Author: kbonner

Throughout this exploration into digital literacy and Indigenous sovereignty, I’ve come to understand that technology is more than a utility it is a cultural bridge, a protector of knowledge, and a vessel for resilience. Digital literacy for Indigenous communities, particularly across British Columbia, is not just about technical proficiency; it is about access, voice, and self-determination. It’s about creating, not just consuming owning data, not just storing it and ensuring that technologies reflect Indigenous ways of knowing rather than colonial structures. I began this journey looking at digital access gaps, but what I discovered was much more layered. The issue is deeply tied to historical dispossession, colonial policies, and infrastructure inequities that persist today.

The First Peoples’ Map of B.C. became a powerful turning point in my learning. It showcases Indigenous languages, arts, and culture through an interactive, community-led platform. Far from being a static database, it is alive with Indigenous presence, highlighting 36 languages, artist profiles, and traditional territories. What’s crucial is that it is run by Indigenous people for Indigenous people. This is digital sovereignty in action: communities controlling their own narratives, maintaining guardianship over their knowledge, and reshaping how education and heritage are shared.

Reports from the First Nations Technology Council and platforms like FNIGC’s OCAP principles have also broadened my understanding. They make it clear that digital spaces must not be neutral zones they must be culturally safe and politically empowering. Internet access, as stated by the Technology Council, is not just a service it is an enabler of education, economic growth, language preservation, and cultural survival. Every Indigenous community that lacks access is left further behind.

This learning journey reinforced that the digital divide is more than technological it is emotional, cultural, and existential. Communities are fighting not just for Wi-Fi, but for the ability to speak their languages, tell their stories, and educate their youth in their own voices.

• Digital literacy must be culturally grounded and reflect Indigenous knowledge systems.
• First Peoples’ Map shows real examples of sovereignty over language, art, and territory.
• Data sovereignty includes who owns, stores, and controls Indigenous knowledge.
• Critical media literacy helps Indigenous youth challenge online stereotypes.
• Offline tools are used in rural areas where digital infrastructure is lacking.
• Intergenerational learning is supported by language apps and storytelling projects.

What I Learned

• The digital world can be a space for cultural safety, if it is designed inclusively.
• Infrastructure gaps are about more than access—they’re about identity and future.
• Indigenous communities have already built incredible tools; we need to amplify them.

What I Struggled With

• Finding resources that were truly Indigenous-led rather than institutional summaries.
• Grasping the depth of data governance and the politics behind storage and access.

What I Enjoyed

• Exploring the First Peoples’ Map and seeing digital cartography used for empowerment.
• Learning about language revitalization and the emotional importance behind it.
• Discovering Indigenous-led platforms like Digital Smudge that mix culture, tech, and care.

What started as a research project on digital literacy became a window into the spiritual, cultural, and political realities of Indigenous communities. These are not passive recipients of technology they are builders, creators, and leaders who are reshaping the digital landscape on their terms. The path forward requires not just access, but autonomy and we must all listen, learn, and support efforts that place Indigenous voices at the centre of every digital conversation.

Digital literacy, especially in an Indigenous context, extends well beyond the simple act of getting online. It involves questions of power, control, voice, and the preservation of cultural heritage. These values shape how information is collected, stored, and shared. It is the difference between a community being spoken about by outsiders and a community telling its own stories using its own words.

True digital sovereignty offers a framework for Indigenous peoples to design, guide, and define the technologies they use. This commitment requires everyone to listen, learn, and ultimately follow the leadership of Indigenous communities. Doing so means amplifying their innovations and honoring the data protocols that protect sensitive cultural information. It means recognizing Indigenous peoples as creators and builders whose work reshapes the digital landscape on their own terms.

The future of digital spaces rests on acknowledging the full spectrum of Indigenous knowledge systems and ensuring that digital literacy reflects a genuine respect for autonomy. This involves learning from those who have been systematically silenced and valuing their contributions as essential to all our futures. When Indigenous voices are placed at the core of digital development, the result is a richer, more equitable technological environment for everyone.

Following my earlier exploration of the digital divide in Indigenous communities across British Columbia, I’ve been diving deeper into digital literacy as a tool for self-determination. This is not just about knowing how to operate a laptop or navigate a website. For Indigenous communities, digital literacy intersects directly with digital sovereignty, The right to manage, protect, and preserve their own knowledge systems, stories, and data.

Many Indigenous nations in BC hold knowledge systems deeply tied to the land and carried through generations via oral tradition, language, and cultural practices. With increasing digital engagement, these communities are using technology not to assimilate, but to revitalize languages, protect sacred knowledge, and reclaim narrative control. But to do this meaningfully, digital literacy must be redefined framed through Indigenous worldviews, not colonial tech standards.

What Does Indigenous Digital Literacy Look Like?

• Critical Media Engagement
  Understanding how Indigenous communities are portrayed online and actively resisting stereotypes, misinformation, and exploitative narratives (First Nations Technology Council, 2020).
• Data Sovereignty
  Knowing how and where digital cultural content is stored. Who owns it? Who can access it? Tools like Indigenous data governance frameworks (FNIGC, n.d.) help communities protect their digital material.
• Land-Based Digital Tools
  Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and mapping software to record traditional territories, migration routes, and ecological knowledge (Nuxalk Nation, n.d.).
• Culturally Relevant Content Creation
  Developing language apps, virtual museum exhibits, podcasts, and digital stories that teach traditional knowledge in ways that resonate with youth.
• Ethical Sharing Practices
  Learning to navigate consent and ownership when digitizing oral histories, ceremonies, or community records.

This is a digital map of First Nation land in B.C, retrieved from First Peoples’ Map

The First Peoples’ Map of British Columbia is a interactive platform that showcases the tapestry of Indigenous languages, arts, and cultural heritage across the province. Developed by the First Peoples’ Cultural Council (FPCC), this map serves as both an educational resource and a tool for cultural preservation.

Languages: The map highlights all 36 Indigenous languages native to British Columbia, offering pronunciation guides, greetings, and detailed information about each language’s status and revitalization efforts. ​First Peoples Cultural Council

Arts: Users can explore profiles of Indigenous artists, view artworks, and learn about various art forms that are integral to Indigenous cultures in the region.​

Cultural Heritage: The map provides insights into significant cultural sites, traditional place names, and community landmarks, fostering a deeper understanding of the historical and contemporary significance of these locations.

The First Peoples’ Map exemplifies the intersection of digital literacy and digital sovereignty in Indigenous communities:​

• Community Empowerment: By contributing content, Indigenous communities exercise control over their narratives, ensuring that their languages, arts, and histories are represented authentically and respectfully.​
• Educational Resource: The map serves as a learning tool for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous individuals, promoting awareness and appreciation of Indigenous cultures and fostering cross-cultural understanding.​
• Technological Engagement: The development and maintenance of the map encourage the use of digital tools within Indigenous communities, supporting skill development in areas like GIS mapping, web development, and digital archiving.​

Incorporating platforms like the First Peoples’ Map into discussions about digital literacy highlights the importance of culturally relevant digital initiatives. Such projects not only preserve and promote Indigenous cultures but also empower communities to take charge of their digital representations, aligning with broader goals of digital sovereignty.

References

First Nations Information Governance Centre. (n.d.). The First Nations principles of OCAP. https://fnigc.ca/ocap-training

First Peoples’ Cultural Council. (n.d.). First Peoples’ Map of British Columbia. https://maps.fpcc.ca

First Nations Technology Council. (2020). Indigenous digital equity strategy report. https://technologycouncil.ca

Government of Canada. (2019). Indigenous Languages Act. Canadian Heritage. https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/indigenous-languages.html

Open North. (2022). Digital rights are Indigenous rights: Navigating data, governance, and sovereignty. https://opennorth.ca/publications

eCampusOntario. (2021). Our voices: Digital lives of Indigenous youth. https://www.ecampusontario.ca/research

Digital Smudge. (n.d.). Digital smudge: Indigenous wellness and tech. https://digitalsmudge.ca

As I’ve moved deeper into exploring digital literacy challenges in Indigenous communities, I decided to focus specifically on the Nuxalk Nation in the Bella Coola Valley of British Columbia. This community, like many others in remote parts of the province, faces systemic barriers in accessing and leveraging digital technologies for education, cultural preservation, and community development.

My learning journey began with broad research on Indigenous digital equity, but has now narrowed to understanding how geography, infrastructure, and colonial legacies intersect to create the modern digital divide.

A major “aha” moment came while exploring the First Nations Technology Council (2020) report. It emphasized that internet access is not just technical infrastructure—it’s a pathway to autonomy, education, and economic participation. When the Nuxalk community lacks high-speed connectivity, they are also deprived of chances to engage with online language revitalization tools, digital storytelling, or e-commerce opportunities.

In exploring community-based examples, I came across local education initiatives that try to overcome these barriers, including the integration of Nuxalk language content into offline learning materials. These hybrid approaches demonstrate the innovation communities are using when digital infrastructure falls short. I found this inspiring, it shows resilience and a commitment to keeping culture alive, even without full digital access. Yet, it also highlights that Indigenous communities are often forced to adapt around systemic failures, rather than being supported through proactive digital inclusion policies.

Another layer I discovered in my learning is how digital literacy also intersects with digital sovereignty. Indigenous data governance is a growing field that emphasizes the right of Indigenous communities to control their own digital narratives and the storage and use of their data. This made me reflect on how digital literacy should include not just how to use tools, but how to own and govern digital spaces. For the Nuxalk and other nations, this means building culturally aligned platforms and ensuring community control over digital heritage.

Key Takeaways:

• The digital divide is a form of modern colonization, limiting the sovereignty of Indigenous communities over their knowledge and future.
• Social isolation due to poor connectivity restricts participation in national and global conversations.
• Economic disadvantages are amplified when communities can’t access digital tools for employment, education, or entrepreneurship.
• Local leadership and community-based solutions are essential—top-down approaches often fail to understand the specific cultural, geographic, and historical contexts of Indigenous communities.
• Digital literacy must be developed in a way that respects Indigenous pedagogies and worldviews, not just Western technological norms.
• Digital sovereignty should be included in digital literacy education, emphasizing Indigenous control over data and digital heritage.

Resources:

First Nations Technology Council. (2020). Report on Indigenous Digital Equity in British Columbia. https://technologycouncil.ca

UVic Human Resources. (2025). Ergonomic tips for working at home [PDF]. University of Victoria. https://www.uvic.ca/hr/assets/docs/ergonomics/ergonomic-tips-working-at-home.pdf

https://www.nuxalk.net/html/maps.htm

This week’s resources covered three major topics in digital education: critical thinking, equity in digital spaces, and digital health ergonomics. Thomas Land’s discussion on critical thinking emphasized logic and clarity as essential digital literacy skills. Maha Bali’s work challenged us to consider who is included or excluded in digital learning. Lastly, UVic’s ergonomics resources reminded us that learning and working online must not come at the expense of physical health. This mix of philosophical, cultural, and practical insights helped deepen my understanding of how to navigate and shape digital learning environments more thoughtfully.

One of the most powerful takeaways from this week was Maha Bali’s emphasis on equity in digital learning spaces. Her reflections highlight that access is more than just having Wi-Fi or a laptop it’s about being seen, respected, and heard in virtual classrooms. This made me consider how my own online behaviors such as whose work I comment on, or which voices I amplify impact the inclusivity of my learning communities. In parallel, the ergonomics module grounded the discussion in the body, reminding me that learning is not just mental but physical too.

Points:

• Critical Thinking (Land, 2025): Encourages learners to slow down, analyze assumptions, and build logical arguments skills crucial for evaluating online content.
• Digital Equity (Bali, 2025): Calls for socially just digital practices, recognizing systemic barriers and promoting diverse perspectives in educational tech.
• Ergonomics (UVic Human Resources, 2025): The Office Self-Inspection Checklist and stretch suggestions promote healthy habits during long digital sessions.
• Cultural Practice: The idea of equity is not just policy it’s about how we engage every day, including whose content we comment on, reshare, or ignore.
• Pedagogical Application: Instructors can embed equity by designing inclusive assignments, using flexible tools, and addressing accessibility proactively.

This week emphasized that digital education is never just about tech it’s about people. Critical thinking sharpens our minds, ergonomic awareness supports our bodies, and equity ensures we build just, inclusive communities. Reflecting on these together underscored how interconnected digital literacies really are, and how mindful we must be in practicing them.

This week’s focus is on curation and annotation. Two guest speakers shared practical ways to enhance online research and collaboration. Dr. Remi Kalir introduced social annotation through Hypothes.is, encouraging learners to annotate course materials, blogs, and articles together in private groups. Jessica Mussell then demonstrated Zotero, a versatile tool for collecting, organizing, and citing sources.

Both speakers underscored how simple these tools can be to use while also offering tips for collaborating with peers. Social annotation can open up new kinds of conversations in an online environment, and Zotero’s sharing features let you exchange sources and notes with your classmates. The goal is not only to make research more efficient but also to enhance the sense of community among learners. By adopting these strategies, you will likely see improvements in your organization, your engagement with texts, and your overall ability to learn from and support others.

Key Points

• Dr. Remi Kalir’s talk explains how Hypothes.is promotes social learning by letting users annotate texts privately or within groups
• Installing Hypothes.is is recommended as an “ethical edtech” option, though participants can opt out if they have privacy concerns
• Zotero is a free research management tool for gathering citations, creating bibliographies, and archiving PDFs
• Jessica Mussell’s workshop resources walk through installing Zotero, adding references, inserting citations in Word, and more
• UVic Libraries’ Intro to Zotero guide contains activities and advanced workshop options

Learning about social annotation and citation management in one session felt empowering. Hypothes.is lets me see how peers interpret the same readings, making group conversations more dynamic. I also appreciate Zotero’s ability to keep everything in one place, especially when juggling multiple sources. Both tools remind me that digital collaboration does not have to be complicated. Instead, it can help our shared learning journey and help us feel more in control of our research and ideas.

This week, our guests focus on digital surveillance, academic accommodations, and Indigenous perspectives on technology.

Ian Linkletter discusses “Academic Surveillance in Higher Education.” He highlights how exam proctoring software and LMS logs can track students in ways many do not realize. Chris Gilliard shares insights on how digital surveillance can disproportionately affect marginalized communities. Check his blog for more details or, if possible, read his articles in The Atlantic and Wired.

We also had a follow-up on accommodations. CAL team members explained the difference between accommodations and concessions. They also introduced campus resources, like specialized tutors, mental health supports, and the Student Wellness Centre. Many students are unaware of how much help is available.

Finally, we heard from Nodin Cutfeet of the Waniskaw Foundation on Indigenous digital literacy. Nodin showed how technology can preserve culture, connect remote communities, and guide new storytelling methods. Look out for upcoming info on log data and tracking by Colin Madland.

Key Points:

• Many students and faculty are still unsure how long data from monitoring tools is stored and who exactly can access it

• Some institutions are quietly updating their policies on remote testing and surveillance after concerns surfaced in public forums

• Many learners do not realize accommodations can include digital strategies, such as alternative exam formats or specialized software

• There has been increasing interest in peer-led workshops that teach both data protection and respectful use of technology

• Some guests expressed that balancing cultural integrity with modern technology requires ongoing dialogue, not just a one-time consultation

• A few campus groups are starting to question whether “academic integrity tools” might conflict with students’ rights, especially those with documented needs for flexible testing methods

My reflection:

Reflecting on this week’s materials, I see how technology can be both an asset and a liability. Digital tools support cultural continuity, especially in Indigenous communities, by connecting people over great distances and introducing new ways to share ideas. At the same time, tools meant to make life easier can also turn into surveillance devices, raising worries about privacy and fairness. Hearing from speakers like Ian Linkletter and Chris Gilliard highlights the need for critical digital literacy. We should know how and why our data is collected, who can view it, and the power structures that guide its use. The CAL team’s talk on accommodations reminds me that technology should be open and adaptable for learners with different needs. Overall, these sessions show me that while digital innovation can be helpful, it also carries responsibilities to ensure it stays fair and respectful of everyone.

This week’s material brought together several critical themes in digital society. We learned about data ownership, who collects it, how it is used or misused, and why geopolitical factors matter, while also looking at cybersecurity threats and basic principles of accessibility. I appreciated hearing from different experts because they each shed light on how data flows in modern contexts and the importance of building inclusive digital spaces (Stewart, 2023; Lum, 2023; Watson, 2023).

In particular, Dr. Bonnie Stewart’s talk stood out to me because it addressed how data gets commodified by large platforms. She highlighted that users often consent to data sharing without fully understanding the implications. This resonates with my own experiences on social media where data is constantly collected and sold (Stewart, 2023). Meanwhile, Wency Lum emphasized the technical and organizational aspects of cybersecurity, reminding us that even well-intentioned users can inadvertently compromise sensitive information (Lum, 2023). Lastly, Charlie Watson introduced accessibility tools and guidelines, showing how adaptive technology could level the playing field for many learners (Watson, 2023).

Data Ownership & Datafication

• Understanding how personal data is bought, sold, or traded is essential for informed digital citizenship.
• Large tech platforms often monetize user data, creating power imbalances.

Cybersecurity Insights

• Practicing basic cyber hygiene (e.g., strong passwords, phishing awareness) can safeguard personal and institutional data.
• Organizational policies must balance openness with robust security measures.

Intro to Accessibility

• Tools like CAL’s adaptive technology program show how software can enhance user experience for people with various needs.
• Resources such as WebAIM or Microsoft’s guidelines make it easier to create accessible documents.
• Incorporating accessible design principles from the start benefits everyone, not just those with identified disabilities.

Deeper Dive Inquiry

Particularly in British Columbia, my research on digital literacy among Indigenous people has revealed how technology is becoming a potent tool for cultural preservation, language revitalization, and community strengthening—rather than just a modern convenience. Digital tools are changing knowledge access and sharing channels and provide vital assistance for preserving old knowledge and cultural traditions. From technological access restrictions to the ongoing digital gap endangering advancement, the path is not without major obstacles either.

Lack of good internet connectivity is a key obstacle Indigenous people have in using technology for cultural preservation. Reliable high-speed connections simply do not exist in far-off areas of British Columbia, particularly in northern communities, which creates actual obstacles to accessing online educational resources, cultural archives, or virtual community events. “Internet access is a key enabler for the digital literacy needed to empower Indigenous communities in the 21st century,” the First Nations Technology Council (2020) states clearly. Yet, the digital divide remains a recurring issue that keeps Indigenous peoples from fully engaging with digital opportunities.

• Social Isolation
  • Lack of connectivity isolates Indigenous communities from global conversations, networks, and resources.
  • Communities are excluded from digital social activism, missing out on important conversations.
• Economic Disadvantage
  • Limited internet access affects local businesses by effecting their ability to engage in online marketing or access digital marketplaces.
  • Job opportunities are often missed as many positions require digital skills and online application processes, leaving remote Indigenous communities at a disadvantage.

For Indigenous communities throughout Canada, internet connectivity is more than just a convenience; it’s a lifeline that many currently lack, particularly in remote and rural areas. In addition to cutting off important educational pathways and separating communities from larger social and economic possibilities, this connection gap gravely threatens attempts to preserve Indigenous languages and cultural practices. Addressing this digital gap calls for significant investments in infrastructure, affordable internet options, and strategies that empower local communities. Closing these gaps in technology gives Indigenous peoples  opportunities to protect their cultural legacy, participate in international discussions on their own terms, and forge stronger economic and educational pillars. Resolving this connectivity problem is really about empowering Indigenous self-determination and establishing real possibilities for communities, not simply about technology.

References:

• First Nations Technology Council. (2020). Bridging the digital divide in Indigenous communities. Retrieved from https://www.fntc.ca
• McIvor, O., & Williams, L. (2020). The impact of digital tools on Indigenous language revitalization. Indigenous Policy Journal, 31(1), 40-58.
• Smith, D. (2022). Bridging the digital divide in Indigenous communities. The First Nations Technology Council. Retrieved from https://www.fntc.ca

Week Six

A single ChatGPT request uses 10 times as much electricity as a Google search, according to UNEP, underscoring the surprisingly high energy footprint of what appear to be straightforward AI interactions. 

AI’s environmental costs go beyond energy use; they also include the manufacturing of electronic trash, the use of water to cool data centres, and the mining of rare earth elements, which are frequently done in ways that are detrimental to the environment.

Predicting AI’s overall environmental impact is difficult since it involves “higher-order effects,” such as the ability to spread misleading information about climate change or change behaviour patterns in ways that increase emissions. 

The UN study and the speculative futures research both highlight the need to weigh the advantages of technology against its environmental consequences as educational institutions quickly use AI technologies.

I consider the concept that “technological innovation has the potential to result in or require epistemological and ontological innovation” important. As the essay “Speculative Futures on ChatGPT and Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI): A Collective Reflection from the Educational Landscape” points out, tackling AI’s environmental effect may need completely different viewpoints on sustainability and technology.

View of Speculative Futures on ChatGPT and Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI): A Collective Reflection from the Educational Landscape

AI has an environmental problem. Here’s what the world can do about that.