|
Articles Conference Reviews |
200712Morris1.2: Two Halves make a (w)hole, step through the hole and you’re out: Re-imagining a room with digital literacies curriculum print-generation faculty, and no money Sally Chandler, Charles Sutton, Dana Lauro, Mark Sutton (Kean University) These four presenters from Kean University spoke on the challenges of beginning to incorporate digital literacy practices at a small school where adjuncts make up a large portion of the faculty, students lack reliable computer access, and instructors are less than digitally literate themselves. They cast their presentation as the answer to a riddle that asks students and instructors to make the apparently impossible into the practical--an interesting connection between divergent presentations. Sally Chandler began by introducing their riddle and noting the major problems that Kean faces in becoming digitally proficient. In order to introduce digital literacy programs they need to collect data—obviously—but are not allowed to do so in their own classrooms. Some instructors are bypassing this issue by collecting data in each other’s classrooms. She also notes that they are using students and colleagues as “co-researchers,” which would allow them to study students through auto-ethnography and case studies. A third solution to this problem of data collection relies upon a collaborative database to keep track of information noted from other people’s classrooms which can then be made public to those instructors after term ends. Charles Sutton continued with information about how they plan to apply pedagogical research in terms of local meanings. He defined their students as the 1.5 generation—some of them are ESL students who demonstrate characteristics of both first and second generation immigrants. He stated that they belong to a complicated network of concerns, many of which affect the way that they can study and learn. To deal with the special needs of these Kean students, pedagogy (and digital literacy) must be reimagined. Dana Lauro considers herself to be a professional adjunct. She teaches at many different schools—one of which is Kean—and noted the problems specific to working at Kean. Because the adjuncts are unionized, they cannot work without being paid—which includes attending meetings. Despite this, Dana has tried to connect with other faculty members and has been distributing surveys to them in order to collect data on digital literacy initiatives. Only 36 of 300 instructors responded, and she believes this is because many of them are just as busy as she is and don’t have time to invest in anybody’s projects but their own. Mark Sutton was the last presenter, noting the problems of providing good professional development for adjunct faculty. They must be paid (again because of the union) although it was not clear if they would be interested or available at any time even if they were being paid. He noted that Saturdays were a possibility, but doubted that many instructors would want to come in then. He also talked briefly about the difficulties of instructors having to purchase their own software to learn since English teachers don’t have access to the same networks (such as MSDN) as other departments do. Despite these challenges, the presenters were convincing in their remarks that these conceptual solutions and work-arounds might eventually lead to catching the attention of administrators and developing necessary digital literacy skills in their classrooms.
Comments? |