Educational systems, corporations and special interest groups all espouse digital literacy as one of the key competencies for the 21st century. Yet faculty and organizations experience implementation roadblocks along the way. Here are five obstacles that need to be overcome to attain this goal and some workarounds to achieve "the summit".

5. Implementing systemic change - Have you ever tried to effect change in a system? It is like moving a mountain! While many stakeholders claim to want the change, change agents constantly find roadblocks in the way. Trying to implement one small thing can be insurmountable, let alone the implementation of a digital literacy program. "Tracing who or what has the power to 'name and define' what counts as literacy" (Street, 2011, p. 580) is critical. A possible workaround is to realize how systems change. Systems respond to strategic initiatives. Identifying and getting the correct stakeholders on board is a huge step to implementing change. Who do your leaders look up to? Who do they answer to? Find these people and get them on your side.

4. Overcoming turf battles - Have you ever tried to propose a new concept or way of doing things to tenured faculty or those that hold the power in an organization? Even if it is a great idea, even if you thought you had built consensus, you may suddenly see these colleagues dig their heels in. You will be greeted with quotes like, "We have always done it this way." " And perhaps most importantly, "What impact will this have on my discipline?" One of the problems in turf battles is how the change is presented. Often, as in the case of British Columbia's Education Plan, (2013a ) the edict came from the government and was passed down to the educators. The teachers had no say. There was no buy in and they were threatened. To address this obstacle good leaders should invite everyone to the table, talk about what they envision and ask the faculty how they could see things implemented. Good leaders should be willing to give something, i.e. planning time to make their goals a reality.

3. Funding: - To effect change takes time and time is money. Technology and maker space cost money, and money is hard to find in most school systems and institutions of higher education. As Smythe et. al stated, "Little or no funding [was given] to support teachers in building new curricular activities that integrate 'content and competencies'," (p. 753). It was further stated that they worked with "inadequate or flawed hardware and software." (p. 752). It is demoralizing to work with broken or inefficient equipment. It is frustrating both for the teachers and for the students. The push in the Canadian school systems seemed to have had an economic thrust. (p. 741). The implementation would hopefully produce better digitally qualified candidates for the workplace. Therefore, school systems could look to the workplace for solutions. If schools are producing students with the competencies needed to meet the economy's needs, then perhaps these same companies could provide the technology and perhaps some mentors to effect the change.

2. Changing perception - The common thread that ran through both Buckingham (2018) and Smythe et. al.'s (2016) articles is that digital technology seems to be more readily targeted for at risk students or students that were challenged to perform well in classes. Digital literacy is often viewed as an alternative form of teaching and learning. A change in perception needs to take place. Digital literacy should be for all students. How amazing would it be to require students applying to competitive colleges and universities to submit an audio essay of why they hope to attend college? It would be fantastic to require students to have their own web page as part of the admission process, defining who they are and what they would bring to the university. Intertwining digital literacy themes with college prep work and expectations would raise the visibility and importance of the inherent skills embedded in the thoughtful execution of digital literacy.

1. Defining literacy - What does it mean to be literate in 2019? Many in society would revert to a definition of being able to read, write and do math. An increasing number of individuals, however, take a wider approach. The British Columbia Ministry of Education talks about "21st century learning... where students use educational technologies to apply knowledge to new situations, analyze information, collaborate, solve problems, and make decisions. Utilizing emerging technologies to provide expanded learning opportunities is critical to the success of future generations. (Government of British Columbia, 2013b, para. 1)

While this listicle seems to take a rather cautious approach to digital literacy, the studies reported on by Smythe et al indicate that "everyone involved in the video production ventures was challenged in the practice of collaborative work: compromise, sharing power and control, accepting and integrating differences of opinion and creative visions, and addressing the everyday life challenges of the team members that inevitable shaped the production process." (p. 758)". They can serve as role models for us. And we should "never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed it is the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead

Sources:

Buckingham, D. (2018) The challenge of youth media. https://davidbuckingham.net/2018/11/23/the-challenge-of-youth-media/

Government of British Columbia. (2013a). British Columbia's Education Plan. Retrieved from https://www.google.ca/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=British + Columbia+Education+Plan&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&gws_rd=c&ed=PZZEUqual-r6igKu_4H4Bg

Government of British Columbia. (2013b). 21st century learning. Retrieved from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/dist_learning/21 century_learning.htm.

Smyth, S., Toohey, K., & Dagenais, D. (2016). Video making, production pedagogies, and educational policy. Educational Policy, 30(5), 740-770.

Street, B. (2100). Literacy inequalities in theory and practice: The power to name and define. International Journal of Educational Development, 31, 580-586.