Are we at risk of teaching "how to use a specific product" rather than "how to be digitally competent"?

Yesterday I presented to about 20 digital leads from across RCT. My focus of my presentation was "Using AI With Your Eyes Open: the need for critical AI literacy for all, in developing ethical and informed citizens". It appeared to go well and I think some sections of the presentation definitely 'opened some eyes' to the impact that AI technology has on the individual, on society and on the environment.

Later I chatted to a couple of digital leads about AI, how they were using it personally and in class with their learners. I also had the chance to look at some examples of learners work that was created using generative AI. We also chatted about what may happen with the new updated DCF. As I've written about previously, the DCF is being updated this year. Based on Estyn's recommendations the update should incorporate, "AI-related digital literacy" along with "critical evaluation, ethical understanding and developmentally appropriate guidance for pupils." I anticipate that at maybe PS2 (Years 1 to 3) and definitely at PS3 (Years 4 to 6), pupils will be required to use generative AI. Bearing in mind that nearly all primary schools in Wales are using the Hwb platform, the only generative AI tool that can be used by learners of this age, (Microsoft Co-Pilot and Google Gemini 13+ years old) is Adobe Express for Education. Therefore, potentially any statement in the DCF referring to generative AI at PS2 or PS3 can in reality, only be carried out using Adobe Express. This application limitation is a potential issue that I'm beginning to question and have raised the issue of potential 'vendor lock in' related to Google and Microsoft, in a recent post. 

A couple of thoughts / questions about the Generative AI, DCF and Hwb

• Are we at risk of teaching "how to use a specific product" rather than "how to be digitally competent"?
• If the lens through which many primary schools view the DCF is Hwb, then Adobe becomes the only tool that primary schools will use to address any new AI related DCF statement. Therefore, there is a very good chance that the skills pupil's learn will be 'Adobe shaped'.
• Are we then creating a new pipeline of not only Microsoft and Google customers, but of future life-long Adobe customers too?
• Are we at the risk of moving away from a skills-based framework to a tools-based framework caused by the narrowing of application choices available through Hwb?
• If the intent of the DCF is for learners to have transferable skills that can be used across various applications, but primary schools are reliant on Microsoft, Google and Adobe, are the learners becoming proficient in products, not processes?
• Are certain strands of the of the DCF just functioning as training manuals for corporate products?
• In a wider context, could Hwb be described as a 'monoculture'? Where Hwb and its associated set of applications are generally the only way many teachers and learners experience technology. Hwb is convenient for many schools and relatively easy to manage, but ultimately limits choice and innovation outside of the limited tools offered. If an exciting new tool appears, related to generative AI for example, then many primary schools maybe reluctant to explore its potential, due to worries around GDPR, privacy, safety, that are often raised by local authorities and Welsh Government, cost, management, new logins, etc.

Lots for me to reflect on.