This week in EDCI 136, conversations went richly human and justice-focused. We delved into digital surveillance, accessibility rights, and Indigenous perspectives on digital literacies. These weren’t dry technical topics—these challenged me to think through the values, systems, and assumptions baked into the digital places we live everyday.
👁️ Academic Surveillance: Who’s Watching, and Why?
Whereas the presentations of Ian Linkletter and Chris Gilliard were not for public consumption, they left a lasting impression. Their keytakeaway: surveillance in learning is not just about preventing cheating—it’s about power, control, and equity.
⚠️ Core Issues Raised:
• Proctoring software treats students as susppects, not learners
• AI systems often misinterpret neurodivergent and disabled behavior
• Surveillance negatively impacts marginalized students, especially Black, Indigenous, and disabled learners
• “Luxury surveillance” normalizes invasiveness in everyday life
💡Reflection
As a student, I’ve experienced how intrusive surveillance technologiesfeel. Being tracked by my eye movements or surroundings makes it hard to focus, let alone learn. I now see how these technologiesfuel institutional distrust and compound existing inequities.
♿ Understanding Accessibility Beyond Accommodations
Our second guest session—featuring Charlie, Sydney, and Szymon from UVic’s CAL team—was one of the most informative to date. It openedmy eyes to what academic accessibility entails.
🔍What I Learned:
• 1 in 5 UVic students has a registered disability
• Most disabilities are invisible (anxiety, chronic pain, learning disabilities)
• Accommodations such as extra time, flexible attendance, or alternate formats are human rights, not academic favors
• Instructors have more flexibility than most realize
• Academic concessions are available to all students, even without formal documentation
📌 Key Insight:
Accessibility is not “leveling the playing field”—it’s about eliminatingobstacles so that each person has a chance to show what they know. And flexibility isn’t a weakness; it’s a pillar of sound teaching.
🧠 Indigenous Digital Literacies with Nodin Cutfeet
Listening to Nodin Cutfeet, Waniskaw Foundation founder, was a highlight. He spoke about how youth in Indigenous northern communities get left behind by digital learning—a deficiency not due toan aspiration for riches but due to tools designed without them.
🌱Key Themes:
• Community-led learning is worthwhile over “career-oriented” technicalprograms
• Motivation is based on expression, creativity, and sense of belonging among their peers, not in the possession of money
• Data self-determination is important—Indigenous peoples must havecontrol over the use of their knowledge
• Mainstream AI has the tendency to bend Indigenous cultures, blending distinct traditions into a homogenized “pan-Indigenous”narrative
• Digital tools must be low-bandwidth, hardware-light, and locally adaptable
💡 Reflection:
This presentation made me question the default narratives of digital literacy. “One-size-fits-all” solutions prescribe cultural sameness and flatten diverse learning identities. It reminded me that accessibility and inclusion must be relational, not just technical.
🔗Connecting the Dots: Surveillance, Equity & Inclusion
Throughout these discussions, one message was threaded throughout: technology is never neutral.
• Surveillance software claims to offer equality but often strips it away
• Accessibility in education isn’t just about compliance—it’s about dignity and belonging
• Indigenous communities are creating alternative models of tech education that center on culture, respect, and agency
📝Final Thoughts
This week left me thinking hard about the type of digital world that I would like to help bring into being. It’s not enough to be “digitally literate”—I want to be digitally just. That means opposing systems that exclude, surveil, or erase—and building up alternatives that center care, culture, and connection.