SCAP digital Literacies project
Discussion responses to structured questions to the SCAP community, 06/07/12
Based on interview findings as set out in the baseline report, SCAP members were encouraged to consider the following risks:
- The imbalance of DL development across courses, especially the use of option modules to deliver significant DL development.
- DL innovation in the disciplines may be stifled when participants return to their departments.
- The gaps in provision in relation to student development of DL.
SCAP members were also invited to consider the following opportunities:
- Opportunities to build on academic confidence in the area of research and innovation to develop DL in this area and connect this with teaching.
- Opportunities to strengthen student collaboration and contribution with regard to DL development in the curriculum.
- The outcomes from the projects of JISC Developing Digital Literacies programme
Responses:
Q1. Would it be worthwhile being more explicit about DL in and alongside the curriculum (as we did for the skills agenda)?
Group 1: not explicitly. There was a good appetite for including DL, but as integrated in the taught experience and the ways of asking participants to engage with learning around the taught elements. But the idea of explicit targeted approaches was not felt appropriate. That said there was a lot of discussion about the dangers of the digital environment (digital professionalism such as discerning use of online resources, long term effects of digital footprints, the risk of a frivolous tweet). There was some contradiction between wishing staff to understand and teach the dangers of digital environment, but not wishing to address it explicitly in the PGCAPs.
Group 2: DL are only relevant in PGCAPs in as much as they impact on generic skills.
Group 3: At [one university], research students are not well supported. They are “sent off to use Nvivo” by supervisors who are not well versed in it and so may not be able to use it or to interpret the outputs. A clear focus would be beneficial.
Group 3: At [one university] the base access is missing. Getting the basics in place would be a good start.
Group 3: Yes but getting the motivation to do it is key. If you can sell to senior management that DL will make a tangible difference to something the institution really wants to do, then there might be progress – otherwise it will be empty rhetoric.
Group 3: Yes but it is hard to get beyond the “safe” options. Today senior managers are concerned about reputational risk. The strong QA culture means that one should never upset students – hence the attraction of Moodle, which is a safe and demonstrable level of provision. Courses need to find ways of looking at more interesting uses of learning technologies, taking this into account.
Q2. Is the restructuring of PGCAP courses practicable or desirable, and if so how should it be done?
Group 1: see above
Group 2: as above. The more discipline specific DL cannot be addressed in the programmes. Instead that needs to come from development work within the discipline groupings, to have context and relevance.
Also: we should reflect DL in educational development in so far as it reflects or supports educational literacy. But we can help disciplines make tacit DL knowledge and culture explicit.
Group 3: At [one university], there is a need to change from “the technology session” to a model where technology use is inherent in all modules. For example, when teaching about lectures, what use might be made of learning technologies?
Group 3: At [one university], staff use of technology is patchy. For most, Endnote, email and google are the norm – everything else is “fuzzy”.
Group 3: In all institutions, the ownership of DL is not clear – Library, IT and staff development can all lay claim. Therefore it tends not to be treated comprehensively. This presents an opportunity for accredited programmes to bring those providers together in some way to present something coherent to participants.
Q3. Can DL champions be identified in the disciplines?
Group 3: [One university] uses DL champions in the disciplines.
Q4. How can DL be made more visible in the disciplinary context. Especially in those areas that do not use specific and specialised software?
Group 3: a widely shared view that many staff will engage with something only if it leads to a REF rating. This provides an opportunity at a disciplinary level, since support for staff research may find its way through to an increased capacity of student support.
Group 3: Parallels were drawn with TLTP 12 years ago, which tended to “float” and not to find roots in the disciplines.
Q5. Can courses consider how staff will develop student’ more specifically?
Group 1: This was touched on, but inconclusive.
Q6. What is the role of students in bringing about change in relation to DL?
Group 2: The agenda itself is driven by what students are doing. It all dates quickly. Students are sophisticated consumers –especially in this aspect.
Group 3: Students can help to develop other students’ skills – but one should not assume a high level of student DL. Many have a very low skills level, especially those from developing countries who may not have had ready access to IT tools.
Group 3: Students have almost always come from environments that encourage a higher level of digital literacy. A main effect of students will simply be their level of expectation when they come to university and find a worse environment than they have had elsewhere. Unfortunately, many key staff in universities are not aware of other sectors in education and so do not feel this as a pressure.
Group 4: The group decided to focus on question 6. What is the role of students in bringing about change in relation to digital Literacy? The following points were made (some of which relate to other questions):
- Foremost, students should show what they use to learn and research.
- However, we should recognise that students are not necessarily expert. They don’t know what they don’t know and current rhetoric tends to overestimate the digital skills of young people. As a result, students need to participate, but not necessarily lead digital literacy work. Such work needs to happen within a framework of guidance and expertise.
- Where students do spontaneously lead DL work, an important question remains, what is the role for including staff here?
- Should assessment be led by this kind of (student led) work? If so, is this may be ignoring the essential nature of education – that it may be hard and challenging (gym vs hotel metaphor). We should not lose sight of this.
- We should recognise that technology disrupts education and there will be unforeseen impacts. For example, where lectures are recorded, the impact on style of teaching, mode of dissemination and expectations of attendees change.
- It is important not to colonise students’ informal spaces.
- Media changes what happens on courses, this needs scrutiny.
Q7. PGCAP & PGCerts focus on professional identities- but what about personal identities with regards to DL?
This was still a struggle for staff, with some reference being made to the much established idea of digital natives and digital immigrants not becoming reality. Some reference to the different digital use/ being in the disciplines as a function of the academic discipline based habitus. More particularly: habitual behaviour in physical context were replicated online according to the habitus of the discipline.