DIGITAL INTELLIGENCE - NEW CONCEPT IN CONTEXT OF FUTURE

OF SCHOOL EDUCATION
Jiří Dostál1, Xiaojun Wang1, William Steingartner2, Prasart Nuangchalerm3
1
Palacký University (CZECH REPUBLIC)
2
Technical University of Košice (SLOVAKIA)
3
Mahasarakham University (THAILAND)

Abstract
Under the pressure of digital technologies, the current world of schooling has been undergoing
changes at the global level for a considerable period of time. These changes have been incorporated
into the lives of people to such an extent that it is not possible to simply distance ourselves from them.
The situation is comparable with language, mathematical and social skills; these are also essential for
humans and everybody perceives them as such. With respect to education, it is necessary to
distinguish between two spheres. Digital technologies both support the process of learning (e-
Learning) and, furthermore, are themselves the subject matter of education, which means the teaching
content. In this paper, we focus on the second of these areas.
From today’s perspective, digital technologies represent a field which is already very extensive and
internally differentiated, yet very closely interrelated. Therefore, even in the context of school
education, it is no longer possible to pursue the concept, where merely isolated skills are developed
with the aim of mastering such individual computer programs that are expected to be encountered by
the educated generation in their everyday life. It is clear that the needs of today's education are best
met by the concept of digital intelligence development that includes eight interconnected areas: digital
identity, digital use, digital safety, digital security, digital emotional intelligence, digital communication,
digital literacy, and digital rights.
The paper deals with possible approaches to the development of digital intelligence in school
education. It becomes clear that more than one path can be taken. Above all, it is however suitable to
use a variant of a separate subject, which may be named differently, or the integration of the teaching
content associated with the development of digital intelligence into other subjects. In addition,
variously conceived combinations are possible and in fact desirable.
Keywords: Digital intelligence, school, education, curriculum, future, computer science.

1 INTRODUCTION
Digital technologies are changing the world. We are influenced by them, whether we like it or not.
They are simply everywhere, accompanying us wherever we go. New demands are placed on
humans. People are facing new challenges as well as new threats. One can best realize all of these if
they think about how their grandparents, who completed their school education for example in 1920
and continued having limited access to technologies afterwards, would succeed in today’s world.
Would they be able to look up a bus or train timetable, would they be able to pay for their purchase in
a supermarket with a credit card, would they be able to buy a plane ticket, use an electronic
signature? The answer is simple, they could not, or if they could, it would only be with great difficulty
and with the help of others, as they did not grow into the world of digital technologies naturally and
were not raised in that way. What is seen as a handicap when viewed from today’s perspective was in
fact no restriction for the generations of that time because they did not find themselves in situations
that current generations have to face. The present day places challenges before man that require new
competences, skills, and attitudes. We can say that people’s minds have gradually changed
depending on a number of new impulses coming from the digital world. Recently, there has even been
talk about a new component of intelligence – digital intelligence.
Naturally, education must also respond to these facts, which is nothing new. Current education really
responds to these impulses. However, the question remains how and whether it will be to a sufficient
degree. It would be ideal if education, in particular school education, was ahead of the times. That way
we would know in advance what children need to be prepared for at schools, what challenges they will
face and what problems they will have to solve. Curricula could be “tailored” accordingly. However,

Proceedings of ICERI2017 Conference ISBN: 978-84-697-6957-7

16th-18th November 2017, Seville, Spain 3706

Electroniccopy
Electronic copy available
available at:
at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3255366
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3255366
this is not the case because the world today is developing very quickly and the development is not
determined in any manner or centrally managed, and in addition it is difficult to predict. In many
respects, it is influenced by people’s desire, which is a key economic motivation. Similarly, the internet
content is not managed either. Something new emerges, something vanishes. New services are
developed depending on current needs and often even succumb to the latest fashion trends.
School education, whether we like it or not, is always a step behind in some areas. This is the case
even though humanity makes efforts to predict and estimate what the young generation should be
prepared for. This endeavour is quite successful in the areas where development is not so fast. For
example we are sure to know that physical development is desirable, which is also evidenced by the
dictum of Decimus Iunius Iuvenalis “Optandum est ut sit mens sana in corpore sano”, which means “It
is to be prayed that the mind be sound in a sound body”. The education system has been reflecting
this idea in bringing up children from a very young age for centuries. We have deliberately chosen an
example from the area of physical development. It clearly demonstrates that we cannot neglect our
fitness. Muscles, physique, agility and dexterity simply cannot be “built up through mouse clicking”.
Yes, you can play a game where the best musclemen in the world will wrestle, the fastest runners or
the best skiers will compete, but this is merely putting yourself in someone else’s place, in an avatar
who represents a virtual character. Thus, even those who are not fit can still be the best wrestlers in
the digital world.
But even in this world, the aforementioned does not fully hold true. It is not possible “to neglect”
physical fitness and digital technologies can help us to build it up. Various sport trackers, assistants or
testers can be given as an example. Technologies can thus influence our sporting performances and
we can get feedback thanks to them as they perform the role of coaches. The social networking sites
for sports fans enable us to find new friends and communicate and compete with them. So, the
benefits of digital technologies cannot be denied. However, besides them, there are also aspects that
seem to be negative.
Let us leave sports and move on to a more traditional area such as mathematics, and concurrently let
us go back to the times of our grandparents. Although it was often limited, the education of that time
managed to instil in children excellent mathematical education for life. Let us compare knowledge
today and back then. Earlier generations would know mathematical calculations inside out. Children in
those days were forced to think “mathematically”. When they were confronted with a mathematical
problem, there was no other option than to think and solve it. And so it was for their whole life. When
people went shopping to a market, they had to count how much they would spend. Accordingly, they
had to count and check their wages and salaries. The era of digital technologies is different, it enables
people to escape from problematic situations and solve them conveniently. After a time, such
convenience makes itself felt in reduced capabilities. Let us be specific, when members of the young
generation need to solve even a simple mathematical problem, they use digital technologies – a
calculator or today more likely an application on their mobile phone, tablet or PC. Technology will
solve the problem for them, but...
It is obvious that practices and skills are lost by repeatedly avoiding problem solving. The mind
becomes dull, we are “lost” without technologies, we feel anxious and hopeless and so we give up on
solving the problem. It is as if digital technologies have become essential and man has adapted to
this. As a result, we do not need to think mathematically in our everyday life as much as we did before.
For example we can pay for our purchase in a supermarket without a single mathematical operation.
Goods sold by weight are weighed by means of automatic scales and the price is calculated
alongside. We only place the goods on the scales and press the button with a picture of the respective
item. All individual items are then automatically added up, we are told the price and make a payment.
We either pay by means of a credit card or hand over cash. The cash register operator enters the
received amount and the sum to be returned is displayed to the customer. It is clear here that the
whole process was completed without any mathematical calculations that would have otherwise been
performed by people. In this case, they were replaced by computer technology. Traditional numeracy
is not as necessary as it used to be. And this is not to mention the one level higher shopping
experience in the regime known as Scan&Shop or Scan&Go.

2 THE NEED FOR CURRICULAR CHANGES IN THE CONTEXT OF DIGITAL

TECHNOLOGIES DEVELOPMENT
Naturally, school education must respond to the aforementioned facts. It is clear that much of the
existing knowledge and skills are no longer necessary for life in today’s world, on the contrary, new

3707

Electroniccopy
Electronic copy available
available at:
at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3255366
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3255366
challenges emerge and children have to be prepared for them by schools. Therefore, teaching
content, i.e. what and how it is taught, must undergo continual transformations. Such transformations
must be applied following the rule of direct proportion, i.e. the faster the changes in science,
technology, society and nature occur, the faster this should be reflected in education. The time lag
between the aforementioned changes and changes in education must not be too long, otherwise
education cannot fulfil its function completely. However, the question of making choices regarding
teaching content is very challenging and often barely tangible. What is taught in schools is subject to
intensive processes that can be included in the concept of didactic transformation. In the course of
this, suitable areas of science, technology, arts, beliefs, traditions, etc. are selected and subsequently
converted into the teaching content that is implemented in teaching. Selecting is necessary because
no one can acquire all of the existing knowledge. However, the knowledge must be up-to-date and
optimally the most permanent and functional in personal and working life.
From the point of view of school education, the insights from mathematics, history, physical training,
physics, etc. may be qualified as relatively stable. The principles of addition and multiplication as well
as Archimedes’ Principle or Ohm’s Law of physics are still applicable. However, science or other
disciplines that school subjects draw upon have undergone continuous development. From time to
time, we have to “rewrite textbooks” due to new discoveries – of a new human organ, a new continent
or the discovery that not only metals can be magnets. However, these are only rare events.
The situation is completely different in the context of education that is related to the world of digital
technologies. In this case, the permanence of knowledge, that is the period of its validity, is much
shorter. Let us illustrate this fact with the capacity of the media intended for data transmission that has
been constantly increasing (flash drives) or the speed of data transmission through computer
networks. This is not just about digital technologies per se, but also about social phenomena related to
it. For example, for how long have we been hearing about or even encountering cyber-bullying,
electronic cheating, the digital divide, or digital dementia?
The question is how and when the issues related to digital technologies, and which of them, should be
taught in schools? The situation where we only upgrade obsolete teaching content to new versions is
becoming insufficient. And this is true not only of the digital technology-linked teaching content, but
about the teaching content of all school subjects. The current changes in engineering, technologies,
society and nature require a fundamental transformation of the education system.
The teaching content about digital technologies and things or phenomena related to them has already
been incorporated into curricula frameworks for a long time. In the Czech Republic, this has been the
case since 1990. However, when we analyse all former educational programmes, curricula and plans
retrospectively, we cannot help noticing that no significant changes have occurred. It is clear that the
whole process has become somewhat stagnant, and too inertial. It cannot be claimed that school
education must immediately respond to every change in the real world; this would be rather counter-
productive. Over time, many a change proves to be irrelevant or even non-meaningful, unsatisfactory
and even undesirable. It would not be beneficial to reflect these in school education. However, as we
have already mentioned, digital technologies are no longer only about computer skills, writing in a text
editor or sending e-mails. They are something that inevitably penetrates our lives and changes our
thinking. It is absolutely necessary that the school system reacts to this fundamental change.

3 FROM OPERATING A COMPUTER TO THE DIGITAL MINDSET AND DIGITAL

INTELLIGENCE
Food is a basic need. We all need to eat, we eat every day, we prepare meals ourselves or go out to
restaurants, food satisfies us or not, we experience feelings, etc. Let us borrow this parallel and have
a think about digital technologies. Using technologies throughout our life is basically unavoidable.
Similarly, when we want to cook lunch for ourselves, we have to be able to use the oven, food mixer
and electric kettle. Accordingly, in the case of digital technologies, it is necessary to be able to use a
computer, scanner, printer, smartphone, etc. However, as we can see, the skills in using devices are
1
not enough to meet our needs , lunch does not exist yet, it has not been cooked, as in the case of
digital technologies, the content is still lacking, the reason for the activity.
Skills in using digital devices are necessary for humans, nevertheless, they are not enough and do not
meet our needs. These usually exist outside the realm of digital technologies, which then become the

1
However, some may be satisfied by the cooking itself – they experience the joy of cooking.

3708

Electroniccopy
Electronic copy available
available at:
at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3255366
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3255366
means of intermediating. However, this relationship can be reversed, since without skills in using
digital technologies, we would meet our needs only with difficulties. For example, it would be of no
help if we had a smartphone available and were not able to use a respective application designed for
communication.
Let us note the paradox that becomes evident in contrast with the cooking. What is significant is the
result. This is lunch, the preparation of which is the content of our thinking. We think about the method
of implementation (the process of food preparation), and we often acquire it thanks to digital
technologies. Almost everybody has entered the keywords of “how to cook...” into a search engine at
least once. Digital technologies are also entering such mental processes that are seemingly not
related to them at all.
Let us consider for a moment the notion of thinking. Basically, it means operating information, ideas
and concepts. It is information that we can easily obtain thanks to digital technologies. On one hand, it
can be advantageous, but on the other, the manner of obtaining information through digital
technologies is dramatically changing our behaviour and habits. We no longer search for information
in printed books, we do not monitor news in printed newspapers, and we do not travel to meet people
who might be a source of the new information we need to obtain, instead we communicate indirectly,
through facilitating technologies. Obtaining information by using digital technologies is certainly faster.
However, the speed is dangerous as it allows us to find correlations and solve problems faster and
people thus face more problems, and not only at work, that are presented to them for solution. It is
clear that solving more and more problems can be stressful. This is just one of the negative aspects.
The fact is that technology is not the first thing that should be kept in focus when we think “digitally”.
Let us distinguish it from thinking about digital technologies. To think digitally means that inference
judgements are reached through the processes when the operating of information, ideas and concepts
is influenced by digital technologies. These can influence the processes associated with thinking, the
resulting form of judgements, or the time required for reflection.
Yuhyun Park (2016) introduced the framework of so called digital intelligence at the World Economic
Forum. This is a new concept which is based on the theory of Howard Gardner (1983). However,
before we get to this theory, it should be noted that it is very difficult to define even the notion of
intelligence itself, and different psychologists provide different opinions on it. For our purposes,
however, let us accept the definition of Alena Plháková (2003), according to which intelligence can be
defined, in very general terms, as an individual level and quality of intellectual operations, which is
reflected in solving various problems - from everyday tasks through solving unusual practical
situations to highly abstract theoretical questions. The aforementioned, albeit general, definition
provides a framework for the notion of intelligence that can be very well applied to school education.
Development of intelligence is also essential. Intelligence is not fixed, it is neither without development
nor without being formed and changed in the course of life, which is important from a pedagogical
point of view. However, it must be recognized that the development is affected by many internal and
external factors. Development issues are addressed by many authors, among others for example
Lawrence E. Shapiro (2014), Katharina Bäcker-Braun (2014), and David Gruber (2013).
There are different approaches to the study and the classification of intelligence. Howard Gardner
(1983) defined and described seven basic types of intelligence: linguistic-verbal, logical-mathematical,
musical-rhythmic, bodily-kinesthetic, visual-spatial, intrapersonal (internal), and interpersonal (social).
The first two of these can be described as basic and they can be very well measured with exactitude.
They are the basis for success at school. It is very difficult to measure the following types of
intelligence. Intrinsically, they are very close to creativity or are manifested in interpersonal relations or
self-reflection. Later, (Gardner, 1995) included one more, so called natural, intelligence to the list.
Afterwards, he made another revision and suggested existential (spiritual) intelligence (Gardner,
1999).
The already mentioned Yuhyun Park (2016) proposes supplementing Grander’s typology with another
type that she described as digital intelligence. Let us leave aside whether the inclusion is legitimate or
not. In actual fact, Grander’s taxonomy itself has been subject to criticism. But as we have already
elaborated above, digital skills do not include only the operating and creative use of digital
technologies. Is it something more, something that touches us in everyday life, and virtually wherever
we go. Yuhyun Park (2016) herself defines digital intelligence, (DQ) as a set of social, emotional and
cognitive abilities that allow individuals to meet challenges and adapt to the requirements of digital life.
These abilities can be broadly divided into eight interconnected areas (ibid):

3709

Electroniccopy
Electronic copy available
available at:
at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3255366
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3255366
 • Digital identity: The ability to create and manage one’s online identity and reputation (the so-
called one’s online self). This includes awareness of one’s online identity and control of short-
and long-term impact of one’s online identity.
• Digital use: The ability to use digital devices and media, including the mastery of control in order
to achieve a healthy balance between life online and offline.
• Digital safety: The ability to manage risks online (e.g. cyberbullying, grooming, radicalization) as
well as problematic content (e.g. violence and obscenity), and to avoid and limit these risks.
• Digital security: The ability to detect cyber threats (e.g. hacking, scams, malware), to
understand best practices and to use suitable security tools for data protection.
• Digital emotional intelligence: The ability to be empathetic and build good relationships with
others online.
• Digital communication: The ability to communicate and collaborate with others using digital
technologies and media.
• Digital literacy: The ability to find, evaluate, utilize, share and create content as well as
competency in computational thinking.
• Digital rights: The ability to understand and uphold personal and legal rights, including the rights
to privacy, intellectual property, freedom of speech and protection from hate speech.
Digital intelligence can be represented in a simplified graphical form as follows, see Fig. 1.

Figure 1: Digital intelligence.

The aforementioned structuring of digital intelligence seems to be guiding for the application into the
school environment. Even if this intelligence was to be criticized, in terms of it not really being any
intelligence, it reflects very well the areas that can be reliably claimed to find their reflection in school
curricula.

3710

Electroniccopy
Electronic copy available
available at:
at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3255366
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3255366
4 WHEN AND WHERE WITHIN THE SCHOOL CURRICULUM SHOULD
DIGITAL INTELLIGENCE BE DEVELOPED?
With regard to technological development and along with it the social consequences related to it, the
answer can be unequivocal. It is essential to develop digital intelligence from early childhood
education. The most important aspect can be considered to be the development of digital intelligence
at the primary and secondary stage of basic school which must further continue at secondary schools.
Its development is also meaningful within certain disciplines at universities. Basic schools are optimal
for the development of digital intelligence because a child’s mind is sufficiently impressionable and will
apply any acquired knowledge and attitudes immediately. Therefore, this is not about any preparation
for the future, meaning “you will find it useful once”. As early as basic school age, children are
exposed to cyber bullying and are tempted to indulge in digital cheating, they communicate through
digital technology and use it in learning (e-Learning). The enumeration of activities could continue,
which supports the necessity of implementation at basic schools.
Within the overall curriculum, the teaching content is usually divided into sub-units in a suitable
manner according to various rules. These may be more or less extensive and are generally called
school subjects. There are also various forms of integration, when subjects are merged into a single
block or suitable topics are selected from various subjects and subsequently taught in so called
thematic integrated units. Generally, it is more typical in Europe for individual subjects to be divided
according to individual disciplines, while interdisciplinary relations are being sought and teaching
contents interrelated. Besides this well-established model, experiments are considered which would
structure the teaching content in a completely different manner. In Finland, so called Phenomenon-
Based Learning is being elaborated. It is currently considered to be one of the ways of transforming
the local basic education. The future of the aforementioned activities is however still open, and so we
will adhere to the established model.
Let us imagine the entire content of school education as one big pot which is filled with various
subjects – for example mathematics, physics, chemistry, computer science, history, etc. Our goal here
is not to provide a comprehensive list of school subjects, which may, in addition, differ from country to
country, but to demonstrate the variedness of the content of school education, while the world is
integral. The problems that people solve and the activities they perform are usually of a complex
character, often requiring knowledge acquired from multiple school subjects. This is where the
criticism of the arrangement of curricula by subjects comes from. It is also necessary to mention the
fact that not all subjects are usually included in curricula throughout the whole period of school
attendance.
Only a part of the entire scope of the curriculum may be devoted to digital intelligence and its
development. It is a subspace that is not identified in a consistent manner and its content is not
definite. By studying digital intelligence, see Fig. 1, the following insight may be reached – the
teaching content corresponding to this concept could be
• included under one teaching subject,
• stratified across multiple school subjects,
• implemented within a unit integrated around a topic.
With regard to the current arrangement of school education and traditions, the inclusion of most of the
featured topics under one teaching subject can be considered to be a more optimal choice, however
with interdisciplinary relations and the highest possible rate of interconnecting school subjects applied
in conjunction with it.
However, so far we have avoided giving the content unit (school subject) a specific name. Finding a
suitable name is not easy, which history also shows. The teaching content corresponding to digital
intelligence has already been implemented in Czech schools, but in a fragmented and incomplete
form. Some topics are oversized at the expense of others, while some are suppressed completely.
The autonomy of schools related to curricular planning also plays into the hands of this. It is
demanding to design school educational programmes and it is very hard to bring into accord the role
of the designer (who creates a school educational programme) and the implementer (the teacher who
performs teaching according to the school educational programme). Similarly, designers (architects)
in the construction industry are not identical to implementers, nor are construction workers, and vice
versa, construction workers do not design the buildings they build. This is even more relevant in the
world of digital technologies, where global trends have to be followed very closely, for which teachers
do not have adequate means (in terms of time and often also finances, moreover, no appropriate
opportunities are created). All of this is a reason for diversity in terms of teaching content, this is what

3711

Electroniccopy
Electronic copy available
available at:
at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3255366
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3255366
is specifically taught, and in terms of names of school subjects. Looking at the curricular documents
from around the world, we come across the following selected names: Computer Skills, Information
Education, Computer Technology, Informatics, Practical Class of Computer Skills, Computers or
Information Technologies. It is difficult to determine the most appropriate one, all the more so as
sometimes the overall curriculum includes only a part of what is meant by the term digital intelligence.
In the case of traditional subjects, such confusion and inconsistencies do not occur so much because
mathematics, physics and chemistry, are all school subjects with a relatively stable content and
essentially unequivocally given names.

5 CONCLUSIONS
Digital technology must be translated into the basic education curriculum in its complexity, with all
related aspects – technological, social-scientific as well as possible ties to nature. It is not enough to
incorporate just some fragments of it, for example, from today’s perspective, it is not possible to
include only such subject matters in the content of education that would be focused on skills in
operating technologies, as we saw in earlier times. The current needs are fully met by the concept of
so called digital intelligence, which includes areas essential for present and future life. They are as
follows: digital identity, digital use, digital safety, digital security, digital emotional intelligence, digital
communication, digital literacy, and digital rights.
However, basic education cannot be oversaturated with knowledge (it is not possible to teach
everything about everything), and therefore it is necessary to choose the content of education
consciously, ideally the content that is promising and has the most lasting character, that is not subject
to rapid changes and obsolescence. The selection process is a very demanding activity involving the
need to take account of the broader context. It is not a matter of individuals. As a rule, the curriculum
is at least in general designed at the national level with the possibility of introducing modifications
according to local conditions.
For the effective development of digital intelligence, it appears to be optimal to include the teaching
content in one key subject, but with a strong implementation of interdisciplinary links. Parallel to this
main subject, it can be recommended to implement selected topics in other subjects - social-sciences,
natural-sciences, and others.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This article was created with financial support from the project of Grant fund of the Dean of the Faculty
of Education, Palacký University Olomouc, 2017, in the framework of the project "Postoje žáků a
učitelů k obsahu vzdělávání v předmětu informatika na ZŠ a SŠ".

REFERENCES
[1] A. Plháková, “Inteligence”, in Temperament, inteligence, sebepojetí. Nové pohledy na tradiční
témata psychologického výzkumu, pp. 47–86, 2003.
[2] Y. Park, 8 digital skills we must teach our children, 2016. Retrieved from
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/06/8-digital-skills-we-must-teach-our-children/
[3] L. E. Shapiro, Emoční inteligence dítěte a její rozvoj. Praha: Portál, 2014.
[4] K. Bäcker-Braun, Rozvoj inteligence u dětí od 3 do 6 let. Praha: Grada, 2014.
[5] G. Gruber, Jak rozvíjet inteligenci svého dítěte. Ostrava: Gruber - TDP, 2013.

[6] H. Gardner, Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, New York: Basic Books,
1983.
[7] H. Gardner, "Reflections on multiple intelligences: Myths and messages" Phi Delta Kappan, vol.
77, pp. 200–209, 1995.

[8] H. Gardner, Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century, New York: Basic
Books, 1999.

3712

Electroniccopy
Electronic copy available
available at:
at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3255366
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3255366