Reference Domagk2010), which facilitates learning. Furthermore, the ability to customise APA gender, age, race, clothing, vocal and linguistic properties, emotional expressions and gesture makes them a useful pedagogical ally. A prominent example of an APA being used in Indigenous education is that of the Messaging Architecture for the Retrieval of Versatile Information and News (MARVIN) system (Easterby-Wood & Jones, Reference Easterby-Wood and Jones2005). Like other APAs, MARVIN has the ability to convey messages in appropriate traditional dialects, and embody life-like characteristics based on authentic personas from these remote regions. This implies that the technology has the potential to reach to older generation desert people who are not likely to be proficient in the English language (Rothwell, Reference Rothwell2003). While the application of this technology to deliver health education messages was initially the main impetus for its use, its educational potential has been expanded to include the intergenerational transmission of cultural knowledge (Barber & Tuovinen, Reference Barber, Tuovinen, Reeves and Yamashita2006). Indeed, the educative use of APAs is limited only by the imaginations of educators and users, given that the technology is relatively inexpensive to procure, simple to use, easily customised, and the resulting products are easily disseminated.

The e-portfolio is another digital technology that can greatly enhance learning by providing a bridge between the conceptual knowledge acquired in university classrooms which may otherwise be decontextualised from reality, to the real world. Specifically, students can use the e-portfolio to showcase their learning through the use of ‘video resumes and other medial rich artefacts that highlight skills and key capabilities’ (Von Konsky et al., Reference Von Konsky, Oliver, Nikoletatos and Wilkinson2010, p. 174) according to the relevance to real world contexts. The e-portfolio is a versatile tool that can be used in collaborative ways to elicit deep learning. For example, Cheng (Reference Cheng2009) used the e-portfolio platform to foster self-reflection by requiring students to capture their self-reflections on video, and to upload them on to the e-portfolio for their fellow students to comment on. She found the medium to have a highly motivational effect on students to produce and showcase their self-reflections (Cheng, Reference Cheng2009).

Aside from the e-portfolio, learner-generated digital video (DV) projects are valued by educational researchers for their ability to support authenticity in learning, especially when learner/creators are encouraged to share and discuss their creations with a relevant audience (Kearney, Reference Kearney2011). A particular genre of DV is ‘digital storytelling’, and is defined by Rolon Dow (Reference Rolon-Dow2011, p. 171) as ‘the use of digital media to create and share stories that integrate images, videos, music and audio narratives’. It has been used successfully as a medium for exploring the significance of race in adolescent educational experiences (Rolon-Dow, Reference Rolon-Dow2011), and so could be instrumental in illuminating racial inequalities, thereby giving Indigenous students legitimacy to express such concerns.

The opportunities offered by many of these digital technologies are promising, because they are able to transcend the cognitive aspects of learning, and engage the social, emotional and even physical learner domains (Johnson, Reference Johnson2010), therefore providing a more holistic learning experience. It is reasonable to assume that in many circumstances digital technologies are superior in engaging the learner, so people who do not have access are at a distinct disadvantage.

Barriers to the Uptake of Digital Technologies for Australian Indigenous Learners

In Australia, while the potential instructional benefits of digital information and communication technologies hold promise for Indigenous learners, the uptake of digital learning for this population has not resulted in the anticipated growth in numbers of Indigenous higher education students. Indigenous people are still the most severely underrepresented in higher education (Bradley et al., Reference Bradley, Noonan, Nugent and Scales2008, p. 16). It is argued that three barriers to the use of digital technologies at least partly account for this disproportionate underrepresentation; namely physical, literacy, and content barriers. Such barriers have been discussed in digital divide literature for decades (e.g., Dyson, Hendricks, & Grant, Reference Dyson, Hendricks and Grant2006; Gurnstein, Reference Gurnstein2000).

First, while it would appear that physical access to the internet is improving for Australian Indigenous learners, nevertheless a significant gap remains between this group and that of mainstream Australians. In the 2011 census, more than one-third (37%) of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander households reported not having an internet connection, as compared to only 23% for other households (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011). Thus, this problem remains as an impediment to the uptake of digital technologies for many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Furthermore, the implementation of the National Broadband Network (NBN), which has been touted as a solution to enable faster broadband services to Australians in regional towns, even extending to people dwelling in more remote regions of rural Australia (Conroy, Reference Conroy2009), is not anticipated to offer significant improvements for remote Indigenous communities in the near future. A recent study showed that upload speeds will be inadequate to support streaming needs for education delivery to remote users, thereby widening the gap between remote Indigenous communities and the broader community (Tugwell, Reference Tugwell2011).

Second, digital access is more than physical access and includes foundational skills required to interact with the technology. There are two key aspects to this problem, namely the low literacy levels of Indigenous Australians in general, and the inadequate information and communication technology (ICT) skills of teachers. Literacy outcomes for Indigenous people are significantly below the results of their non-Indigenous counterparts as evidenced by national literacy benchmark results (Samaras, Reference Samaras2005). This has negative implications not only for Indigenous computer literacy levels (Barraket, Payne, Scott, & Cameron, Reference Barraket, Payne, Scott and Cameron2000; Curtin, Reference Curtin2001; Duggan, Reference Duggan2009; Dyson, Reference Dyson2002; Gibb, Hamilton, & Haley, Reference Gibb, Hamilton and Haley2004; Samaras, Reference Samaras2005), but also comprehension of academic discourse and discipline specific jargon. This state of affairs is aptly summarised by Gibb (Reference Gibb2006) who asserts that rural Indigenous students commencing study are not intuitively equipped with the skills and knowledge to participate in university practices. The second aspect of this problem pertains to the teachers’ lack of competence both in using computers and integrating ICTs into their teaching practices (Bingimlas, Reference Bingimlas2009), which presents significant barriers to their learners.

Finally, equity of ICT access cannot result in equity of information access for Indigenous Australians unless relevant and accessible content is available (Samaras, Reference Samaras2005). It is widely held that cultural material designed for Anglo Australians are not pedagogically appropriate for Indigenous Australians (Henderson, Reference Henderson1996). The idea that cultural values permeate educational computing environments implies that it is impossible to create a learning environment that is culturally neutral (McLoughlin & Oliver, Reference McLoughlin and Oliver1999). It is therefore understood that the design of learning environments needs to be adaptive enough to incorporate cultural norms of the society it aims to educate.

Learner Characteristics of Indigenous People

The idea that Australian Indigenous learners have a characteristic learning style was first reported as the result of a systematic naturalistic observation of Aboriginal children in a remote setting (Harris, Reference Harris1980). Harris (Reference Harris1980) carried out research from 1975 to 1976 at Minglingimbi, a remote Aboriginal community in the Northern Territory, and his findings were subsequently summarised by Hughes and More (Reference Hughes and More1997). Harris expanded the concept of Australian Indigenous learning to include the learning context, and isolated a number of characteristics of traditional informal education. They are: observational learning preferred over verbal; experiential learning over listening; learning settings that are contextually meaningful, discouragement of questioning behaviours; valuing of the teacher over the information; ways of doing things perpetuated; group solidarity promoted over individual superiority; acquisition of knowledge directly from the expert in an apprentice-novice system; and fusion of emotional and intellectual domains.

However, the demographic and contextual specificity of this study implies that these findings need to be generalised with caution (Marshall, Northcote, & Lenoy, Reference Marshall, Northcote and Lenoy2001). The fact that much of this work was grounded in Indigenous children's learning behaviours means that the generalisability of the results of these studies to adult learners cannot automatically be assumed (Marshall et al., Reference Marshall, Northcote and Lenoy2001). It is also important to consider that having a particular contextual learning background enhances the child's effectiveness in contextual learning (Harris, Reference Harris1980), which was certainly demonstrated in the case of the desert Aboriginals. Furthermore, as Wolf (Reference Wolf2007) pointed out, models derived from direct observations of students’ learning preferences have tended to be regarded with scientific scepticism due to the perceived subjectivity of phenomenological data.

This methodological concern was addressed when scientific empirical data about Australian Aboriginal learning strengths became available in a landmark study by Kearins (Reference Kearins1986) who compared Aboriginal and Anglo Australian adolescents (Experiment 1) and children (Experiment 2) on their performances on tasks involving visual-spatial memory. This study was unique because it fulfilled the criteria of cultural and ecological validity by applying testing procedures that were compatible with each group's particular culture (Dingwall & Cairney, Reference Dingwall and Cairney2010). This included the cultivation of prior social connections with the community before the commencement of experimentation, and the selection of testing activities that were familiar to the participants (Kearins, Reference Kearins1986). In the first experiment, Australian Aboriginal adolescents from a particular desert region performed significantly better than their Anglo Australian counterparts on the visual-spatial task involving the memorisation and relocation of objects on a grid. This finding was replicated in the second experiment, which was designed to examine the visual–spatial memory of younger children. In this particular study, the two groups of Aboriginal participants were recruited respectively from a small desert-fringe town (non-traditional Aboriginal) and from central desert regions in the Northern Territory (semi-traditional), while the Anglo-Australian participants were recruited from a forestry and farming area near Perth in Western Australia. As before, both groups of Aboriginal children performed significantly better than their Anglo counterparts. Also, within the Aboriginal group, the youngest semi-traditional children outperformed their non-traditional counterparts, while the older children had comparable scores (Kearins, Reference Kearins1986).

Seminal findings such as these add credence to the idea that childrearing practices can impact upon learning (Taylor, Reference Taylor2011). These allude to the mediating effect of culture, aptly defined by Hofstede and McCrae (Reference Hofstede and McCrae2004, p. 58) as ‘the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one human group from another’ on Indigenous learning. When contrasting Anglo and Indigenous cultures using Hofstede's (Reference Hofstede and McCrae2004) framework, Simonsen (1999, as cited in Reece, Nesbitt, Gillard, & Donovan, Reference Reece, Nesbitt, Gillard and Donovan2010) found that the Indigenous culture he surveyed in Cape York Peninsula, Queensland: leaned more strongly towards centralised power (as opposed to distributed power); were slightly more collectivistic (as opposed to individualistic); were more feminine in outlook; were much more risk avoidant and had a much shorter-term orientation as compared to their Anglo Australian counterparts. Despite the fact that Simonsen's work was based on a discrete Indigenous culture, these findings can be generalised to other Indigenous cultures to a certain extent. However, even in the Australian context it is important to understand learning related cultural differences between urban, rural and remote Indigenous children, adolescents and adults. This can significantly impact on the appropriateness of the design of particular digital learning environments.

Thus, if education is cultural transmission (Singleton, 1974, as cited in Eckermann, Reference Eckermann2006), those not born into the dominant cultural paradigm are essentially foreigners in an alien culture. Undoubtedly, early socialisation of Indigenous students into this new paradigm provides them with the skills required to operate successfully in that paradigm, as it becomes a part of their learning schemata. According to Brewer and Nakamura (Reference Brewer, Nakamura, Wyer and Srull1984, p. 2), schemata which are ‘higher-order cognitive structures that have been hypothesised to underlie many aspects of human knowledge and skill’ affects cognition in the way that new and existing knowledge interact with respect to perception, language, thought and memory (Brewer & Nakamura, Reference Brewer, Nakamura, Wyer and Srull1984). As such, many Indigenous students who reside in rural and remote settings may not to have the same opportunities at acculturating to the dominant educational paradigm as many of their urban counterparts due to factors such as family socioeconomic disadvantage, smaller school sizes, reduced quality of educational resources at school, less access to home computers, teacher issues such as inexperience, recruitment and retention, and difficulties in locating staff to teach in critical areas such as English as a Second Language (ESL), mathematics and science (Welch, Helme, & Lamb, Reference Welch, Helme and Lamb2007).

Given the importance of cultural and environmental contexts in learning, one useful avenue of research is the investigation into differences in learning strengths of urban, rural and remote Indigenous learners, using culturally relevant measurement tools. As indicated earlier, the older Aboriginal children in the Kearins’ (Reference Kearins1986) study performed equally well regardless of whether they were from non-traditional or semi-traditional backgrounds, when the testing was culturally appropriate, but this did not apply to younger children. However, these findings relate to a specific visual-spatial skill, clearly aligned with traditional practices.

Although the Kearins (Reference Kearins1986) study was conducted close to three decades ago, the problematic practice of classifying ability without adapting testing conditions or material for cultural appropriateness remains common to this day. As Dingwall, Pinkerton and Lindeman (Reference Dingwall, Pinkerton and Lindeman2013) demonstrated in their qualitative study into the validity of the administration of cognitive performance tests such as the Weschler Adult Intelligent Scale (WAIS) to Aboriginal clients in the Northern Territory, the practice of classifying cognitive ability without adapting testing conditions or material for cultural appropriateness is an ongoing problem. Specifically, such testing procedures are raising validity concerns for the psychologists who administer them, with respect to English language ability, education and acculturation into mainstream educational environment, which come down to whether clients are from a remote or urban location. (Dingwall et al., Reference Dingwall, Pinkerton and Lindeman2013).

Finally, the discussion on the learning characteristics of Indigenous people would be incomplete without mentioning the physical and emotional issues that are likely to have a negative impact on learning, especially among Indigenous children and adolescence. One important physical concern is the ongoing prevalence of hearing impairments caused by otitis media among Indigenous children (Dingwall & Cairney, Reference Dingwall and Cairney2010; Frigo, Reference Frigo1999; Northern Territory Department of Education, 1999; Samaras, Reference Samaras2005; Williams, Reference Williams2010). Furthermore, school aged Indigenous Australians have had a significantly higher record of emotional difficulties, with one study reporting that almost one quarter of Aboriginal children aged 4–17 years were assessed, from responses given by carers, as being at a high risk of clinically significant emotional or behavioural difficulties (De Maio et al., Reference De Maio, Zubrick, Silburn, Lawrence, Mitrou, Dalby and Cox2005).

In summary, while there is little evidence for a single Indigenous learning style (Hughes & More, Reference Hughes and More1997; Ryan, Reference Ryan1992) there are certain learner characteristics shared by many Indigenous groups (which are dependent on cultural and contextual factors) which indicate preference for a more holistic learning style. Thus, an important concern is the lack of research about the interplay between the cognitive, social, emotional and physical learning aspects to inform the design of digital learning environments for Indigenous learners. Instead, the approach taken in this field has primarily been from an ethnocentric learning theory reference point (Anderson, Reference Anderson1988; Nakata, Nakata, & Chin, Reference Nakata, Nakata and Chin2008). As Malcolm and Rochescouste (Reference Malcolm and Rochescouste2003) pointed out, the literature bearing on Indigenous students in higher education tends to be favourable descriptions of particular programs by convenors, that abound with ‘advice rather than analysis’ (p. 16). This state of affairs is mirrored in the observations made by Milton and Vosso (Reference Milton and Vosso2010) about the lack of research in the area of information technology in higher education to support Indigenous student learning.

Potential of Digital Technologies for Accommodating Indigenous Learning

Despite the paucity of rigorous empirical studies into this area, a number of independent studies have been suggestive of the suitability of digital learning environments for producing positive learning outcomes for Australian Indigenous students (Duggan, Reference Duggan2009; Dyson, Reference Dyson, Sudweeks and Ess2004; McAuley & Walton, Reference McAuley and Walton2011; Tayler & Spicer, Reference Tayler and Spicer2009). The compatibility between Indigenous learning strengths and computers, specifically the appeal to their visual and spatial aptititudes was observed (O'Donoghue, 1992) even before networked computing had attained widespread use. It is argued that digital learning environments with visual, as opposed to textual representation of information (e.g., graphics and multimedia) are of particular compatibility with Indigenous learning preferences. Additionally, the availability of collaborative tools such as discussion boards, wikis and synchronous chat rooms (Duggan, Reference Duggan2009) may help to connect remotely located Indigenous learners and enable them to retain connections to their communities, essential for sustainability of long term community development planning (Kral & Schwab, Reference Kral and Schwab2003).

The use of computers to mediate communication may also have a buffering effect on detrimental teacher–student and student–student interactions that have been known to occur in traditional face-to face-classrooms. The use of computers to mediate teacher–student communication avoids any possible negativity that can arise from teachers speaking in high level English when the student is grappling with comprehending English as an additional language, and so eliminating any potential feelings of public shame in the classroom (Steen, Reference Steen1997). This phenomenon can arise even when positive recognition is given to the Indigenous student by the teacher. The issue of shame in general has been raised as a legitimate concern by all Indigenous participants in a recent study (Oliver, Grote, Rochecouste, & Exell, Reference Oliver, Grote, Rochecouste and Exell2012). The mediating effect of computers can also buffer the students from negative peer pressure of conformity to mediocre group standards which can also be detrimental to learning (Steen, Reference Steen1997).

The internet has created numerous learning opportunities that may be compatible with Indigenous learning culture. For example, there is evidence, albeit anecdotal, that Indigenous learners have readily accepted multimedia and information and communication technologies, using them creatively and passionately (Donovan, Reference Donovan, Dyson, Hendriks and Grant2007). Another salient feature of networked computing is the ability to support the mobile mode of living of many Indigenous students (Donovan, Reference Donovan, Dyson, Hendriks and Grant2007; Lynch, Reference Lynch2009; Memmot, Long, & Thomson, Reference Memmot, Long and Thomson2006). There have also been a number of case studies of learning management systems being used to support Indigenous students’ learning (Bartlett, Reference Bartlett2004; Duggan, Reference Duggan2009).

Access to digital technologies have been shown to empower even those from severely impoverished backgrounds as they are able to teach themselves to use digital tools to achieve specific learning objectives in partnership with their peers in the absence of ongoing teacher intervention. This was demonstrated in a series of ‘Hole-in-the-Wall’ (HiW) experiments (Mitra, Reference Mitra2003) which commenced in 1999, where the researcher embedded a computer with an internet connection in a wall of a slum area of New Delhi to investigate the ability of the local street children to use the device without instruction and recorded their activities on video. The series of studies revealed that with minimal intervention, the children were sufficiently self-motivated to teach themselves to use computers to achieve educational objectives (Mitra, Reference Mitra2003; Mitra & Dangwal, Reference Mitra and Dangwal2010). What was even more interesting was that the experimental group that was assigned a mediator with no prior knowledge of the subject area, but who provided verbal affirmations and encouragement to learn had significantly better scores than the group with no mediator (Mitra & Dangwal, Reference Mitra and Dangwal2010). Thus, the HiW experiments serve to illustrate the latent learning potential within each individual that may be ignited through the use of digital technologies, an effect that is magnified with human encouragement.

Implications

There are a number of implications that are apparent from this review. First, there is a need to move beyond the objectivist notion of learning as a process that involves a discrete transfer of information from the teachers’ minds to those of the students, and divorced from the students and their contexts. Instead, principles drawn from constructivism (Piaget, Reference Piaget1973), social constructivism (Vygotsky & Cole, Reference Vygotsky and Cole.1978), situated cognition (Barab & Kirshner, Reference Barab and Kirshner2001), and embodied cognition (De Koning & Tabbers, Reference De Koning and Tabbers2011) should also be incorporated into the designs of new digital technologies. This means that the pedagogical frameworks upon which many of these technologies are based, need to be dependent on the process of knowledge construction that transcends the knower, and extends to the learning context and the activities performed by the learner (Bidarra & Martins, Reference Bidarra and Martins2010). Thus, the use of digital technologies can be used as vessels to enable the creation and sharing of information using authentic activities (McLoughlin & Oliver, Reference McLoughlin and Oliver1999).

Second, digital learning environments need to be designed with cultural adaptability as a criterion, so as to increase inclusivity to all learners. One way of achieving this is by incorporating a ‘multiple cultural, rather than multicultural contextualisation of instructional design’ (Henderson, Reference Henderson1996, p. 85). This is a design principle initially proposed by Reeves in 1992, and is based on 14 dimensions of interactive learning which certain cultures are likely to differ (Collis, Reference Collis1999).

It does so by including a number of cultural viewpoints into an eclectic paradigm (comprising objectivist-constructivist-critical theory paradigms) to enable multiple cultures to remain immersed in their cultural identities (Henderson, Reference Henderson1996). While this paradigm may appear dated, it can be adapted for application to the newer digital technologies.

Third, ownership of the media that ends up on the World Wide Web for educational purposes is an issue of concern for Indigenous learners, especially when the media comprises salient aspects of their heritage, which is then commodified or appropriated (Brown & Nicholas, Reference Brown and Nicholas2012). These authors suggest that losses may be incurred when these concerns lead to relinquishment of access to genealogical information, conflict over control of stewardship of, and access to, heritage information, reduced respect for sacred objects, and decline of cultural distinctiveness authenticity and livelihood through commercialisation. They report that a number of Indigenous groups worldwide have harnessed digital technologies as a means of promoting collaboration, knowledge sharing and producing culturally appropriate models for dealing with these potential losses.

Fourth, teachers’ lack of competence in using computers and integrating ICTs into their teaching practices can be addressed by professional development, and enough time and technical support to gain mastery of this ever changing landscape (Bingimlas, Reference Bingimlas2009).

Finally, as the HiW studies illustrate, the provision of tools that enable access to digital technologies are essential. However, their influence is limited without the element of human encouragement. Therefore, endeavours such as the OLPC (One Laptop Per Child) project in Australia, which aims to improve learning opportunities for primary aged children by providing them with an inexpensive internet enabled laptop, may yield greater benefits if the recipients are provided with connectivity to an Indigenous elder who takes on a coaching role to provide encouragement to the learners. Even though the coach may not have expertise in that particular domain of knowledge, this form of intergenerational learning may provide learners with empowerment to extend themselves to learn.

Summary and Conclusion

The possibilities for increased educational outcomes with the uptake of digital technology in Indigenous learning contexts are clear. It is evident that the potential offered by new digital technologies can redefine the concept of e-learning due to the democratisation of information sharing, facilitation of mobility, and engagement of learner domains beyond the cognitive, to include the social, emotional and physical. Some notable barriers to the uptake of such technologies, which need to be addressed if this potential is to be realised, include ongoing physical access to the internet, lack of foundational skills to interact with the technology and incongruity between cultural values implicit in the educational computing environments, and those of the learners who use them. It is suggested that there is a good fit between the cultural characteristics of Indigenous people, and the connectivity enabled by digital learning environments. Finally, evidence for the potential of digital technologies for accommodating Indigenous learning is clear. This evidence includes the compatibility between the contextual learning backgrounds of Indigenous learners from rural and remote settings who have more exposure to visual–spatial learning opportunities; the buffering effect from counterproductive peer and teacher interactions; the fit between the opportunities that ICTs can offer and Indigenous culture; and the empowerment that access to such technologies can bring to learners.

Implications for practice include the need to consider constructivist epistemologies in the design and utilisation of digital learning environments and the need for cultural adaptability as a learning design consideration. There is a need to exercise caution with respect to digitising material that carries cultural and historical significance, but also an equally strong need to investigate innovative new ways to overcome these threats. Additionally, teachers need to be provided with professional development to improve their skills in using digital technologies. Finally, digital tools, and pedagogical philosophies are only as effective as the actual people who are entrusted with enriching the educational experiences of Indigenous learners as the HiW studies illustrate. This literature review argues that the benefits that new digital technologies can bring to Indigenous learners needs to be accompanied by research that explores the complexities of human learning, beyond that of the cognitive to encompass the social, emotional and physical domains, elements that are often missing in educational research due to the fragmenting of the complexity of human learning. In this way it will be possible to design digital learning environments that are more likely to suit the distinctive needs of urban, rural and remote Indigenous students.