Digital Academics - Recently Updated Pages

Links

hochmanw1 — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:25:05 CST

Technology Standards for Teachers and Students

International Society for Technology in Education -- lots of resources for using technology in education, along with PDF downloads of the National Educational Technology Standards and Performance Indicators for Students, Teachers, and administrators.

Technology Initiatives on other campuses

U Calgary Faculty Technology Days for faculty and grad students. All sorts of technology workshops and demos over 3 days in May.
New Criteria for New Media, Jon Ippolito, et al, Leonardo, February 2009, Vol. 42, No. 1, Pages 71-75. Description of suggested promotion and tenure requirements for "new media" departments at the University of Maine. The criteria are listed in Part 3, starting on page 73.

Readings for Technology Inspiration

EDUCAUSE - 7 things you should know about... series on learning technologies and technologies in learning
Teaching Naked: Why Removing Technology from Your Classroom Will Improve Student Learning (using technology before and after class time, not during)
The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning - an international, refereed e-journal
Fifty One Competencies for Online Instruction (PDF) (author copy), Ted Smith, Journal of Educators Online, Volume 2, Number 2, July 2005
20 Technology Skills Every Educator Should Have, Laura Turner, T.H.E. Journal, June 2005
Implementing the 7 Principles (PDF), Tonia Malone; inspired by Arthur W. Chickering, Stephen C. Ehrmann, Implementing the 7 Principles: Technology as a Lever
Shift Happens (video)
Designing Spaces for Effective Learning (PDF) from the JISC (Joint Information Systems Committee) in the UK
EdTechTalk webcasts (audio and chat) on teaching with technology
Digital Books on the WAC Clearinghouse Online writing resources and publication space for teachers across the curriculum
Hypertext 101 a short opinion essay (Inside Higher Education, 2005) about teachers needing to embrace technology based on observations of SCSU faculty
Tenure in a Digital Era is a recent article by Scott Jaschik, editor of Inside Higher Education that includes some key ideas and an interesting discussion of the T&P dynamics digital scholars must consider
Funny Argument for Hiring Digital Compositionists called "English Downfall" by "theamishaugur" (Warning: If Nazi images are offensive to you do not click on the link)
A critical examination of Blackboard’s e-learning environment by Stephanie J. Coopman, First Monday 14(6), June 1, 2009. NOTE: This is a critique of a different version of Blackboard than what we are using now.

Constructivism

Jenkins, Jack. (2006). Constructivism. In Fenwick English (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Leadership and Administration, Vol. 1. (195-199). Thousand Oaks: Sage Reference. Retrieved May 12, 2009, from Gale Virtual Reference Library via Buley Library: http://tinyurl.com/o9oghm

Links to free online learning spaces

• The Educational Uses of Digital Storytelling
• Commontales lets you upload images/video/voice to make and share assignments, stories, memories to make collaborative, mash-up sense.The idea is to upload oral history items and to turn them into narrative texts
• Periodic Table of Visualization Methods Examples of most of the ways to graphically express thinking are illustrated interactively
• The Writing Studio is a course management site and great alternative to commercial products. Your students will use it after classes end, and you will find it is easy to create and maintain your classes AND KEEP ALL RIGHTS TO YOUR WORK.
• Creative Commons allows you to legally share, remix, and reuse content. It also protects your own creative work.
• Ted is a collection of twenty minute lectures by some of the most brilliant and interesting people of our time.

Workshops

dansoneson — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:06:05 CDT

October 16, 2009
Getting Started with Wikis in the Classroom -- TIP workshop

Dave Petroski, Communication
Derek Taylor, Communication

Equal CyberRights for Adjuncts

hochmanw1 — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 11:01:49 CDT

I am concerned that recent changes made by IT will further divide FT/PT faculty. Why should FT Faculty have more access to SCSU resources than PT teachers? If we entrust our students to PT faculty, why won't we trust them with full access to our network?

I wrote the above paragraph several weeks ago. Yesterday, I learned that CIO Chang has wrongfully purged accounts without notification. This made it impossible for some adjuncts and students to successfully communicate during the first week. Purging the accounts in the first place was not as important as having a smooth transition from term to term. I tried to make this point to CIO Chang several weeks ago when she instructed me about not using guest accounts for students who could not log on. Nonetheless, this is not a personal attack or conflict. I respect CIO Chang, l love SCSU, and I believe we can do better work to make our cyberspace better learning space. We need a CIO who makes learning her central "client." I understand that some of CIO Chang's problems are the result of bad (and ridiculously costly) decisions from CSU. This has been the case historically and is not CIO's Chang's fault so much as her key challenge. However, purging accounts without notification and without sensitivity to the timing of terms is not the result of outside pressure so much as simply not thinking enough about creating a good learning community. SCSU Digital academics can and must do more to ensure that "technical decisions" are made with focused pedagogical goals in mind. I think we can change adversity into advantage. Although we've had some tough problems already this term, I am hopeful that Digital Academics and the new Technology Committee (if it ever meets) will become more useful to our Provost and CIO.

Presentations

dansoneson — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 16:20:37 CDT

August 26, 2009
FYE Orientation

Wikis in the Curriculum
Dave Petroski, Communication

June 4, 2009
Southern Summer Teaching Academy:

Digital Academics: Growing a Community at SCSU (ENB 211)
Dan Soneson, World Languages and Literatures - TIP Presenter

Self-Nomination for Fellowship

petroskid1 — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 02:37:42 CDT

There is no abstract available for this page revision.

Initiatives

petroskid1 — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 01:59:13 CDT

The following are some initiatives that we intend to pursue:

Faculty Development

Establish and maintain a Digital Academic Teaching Award - Public recognition of projects that exemplify the Digital Academic values; Possible money award included
Prepare and coordinate workshops evolving from pedagogical concerns - Summer Tech may be the "flagship" event in this area...though it seems like independent workshops would help. Though the Faculty Development office is very supportive, funds won't allow for all of these types of workshops. Offering workshops without overhead (no food!) may help reduce costs. Even though attendance may be low initially, quality programs advance intrinsic value of discussion over extrinsic rewards. To start, it may be worthwhile to start with workshops that would be of value to Fellows rather than the general public. Some of these may be for "Fellows Only"...to give some incentive to belong.
Establish Qualifications to certify Digital Teaching Fellows - Some of this is partially addressed on the Digital Fellows page
Establish expectations and opportunities for faculty to develop technoliteracy
Provide and coordinate support and interest groups for faculty implementing a particular digital application (e.g. Wikis, Course management systems, ePortfolios)

Technology Policy

Work with the Faculty Senate, UCF, Provost, CIO, and/or IT staff to build recognition of Digital Academics (or a like-minded group) as a board to review and make recommendations to those stakeholders about all technology issues and policies that affect teaching and learning at Southern
Provide Academic input on classroom design - Key issues are: lighting, projection, seating, instructor work area, student access to technology, maintenance, wiring, smart board and future technologies, interactive technologies (perhaps an upgrade cycle for current classrooms). Informally, Fellows may want to systematically inventory classroom spaces for key issues that need attention
Provide Input on student access to resources - Key issues: Access on weekends; Late night hours (particularly for students taking classes that end at 10pm); Software that falls outside of "OIT" judgement, particularly multimedia applications
Develop Technological Fluency Goals

Mechanics

Operating system basics (file saving, organization, file types)
Key program types
Online resources (CONSULS, Databases...though not limited to collecting information)
Online pedagogical issues (MySCSU, Vista, other tools)
Database operation and access

Communication

Writing support and conventions (editing, peer review)
Online correspondence (Nettiquette, social networking...perhaps focus on ethical issues)
Collaboration (Wikis, Blogs, Web sites...again...ethical implications)
Teleconferencing (Skype, iChat, eLuminate, iTunesU...and ethical implications)
Social Networking (FaceBook, LinkedIn, Ning, Twitter, etc.)

Multimedia

Image manipulation software
audio recording and editing options
Elementary video elements and editing
Incorporation of a variety of media in one project

Develop goals and outcomes for university-wide technoliteracy
Establish and maintain Digital Academic Student Project Award - Public recognition of student projects that demonstrate Digital Academic values in practice
Establish minimum guidelines for technology regarding teaching and learning

Seek support from the Provost to encourage minimum guidelines in FYE and FY composition
Work with the Liberal Education Program to discover and support applications of technology that enable students to make connections among the courses in their general education program

Develop guidelines for ePortfolio selection and use.

Provide and develop workshops introducing the ePortfolio concept
Generate discussion of the assessment value of ePortfolio
Generate discussion of the reflective nature of the portfolio system
Present the aspect of student presentation of his or her own work as representative of their creativity and critical thinking
Coordinate efforts for selecting a consistent ePortfolio system that will work for all students in every program at Southern

Coordinate other committees on tech with Provost's and CIO's concerns so that faculty are strongly collaborating and working toward mutual goals and avoiding "left hand/right hand" conflicts by visits with committees, Provost, CIO, and redundant committee membership. If there are not Digital Academics representatives on these committees...reports and concerns should be provided on a regular basis to inform decisions.
Provide support and rationale for technology purchasing policies, specifically regarding faculty and student access to current technologies

Research/Knowledge Development

Promote innovation in digital resources - Selecting key technoglogies as a focal point would make sense. Wikis may be a first "endorsed" technology.

Wikis
Digital Storytelling
Podcasting
Blogs
ePortfolios
Teleconferencing (including such technologies as Skype, iChat, eLuminate, etc.)
Webinar options
Content packaging options
Mobile technology options (incorporation of cell phone capabilities, tablet pc's, iPhone-like devices)

Selection of ePortfolio system based primarily on a pedagogical issues, and only secondarily on an IT maintenance basis.
Raise university awareness about how pedagogy drives technological innovation -

Speaking out at public forums and town hall meetings
hosting public forums an demonstration sessions
publicizing Digital Academics initiatives
presenting a session at the Summer Academy

Promote media awareness of technological improvements and pedagogical innovation

Coordinate with Public Affairs
Dovetail with iTunes U

Digital Fellows

petroskid1 — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 01:45:09 CDT

What is a Digital Fellow?

An innovative instructor who:

Makes a significant mark on the learning community in and beyond his or her discipline
For example, implements new modes of learning that are sustainable and create improved learning that affect the university community in significant ways

Mentors or leads other faculty members and establishes new learning resources
For example, teaches in SummerTech, leads Teaching Innovation Program workshop, leads Summer Academy workshop with emphasis on technology, makes technologies like blogs, wikis, and web pages adaptable for SCSU colleagues

Makes a distinguished contribution of scholarship regarding technology or creative activity implementing technology that is widely recognized in his or her field
For example, does traditional scholarship, does non-traditional scholarship, does work reported or included in any form of distributed media

Does ground breaking service to affect significant change and improvement in the learning lives of others
For example, leads technological initiatives that enable class, dept., college, or university to improve any aspect of learning and/or college life

Uses collaboration and inclusion more widely than most other professors
For example, can show achievements in teaching, creative activity and service using digital technology that are shared with other members of the faculty and/or field

Explores effective ways of assessing learning and implementing digital technology that are shared widely in the learning community
For example, creates assessment outcomes, methods, modes, and other means of improved learning conditions

Employs innovative and creative uses of technology in the service of teaching and learning

How does one become a Digital Fellow?

One becomes a Digital Fellow by self-nomination and with sponsorship from a current Digital Fellow. To be eligible one must demonstrate:

Ability to promote the core values of the Digital Academic association
At least 3 "Digital Academic Activity Points" comprised from the following list:

1 Point Activities

Recent (within one year) incorporation of digital technologies in teaching practices for at least one course (e.g., use a Wiki or blog as part of class assignments, run a course through Vista)
Attendance at an on-campus technology event (e.g., Technology Teaching Innovation Program workshop, Colloquium, etc.) in the past year
Active participation in the Digital Academics Wiki
Nominate a Digital Academics Fellow (only open to current Fellows)

2 Point Activities

Present at an on-campus technology event in the past year (Teaching Innovation Program presentation, Summer Academy, etc.)
Present at conference on a topic related to Digital Academics
Attendance/participation in a full-day/multi-day workshop (e.g. SummerTech)
Actively participate in a Digital Academic initiative
Work with a colleague in another department to develop technology-based activities

3 Point Activities

Publish article/book that reflects the Digital Academics values
Regularly publish a blog or Web site on a relevant Digital Academic topic
Plan or coordinate an on-campus technology event
Lead or take primary responsibility for a Digital Academic initiative
Collaborate with faculty across the disciplines to develop and implement multimedia activities in the curriculum

What are the responsibilities of a Fellow?

A Fellow must accumulate at least 5 "Digital Academic Activity Points" per year.
A Fellow must actively participate in a Digital Academic initiative (2-points) or take lead of a Digital Academic initiative each year (3-points).
A Fellow must have an up to date profile on the Digital Academics web site, including an inventory of Digital Academic Activity Points
A Fellow must make at least 1 nomination of a prospective Fellow each year

What are the benefits of becoming a Digital Fellow?

According to Provost Williams, being a Digital Fellow will gain recognition for work reshaping and enhancing our learning community. Digital Fellows have the opportunity to work closely with others interested in technology in the service of teaching and learning.

Who can sponsor a Fellow?

Any current Fellow can sponsor another SCSU full- or part-time faculty member who fits the criteria listed above. There are a few guidelines for sponsorship:

Fellows cannot sponsor faculty from their own academic department
Fellows cannot sponsor more than 3 self-nominations in a year

Who's doing what?

hedreenr1 — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 09:37:16 CDT

Who uses what on campus? We know about these projects:

Blogs

Rebecca Hedreen, Distance Education blog (newsletter-style), ILS 599 Technology Trends in Libraries: Web 2.0 (Summer Session A, 2008)

Wikis

Dave Petroski
Jim Tait - Connecticut Rivers

Campus Tech Issues

dansoneson — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 07:40:19 CDT

This section serves as a place to write about issues that involve technology as it relates to teaching and learning. Participants are encouraged to begin a topic by posing an issue and offering a possible solution to the issue. Members are encouraged to elaborate on the issue or to provide alternative solutions to it. Let's try to keep one issue per page.

Examples

dansoneson — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 08:59:32 CDT

Instructions
Mini-Lecture
Student Video project
Digital Storytelling:

White Papers

hochmanw1 — Thu, 28 May 2009 13:26:47 CDT

A Converging of Learning Literacies, Primary Author: Will Hochman

From Desktop to Laptop: Making Transitions to Wireless Learning in Writing Classrooms
by Will Hochman and Mike Palmquist (A chapter from Going Wireless, Hampton Press, 2009)

Multimedia Argument for Multimedia Argumentation “Words are the Ultimate Abstraction” by Robert Watkins in Kairos 12.3

From Desktop to Laptop

dansoneson — Thu, 28 May 2009 11:38:05 CDT

From Desktop to Laptop: Making Transitions to Wireless Learning in Writing Classrooms
by Will Hochman and Mike Palmquist (A chapter from Going Wireless, Hampton Press, 2009)

For writers and writing instructors, innovative writing tools are cause for excitement and concern. Excitement arises from the hope of new solutions to old problems (such as replacing white-out as the writer’s primary revision tool) and anticipation of new ways to ease the life of the writer (such as WYSIWYG editors, commenting tools, and hyperlinks, among many other innovations). Concern emerges from the dawning realization that, no matter how well we have assessed and, as appropriate, incorporated the last round of innovations into our writing and teaching, there is even more to learn.

The latest wave of innovation has brought the widespread availability of portable, networked computing devices. Freed from the short tether of telephone lines and LAN cables, writers are composing, researching, and sharing their work with wireless laptops, handhelds, and tablet PCs. These portable devices have allowed writers to take to the streets – and, of course, to college quads, downtown coffee houses, and suburban bookstores – wherever, in short, wireless hot spots can be found.

The benefits for writers are clear, even if the connection is sometimes spotty. For writing instructors, however, the implications of wireless connectivity are only beginning to be understood. As we’ve seen with other innovations, from word processing to hypertext to chat, early enthusiasm for wireless technologies is being tempered by the realization that it might not be all things to all writers. Preliminary (and largely informal) assessments of wireless technologies by writing instructors suggest that, as was the case with wired network access, it can change the dynamic of the classroom in which it’s used. Effects reported suggest that portable, networked computing devices (and, in particular, wireless laptops) allow greater flexibility in how classroom space is configured and, for that matter, where classes can meet (Allen, 1996; Bauman, 2003; Blech, 2004). Others have argued that the portability and flexibility afforded by devices such as wireless laptops support group work, small-group discussions, and project-based learning more effectively than conventional wired computers (Lowther, Ross, & Morrison, 2001; Nilson, 2003; Staley, 2004). Some educators have raised concerns about challenges to instructor authority and control (Mahesh, 2002) and the relatively higher susceptibility to theft and damage of laptops, handhelds, and tablet PCs (Allen, 1996). Others, however, have argued that access to portable, networked computers leads to desirable changes in the classroom. Lowther and her colleagues (2001), for example, reported that their study of the use of wireless laptops in fifth- and sixth-grade classrooms indicated the use of “more student-centered strategies such as project-based learning, independent inquiry/research, teacher as coach/facilitator, and cooperative learning” (p. 7).

In this essay, we attempt to extend the discussion of the impact of wireless computing on writing classrooms by reporting the results of a study of 15 classrooms that used wireless laptops to support instruction. Our study draws on and extends work done in an earlier study that assessed the impact of networked computers on teaching and learning in writing classrooms. (Palmquist, Kiefer, Hartvigsen, & Godlew, 1998). That study, which we will refer to as the Transitions study, focused on how instructors adapted to changes in classroom context as they taught the same course in the same academic term in both traditional and computer-supported classrooms. The Transition study also explored student attitudes toward writing, student and instructor interaction, and student writing processes. Key findings included:

• Teachers adopted different roles in the two classrooms, relying more heavily on lecturing and using other front-of-the-classroom techniques in the traditional classrooms while using more student-centered activities in the computer classrooms
• Teachers adopted different attitudes toward their students, directing students in the traditional classrooms and expecting students to take charge of their own learning in the computer classrooms
• Students and teachers interacted more frequently in the computer classrooms than in the traditional classrooms.
• Students interacted with each other more frequently in the computer classrooms.
• Interactions among students in computer classrooms tended to focus on writing-related topics while interactions among students in traditional classrooms tended to be “off-task.”
• Students in the computer classrooms were more confident in their writing abilities at the end of the term.
• In the traditional classrooms, writing was viewed as an object of study and students resisted writing during class; in the computer classrooms, writing was viewed as an essential part of class activities.

These findings suggested important differences in the nature of teaching and learning in traditional and computer-supported writing classrooms, differences that, once understood, allowed instructors to apply techniques developed for the computer classrooms to instruction in traditional classrooms. Perhaps more important, the results of the Transition study allowed instructors to gain insights into how teaching strategies, interaction, and student attitudes toward writing were shaped by the physical presence of computers and the design of the computer classrooms. As writers and instructors begin making yet another transition – this time, from the hardwired computer classroom to the more flexible space of the wireless laptop classroom – we can use our understanding of previous transitions to learn about the nature of this new learning space and, by extension, to prepare more fully for teaching within it. Below, we describe the methods we used to carry out the study and discuss its results.

The Study
Using the investigative framework provided by the Transitions study, we explored the instructional methods and approach used in the wireless classrooms, the use of writing during class sessions, and interactions among students and instructors during class sessions. We gained insights into these issues through interviews with instructors and an end-of-term survey of students.
Institutional Setting: Our study was carried out at Southern Connecticut State University. Located in New Haven, “Southern” enrolls more than 12,000 students and offers 115 undergraduate and graduate degree programs. The English department has approximately 35 full-time and 35 part-time faculty members. Composition and technical writing classes are capped at 20 students, and developmental writing classes are capped at 12.

Classroom Setting: Class meetings were typically held in one of two “smart” classrooms, each equipped with a projection screen, ceiling-mounted computer projector, conventional documents projector, speakers, and printer. Each room is furnished with moveable tables that fit two students to a side. Moveable chairs facilitate rearrangement of the room. At the beginning of class, students checked out one of 24 wireless Dell Inspiron laptops. Between classes, the laptops were stored in mobile, locking carts equipped with battery chargers. Between classes, the laptop carts were placed in storage closets in two of the classrooms. At the time of the study, the laptops had been in use for two years.

Instructional Technology Resources and Support: The wireless laptops used in the classrooms we studied were funded by an internal University grant to the composition program (Hochman et al., 2003). Support for integrating the technology into course instruction was provided by Will Hochman, a member of the composition faculty and chair of the department’s technology committee. Before the semester began, he met with instructors individually and as a group to discuss use of technology in the classrooms. During the semester, he visited classes to provide support for instructors, distributed useful links and articles relevant to teaching with technology, and led workshops for instructors using technology in their courses. Throughout the semester, he and the participating instructors also engaged in discussions of teaching with technology over a department email list.
At Southern, all full time instructors receive a computer of their choice (most now choose laptops) every three years. Part-time instructors are not given university computers but have the same faculty privileges of access to and storage space on the university computing network.

The Office of Information Technology (OIT) at Southern oversees the use of instructional technology across the University and provides support for computer classrooms and labs as well as faculty and staff development. Although Southern does not have a comprehensive wireless access policy, OIT requires the use of standard wireless hubs and is attempting to extend the reach of its wireless network across the entire campus. OIT receives feedback on policies and procedures affecting instruction through the Educational Technology Administration committee, of which Hochman is a member.

Students at Southern can obtain information technology support through the Office of Instructional Technology’s Student Technology Resource Center. The Center’s goal is to ensure that all students at SCSU have access to a personal computer, network connectivity, and a basic level of software (e.g. communications, web browser, word processing, e-mail, etc). The Center offers tutoring in the use of popular office application software, provides access to email/web kiosks and graphics/multimedia stations, and operates a computer loan program for student who cannot afford a computer of their own.

The Center houses the STARS (Student Technology Assistant Representative) program. STARS students support drop-in students. They also serve as assistants for instructors who are using information technology to support their classes. Students in the STARS program are trained at the beginning of each semester to support instructors and students using the laptop classrooms.
At the request of instructors participating in the study, STARS students assisted in the classrooms, providing support to individual students and general demonstrations of how to use the laptops. Instructors reported that the most effective support from STARS students occurred within the context of student writing and research activities, where students were able to connect the operation of the laptops to their own composing processes. STARS students assisted students and instructors regularly at the beginning of the semester. Over the course of the semester, as students in the classes became more familiar with the operation of and security procedures associated with the laptops, instructors generally stopped requesting support from the STARS students.

Participants: Fifteen instructors and 278 students participated in the study. Eight of the instructors were tenured or tenure-track members of the department faculty; seven were teaching on short-term contracts. On average, the instructors who participated in the study had taught for about 15 years, but the range of experience varied widely. One instructor, teaching for the first time after completing a master’s degree, had taught for two years as a graduate teaching assistant. Another instructor had taught for more than 30 years. Specializations varied as well. Four of the full-time instructors are composition specialists, two specialize in business and technical writing, one directs the department English Education program, and one is a specialist in nineteenth-century American literature. As a group, the instructors had either taught writing in classrooms supported by laptop or desktop computers or had expressed a strong interest to learning how to teach writing with computers.

The students were enrolled in 17 sections of first-year composition. Although no demographic data was collected, the students reflected the diverse student body at the university. Many of those attending Southern are first generation college students from blue collar backgrounds. Although most of the students attending are from the surrounding region, the school has students from more than thirty five states and fifty nations. There is a 15:1 student to instructor ratio, and a male to female ration of 1:1.8.
Instructors were recruited to the study through a general message sent to the department’s email list. Students were invited to participate in the study through a brief classroom presentation, where they were told in general terms about the nature of the study and asked to consider completing a survey at the end of the term. Interested instructors and students were provided with an informed consent form. No monetary compensation was provided for participation in the study.

Instructor Interviews: Instructors were interviewed during the last three weeks of the semester. Questions were adapted from interview questions asked in the Transitions study (Palmquist et al., 1998). Interviews were analyzed to reveal trends in instructor assessments of the wireless laptop classroom as an instructional environment and in their reports of teaching strategies, lesson planning, and interaction with students. The following questions were asked:

1. What advantages, if any, do you think that the wireless laptop classroom offers as an environment to teach in over a traditional classroom.
2. What advantages, if any, do you think it has over a computer-based classroom that uses standard desktops.
3. How do you typically run a class in the laptop classroom? Do you follow a typical pattern, such as beginning with a writing activity?
4. What role does writing (drafting, revising) play in your class meetings?
5. If you use writing during class, what do you do as students write?
6. Do students ask you to help them with their writing during class writing sessions? If so, please describe some typical interactions?
7. Do students share their writing with you before or immediately following class? If so, please describe some typical interactions?
8. How do students approach writing during class? Do they see it as a natural thing to do in a writing classroom? Does their attitude toward writing in class differ from those of students you’ve worked with in traditional classrooms?
9. Do you feel as though you interact with students in the laptop classroom about as much, less than, or more than in a traditional classroom? If there are differences, to what do you ascribe them?
10. Do you feel you can accomplish as much in a laptop classroom as you can in a traditional classroom? How, if at all, does your planning and class management differ between the two settings?
11. Compared to your work in a traditional classroom setting, do you feel that you relate to your students similarly or differently in the laptop classroom?
12. Do you feel that you have to give up any control in a laptop classroom? If so, is that a good thing, a bad thing, or just a different thing?

Student Surveys: Students were surveyed at the end of the semester. Instructors were not informed of the results of the survey until after final course grades had been submitted and then only in aggregate across all 17 sections of the course. The survey was adapted from the student surveys used in the Transitions study (Palmquist et al., 1998). Additional questions were developed to assess student attitudes toward using wireless laptops and to assess student interaction before, during, and immediately after classes. The following items were including on the survey:

Expectations about Writing: Very Little Very Much

1. In general, how much writing do you think will be required in your classes at [this institution]? 1 2 3 4 5
2. How much writing do you think you will be required to do after you graduate? 1 2 3 4 5
3. How important do you think writing will be to your career? 1 2 3 4 5

Grades:

4. In this class, I expect to receive a grade of . . . . A B C D F
5. In previous writing classes, I have usually received a grade of . . . A B C D F

Attitudes about Writing: Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

6. Good writers are born, not made. 1 2 3 4 5
7. I avoid writing. 1 2 3 4 5
8. Some people have said, "Writing can be learned but it can't be taught." Do you believe it can be learned? 1 2 3 4 5
9. Do you believe writing can be taught? 1 2 3 4 5
10. Practice is the most important part of being a good writer. 1 2 3 4 5
11. I am able to express myself clearly in my writing. 1 2 3 4 5
12. Writing is a lot of fun. 1 2 3 4 5
13. Good teachers can help me become a better writer. 1 2 3 4 5
14. Talent is the most important part of being a good writer. 1 2 3 4 5
15. Anyone with at least average intelligence can learn to be a good writer. 1 2 3 4 5
16. I am no good at writing. 1 2 3 4 5
17. I enjoy writing. 1 2 3 4 5
18. Discussing my writing with others is an enjoyable experience. 1 2 3 4 5
19. Compared to other students, I am a good writer. 1 2 3 4 5
20. Teachers who have read my writing think I am a good writer. 1 2 3 4 5
21. Other students who have read my writing think I am a good writer. 1 2 3 4 5
22. My writing is easy to understand. 1 2 3 4 5

Experiences in Previous Writing Classes:

23. On some of my past writing assignments, I have been required to submit rough drafts of my papers. 1 2 3 4 5
24. I'v taken some courses that focused primarily on spelling, grammar, and punctuation. 1 2 3 4 5
25. In previous writing classes, I've had to revise my papers. 1 2 3 4 5
26. Some of my former writing teachers were more interested in my ideas than in my spelling, punctuation, and grammar. 1 2 3 4 5
27. In some of my former writing classes, I've commented on other students' papers. 1 2 3 4 5
28. In some of my former writing classes, I spent a lot of time working in groups. 1 2 3 4 5
29. Some of my former teachers acted as though the most important part of writing was spelling, punctuation, and grammar. 1 2 3 4 5

Attitudes about this Class:

30. I feel comfortable asking my instructor to help me with my writing during this class. 1 2 3 4 5
31. Before, during, or immediately following this class, I have asked my instructor to look at some of my writing. 1 2 3 4 5
32. When I have worked on my writing in this class, I have asked advice from or shared my work with my classmates. 1 2 3 4 5
33. Before class sessions have formally started, I’ve asked my classmates to look at my writing. 1 2 3 4 5
34. I see writing (during class meetings) as a valuable part of this class. 1 2 3 4 5
35. Before, during, or immediately following this class, my instructor has talked personally with me about the work I am doing for this class. 1 2 3 4 5

Attitudes about Wireless Laptops:

36. I own a wireless laptop. No Yes
37. I do not own a wireless laptop, but I plan to purchase one in the next year. 1 2 3 4 5
38. My instructor has done a good job of integrating wireless laptops into class work. 1 2 3 4 5
39. I wish that I had taken a writing class that does not use computers during class. 1 2 3 4 5
40. Access to a wireless laptop has helped me become a better writer. 1 2 3 4 5

Analysis focused on both individual items and subscales. Writing confidence was assessed using items 11, 16, 19, 20, 21, and 22. Writing anxiety was assessed using items 7, 12, 17, and 18. Previous writing instruction that focused on writing product was assessed using items 24, 26, and 29. Previous writing instruction that focused on writing process was assessed using items 23, 25, 27, and 28.

The measures of writing confidence and writing anxiety have proven reliable across a series of studies (Charney, Newman, & Palmquist, 1995; Mellenbacher et al., 2000; Palmquist & Young, 1992). The writing anxiety questions are based on Daly and Miller's landmark studies of writing apprehension (1975a, 1975b), while the writing confidence questions were developed paralleling and extending items in the Daly Miller instrument (Palmquist & Young, 1992).

Research Questions: Six questions guided our analysis of the information we collected through the interviews and surveys:

1. How do attitudes of students who participated in this study compare to those who participated in the Transitions study?
2. How do student reports of previous writing instruction compare across the two studies?
3. How did wireless laptops affect the classroom environment?
4. How did teachers adapt their pedagogy to account for access to laptop computers?
5. What role did writing play in class sessions?
6. What sort of interactions were reported by students and teachers?

Results and Discussion

Question 1. How do attitudes of students who participated in this study compare to those who participated in the Transitions study?
In the survey, we asked students to respond to a series of statements designed to assess their writing confidence and writing anxiety. Students in the wireless laptop classrooms had a mean score of 3.49 on the writing confidence scale (a one-to-five scale; SD=0.71, DF=274). In contrast, at the same point in the academic term, students in the Transitions study who took courses taught in the computer classrooms had a mean score of 3.54 (SD=0.77, DF=78), while those who took courses taught in the traditional classrooms had a mean score of 3.33 (SD=0.73, DF=84). A one-way ANOVA indicated no statistically significant differences among these three groups of students.

Students in the wireless classrooms had a mean score of 2.83 on the writing anxiety scale (SD=0.92, DF=276). In contrast, the students in the computer classrooms in the Transitions study had a mean score of 2.73 (SD=0.90, DF=77), while those in the traditional classrooms had a mean score of 2.9i (SD=0.92, DF=84). Once again, a one-way ANOVA indicated no significant difference among the three groups of students.

Question 2. How do student reports of previous writing instruction compare across the two studies?
In the survey, we asked students to respond to items about the instruction they had received in previous writing courses. In the Transitions study, we had found that students whose previous writing instruction had not emphasized the writing process (e.g., collaboration, multiple drafts, and revision) had earned lower grades than those who were familiar with a process approach to writing instruction. This had been found, however, only for students in the computer classrooms. We suspected that this might reflect a lower level of preparation for peer review and other collaborative activities, which were emphasized more heavily in the computer classrooms than in the traditional classrooms.

An ANOVA indicates statistically significant differences among the three groups of students (F=10.21, P<.001, DF=2, 434) in the measure of prior instruction that emphasized product. Students in the traditional and computer sections of the Transitions study had a mean response of 3.02 (SD=0.70) and 3.05 (SD=0.73), respectively, while students in the wireless classrooms had a mean response of 3.35 (SD=0.72). We found no statistically significant differences among the three groups of students in their responses to the items concerning previous instruction that emphasized process.

Question 3: How did wireless laptops affect the classroom environment?
One of the key findings in the Transitions study was that the physical presence of computers seemed to affect the behaviors and attitudes of students and instructors. In part, this was attributed to the design of the computer-supported writing classrooms, which placed a conference table at the center of the classroom and computers in an outward facing ring around the room. Students moved back and forth between computers and discussion (in small groups or as a full class) by turning their chairs, which had rollers to facilitate movement.

In this study, we asked instructors to compare their teaching in the wireless classrooms with their teaching in traditional classrooms and computer-supported classrooms that used standard, wired desktop computers. In comparing the wireless classroom to the traditional classroom, they focused on three general issues: writing during class, Web access, and enhanced student computer literacy. Six out of the ten instructors observed that the type of writing that took place in the wireless classrooms was “more natural” and “more real world” than the writing that took place in the traditional classrooms, where students did not have access to the word processing programs they typically used to compose. One instructor commented, “Students can write in class in a more ‘natural’ way. Word processing has replaced pen and paper as the norm for most students.” Three of the instructors noted, as well, that it was helpful to be able to view student writing during in-class writing activities. Three also commented on the advantages of being able to talk with students about their writing as they composed.

One teacher characterized in-class writing in the wireless classroom as “comfortable” and “familiar:”
Most students compose on computers now outside of the classroom. For those of us (most of us who teach writing, I hope) who ask students to write in-class, we are able to provide students with their most comfortable and familiar writing situation …. In addition, the laptop classroom offers us opportunities to project the composing processes of students onto a large screen, to work on the draft as it is being composed, rather than modeling a very old-style-days-of-typewriters composing process – one in which a complete draft is completed, revised, then rewritten from start to finish. This is not the composing process students (or most of us) have anymore. In addition, students can, while working, turn to a peer for advice or reassurance that an idea/paragraph/sentence is working.

In their reflections on differences between the wireless classrooms and the wired, desktop-computer classrooms in which they had taught before, the instructors focused on the flexibility and portability of the laptops used during class, issues of visibility, and the ease of removing laptops from student’s gaze. In general, their comments reflected experiences teaching in a standard, lecture-style computer classroom, in which fixed workstations are placed in rows facing the front of the classroom. Six instructors commented that the wireless laptops, which could be moved around the room – or even out of the room – allowed for a flexible arrangement and rearrangement of the classroom space. “Laptops are less intrusive, particularly in relation to the space between students,” said one of the instructors. “Students are able to work very closely together, at tables, to see each other. In desktop labs, such as the foreign language lab (at least part of it), students seem more isolated, all alone in the writing process. If we want to stress the idea that writing is a collaborative, social process, the laptops help us do this.”

Seven instructors also noted that, because the laptop screens could be lowered, they did away with the disrupted sight lines of the desktop computer classroom they had used in the past. “Open laptops are small enough that students can’t ‘hide’ behind them,” said another instructor. “Instructors can ask students simply to put the tops of the computers down whenever they should be engaged in a group conversation, for example, rather than working on the computer.”

Question 4: How did teachers adapt their pedagogy to account for access to laptop computers?
In their interviews, teachers commented on their typical lesson plans, their use of writing in class, and issues of teacher control and student responsibility. Six of the instructors said that they did not follow a typical class plan, while four said that they always began class with some sort of writing activity. In general, however, the instructors noted that their class plans typically included some sort of writing activity – and often more than one – during a given class session. They also commented on the need to adapt lesson plans to student needs. “I fear that there’s nothing typical for me,” said an instructor. “Sometimes I start the day with ‘get a laptop and pull up your draft,’ other times we discuss goals and so on in class and then power up, other times we work in and out of researching, writing, editing, and responding. Usually my plans end up being continually revised during the class.”
The need to adapt to student needs reflected a dominant theme in the instructor interviews: the shift toward a less directive style of teaching (mentioned by seven instructors) and an expectation that students should take more responsibility for their own learning (mentioned by four instructors). These comments mirror observations made by instructors in the Transitions study, where instructors seemed surprised by how differently they approached teaching in the two classroom settings. In this study, the interviews reveal that teachers tended to use less front-of-the-classroom instruction than they typically used in a traditional classroom. The interviews also suggest that they adopted a different role, using terms such as “coach” and “fellow writer” to describe how they related to their students. One instructor observed:

I’m less likely to feel my teacher role as controlling, as up-front-professing. It could be partly that a traditional classroom reminds me of my own traditional education. The teacher professes; the student takes it in. … For some reason, the laptop classroom reminds me, perhaps, that we know better than all that now – that teaching and learning are about the students and not ourselves. Sometimes I’m inspired and deeply moved just to be quiet and watch them work for a minute or two. It reminds me that our students do, in fact, want to be there and do want to be working. It humbles me that they are so willing to work in front of us, as teachers. And it reminds me that I have done something right for them to risk composing in front of me – they trust in my judgment, that it will be fair, helpful, and encouraging.

Question 5. What role did writing play in class sessions?
One of the central findings of the Transitions study was that in-class writing played a significantly more important role in the computer classrooms than in the traditional classrooms. The computer classrooms, in essence, were seen as a place where writing was done. In contrast, in the traditional classrooms, writing was an object of study. It was talked about, but seldom done in class. Some of the reasons for this stemmed from the instructors’ roles as teachers – in the computer classrooms, they tended to see their role as facilitators and coaches rather than as dispensers of knowledge to their students. Other reasons were rooted in student responses to in-class writing activities. On the whole, students in the traditional classes resisted writing during class sessions, while those in the computer classrooms saw it as a natural and reasonable activity.

In this study, we found parallels in instructors’ attitudes toward writing, use of writing during class, and student attitudes toward in-class writing. One instructor observed, for example, that the amount of in-class writing had steadily increased over the term. “I’ve devoted more and more time to actually drafting and revising and editing in class, especially for freshman writers,” said the instructor. “It’s a good way to model the time it actually takes to write (they think 30 minutes is a long time to spend on a revision), and it is difficult for many students to have access to computers otherwise.”

Another instructor called attention to the wide range of writing activities that had been incorporated into class sessions:
I often ask students to do quick writes so they can record their immediate impressions after in-class discussion, sometimes to lead to further discussion. Students also brain-storm their ideas on assigned essay topics in small groups before writing out-of-class drafts. A lot of class time is given to revising workshops of various kinds: working on their first draft by members of a small groups, then writing comments for a peer’s second draft, and finally reviewing the third draft of a member of another group. Students also edit and, on occasion, proofread each other’s drafts.

Still other instructors noted that their teaching strategies had become reliant on technology. “It’s at the core of what I do, and it can be easily facilitated by computers,” said an instructor. “I have activities (such as using the insert comment function in Word) that specifically force students into more elaborated responses in peer workshops. Without the technology, I don’t think that students would gain as much from my very structured peer reviews.”

The instructors reported using a wide variety of writing activities during class sessions. Nine of the ten instructors said that they asked students to draft during class, while eight asked students to revise their work. Five of the instructors asked students to engage in writing in response to class reading or prompts, or as part of online chat or forum discussions. Seven of the instructors used in-class writing to support peer review activities.

Students’ perceptions of writing during class were largely positive. 57.8 percent of students agreed or strongly agreed to survey item 34, I see writing (during class meetings) as a valuable part of this class, while only 14.6 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed. Their perception of the importance of in-class writing might have its roots in the type of interactions they had with classmates and their instructors as they wrote. One teacher observed:

I think the writers who work in the laptop classrooms take themselves more seriously as writers. I think they get more of a feel for the work of writing as both individual and collaborative at the same time, and more of a sense of my role as facilitator rather than corrector, because of the kinds of conversations I have with them in the classroom, where I really strive to position them as the decision makers.

Another instructor said in an interview, “Most of my students have told me that they have never written this much before in a classroom. By the end of the semester they realize the value of extensive writing and revision.”

Question 6: What sort of interactions were reported by students and teachers?
Among the most striking finding of the Transitions study was the significantly higher levels of student-instructor and student-student interaction in the computer classrooms. In this study, which did not compare instruction by the same teachers in traditional and wireless classrooms, similar comparisons are not possible. However, the student surveys and instructor interviews provide some insights into the nature of interaction taking place in the wireless classrooms. In general, those results suggest that a dynamic similar to what was found in the computer classrooms in the Transitions study was taking place in the wireless classrooms.
The survey results indicate that students in the wireless classrooms were willing to talk with their instructors and did so regularly. Their mean response to item 30, I feel comfortable asking my instructor to help me with my writing during this class, was among the highest in the survey at 4.04 on a one-to-five scale (SD=1.104, DF=277). Their responses to survey items 31, Before, during, or immediately following this class, I have asked my instructor to look at some of my writing, was also strongly positive: 48.7 percent of students agreed or strongly agreed and only 21.0 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed. Similarly, their responses to item 34, Before, during, or immediately following this class, my instructor has talked personally with me about the work I am doing for this class, indicates substantial interaction with the instructor: 53.3 percent of students agreed or strongly agreed and only 18.6 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Eight of the 10 instructors agreed that, in comparison to the amount of interaction they typically have with students in traditional classrooms, more student-instructor interactions occurred in the wireless classroom. “Students seem to associate being in the lab with hands-on activity,” said one instructor. “So they abandon the attitude of mere listener and note-taker.” Another instructor called attention to the important role that in-class writing activities played in encouraging interaction between students and instructors:
I encourage [discussions with students during writing sessions] by walking around the room and peeking over shoulders or seeking out students who appear to be struggling. When I check drafts, I ask students about them and try to help them by asking them questions to help them identify their early writing goals. Occasionally students will show me particular points in their essays and ask for help with them. Again, I try to throw questions back at them to help them make decisions about what they want their writing to do. Again, this is often easier in a laptop classroom since students can begin to make changes while we talk or immediately afterward. In regular classrooms, these discussions are often fruitful too, but students tend to forget the details by the time they get back to their dorms to revise.

In the Transitions study, students in the computer classrooms reported roughly 50 percent more interaction with classmates than did their peers in the traditional classrooms. In this study, student responses to the survey suggest that a similar level of interaction occurred among students in the wireless classrooms. 55.5 percent of students agreed or strongly agreed with item 32, When I have worked on my writing in this class, I have asked advice from or shared my work with my classmates, while only 16.3 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed. One of the instructors suggested that interactions among classmates was supported by in-class writing and peer review activities. “I’ve found that holding classes in the lab creates more collaborative working relations between students,” said the instructor. “They’re writing apprentices working on projects together. Probably this attitude derives from the opportunity for immediate hands-on writing, especially since these days students usually prefer to type rather than handwrite.”

Conclusions

These findings are similar to those of the Transitions study. Notably, we saw reports of interaction among students and between students and instructors that are consistent with the findings of the Transitions study. We also saw indications that writing, as an activity, was viewed in a manner similar to that found in the computer-supported classrooms in the Transitions study. Perhaps most important, the instructors in this study showed similar attitudes toward teaching and student responsibility. Most instructors reported an emphasis on student-centered pedagogy and several noted that they expected their students to take greater responsibility for their learning than they expected of students in traditional classrooms.

Beyond direct comparisons with the Transitions study, these findings suggest important advantages of wireless classrooms over traditional and desktop-supported writing classrooms. The instructors reported in particular on the ergonomics of wireless laptops, noting the greater flexibility they allowed in designing and carrying out instruction. The instructors referred to the ease with which laptops could be moved, covers could be lowered, and laptops could be put away. These ergonomic factors enhanced contact between students and instructors, supported collaboration among students, and reduced the extent to which, in comparison with desktop classrooms, the technology dominates the classroom space. These findings are consistent with reports published recently as part of a Kairos coverweb on portable technologies, where Dean, Hochman, Hood, and McEachern (2004) called attention to the changes associated with the growing use of small, wireless laptops in writing classrooms:

Many classroom teachers celebrate this change after years of trying to see students behind or around monitors and large boxes. Along with smaller learning stations, wireless technology is now beginning to free students and teachers who were wired into a fixed place in their computerized classes. (Why Wireless Laptops, para 1)

Few technological difficulties have been associated with using the laptops in writing classes at Southern. Early problems with running the laptops on battery power were solved by purchasing extra batteries, and occasional network problems appear to be no worse than those experienced with most university networks. Even reasonable concerns about the time associated with distributing and booting up wireless laptops at the start of each class session have been addressed by the instructors. Bob McEachern, echoing comments made by instructors during interviews for this study, suggested that time spent distributing laptops can be viewed as time spent bringing students and instructors into contact:

Ten or 20 seconds seems pretty insignificant. But I'll ask you – how many classes have you taught where you greet each student by name before class starts? I don't have evidence that this is contributing to better writing, or happier students. But it feels good to me. I'm assuming it feels good to students. (Dean et al., 2004, My New Reality, para 5)

Anecdotal evidence suggests that a significant number of the faculty members at Southern view the changes associated with teaching in wireless laptop classrooms as beneficial to their teaching. In the two years since the laptops were made available, only one instructor who has taught with them has decided not to use them again. Moreover, every slot in both of the classrooms is eagerly sought by instructors and a third classroom is being developed.

Even so, the number of instructors who have asked to use the laptops is still less than half of the total department faculty. And concerns have been expressed by faculty who view with suspicion the use of technology to support writing instruction. As Dean et al. (2004) noted in their article in Kairos, this suspicion seems to be associated with the desire to hold onto print culture even as we move into a hybrid stage of print/digital writing. Reflecting on his initial resistance to teaching with computers, Christopher Dean observed:

I now know that my [initial] resistance is in some ways justified, and the principle way in which I justify it is based on the work of Cynthia Selfe, particularly her piece “Redefining Literacy: The Multilayered Grammars of Computers.” This piece claims that multilayered literacy is a literacy in which people “function literately within computer-supported communication environments” by layering “conventions of the page and conventions of the screen” (7-8). As Selfe argues, writers inhabit this space – a space in which the hum of electronic discourse is accompanied by the scratching of the pen (7-8). Selfe seems to think that this is a transitional stage, but I would argue that teachers should continue to think about student reading, writing, and academic achievement in relation to the intersection of computer and page for many years to come.

No matter how long the transition lasts – or whether or not it ultimately proves to be a transition in any sense of the word – this study suggests that the primary challenge faced by instructors who use wireless laptops is not technological. Instead, as the instructors we worked with in this study and in the original Transitions study indicate, the most important challenge is pedagogical. One element of this challenge is how our students conceptualize a learning space. In the not too distant past, most writing students’ conception of a learning space was a classroom with rows of desks. In the late 1980s and 1990s, we witnessed a widening of that conception as students began to learn to write in rooms containing networked computers, moveable tables, and chairs. In the near future, our students are likely to begin thinking of a learning space as anywhere they might connect to the network. This evolving sense of where – and how – one learns is mirrored in the growing ease with which students can move and access information. As students come to rely more and more on flash drives, network storage, and Web-based learning environments, we’ll see a shift from a brick-and-mortar notion of classrooms to one in which wireless networks are as much a part of the classroom space as overhead projectors and white boards and where students view easy access to course resources outside of the classroom space as something as natural as buying textbooks and writing essays.

Another element of this challenge is how instructors will conceptualize the place of wireless networks in their courses. The results of our study suggest that the use of wireless laptops shape the conduct of class and the shape of classroom activities. These ergonomic effects are important, but they reflect early efforts by instructors to integrate wireless networks into their courses. As instructors become more familiar with the characteristics of these networks – and as the networks and the devices that connect to them become more powerful – we should expect additional affects on how writing is learned and taught. What those effects will be is unclear. They will no doubt reflect changes in higher education as a whole. They will also reflect our understanding of what it means to be a writer, how writers share their work, and the shapes of the work they share. What seems clear, however, is that even classrooms that outwardly resemble the 19th-century, rows-of-desks configuration will be affected by instructors’ understanding of how to use wireless networks to extend the boundaries of the classroom.

As writing instructors and program administrators, we need to consider not only what is made possible by the technology we use in our classrooms – from chalk to overhead projectors to wireless laptops – but also what is obscured and what is made difficult. As Dean suggests, our hybrid culture is here to stay, and it is clear that our pedagogies have not always kept pace with the technological changes that are shaping our classrooms and our teaching and learning lives.

As writing technologies continue to become more transparent, we will move from questioning what it is to investigating how we can best live and learn with it. In one sense, it’s likely that this latest shift in the context of our learning spaces will be easier to address than some earlier shifts. The physical intrusion of computers into classrooms is something we’ve grown used to. If anything, this shift will minimize that intrusion, as students and instructors come to rely on smaller, less intrusive digital tools – one day perhaps on devices that use digital paper and flexible screens as input and output devices. Rather than worrying how we can equip classrooms with the latest technology, we’ll begin expecting students to bring that technology with them. In a sense, for writing program administrators, this might be the easiest shift of all. For curriculum designers and teachers, however, the challenge will be investigating what has become possible and whether – and if so, how – it should be integrated into instruction.

This study and the earlier Transitions study emphasize the ongoing need for pedagogical direction and reflection. If we can adroitly learn to connect our educational goals to useful changes in technology, we might also be able to use this process of hybrid adaptation as an object lesson for our learning processes in general.

References

Allen, Nancy. (1996). Designing an electronic writing classroom. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 39(4), 232-238.
Bauman, Marcy. (2003, December 5). Re: [techrhet] need help with hoped for wireless lab. Message posted to TechRhet electronic mailing list. Retrieved March 18, 2005, from http://www.interversity.org/lists/techrhet/archives.php.
Blech, Bradley. (2004, March 5). Re: [techrhet] Help! Message posted to TechRhet electronic mailing list. Retrieved March 18, 2005, from http://www.interversity.org/lists/techrhet/archives.php.
Bhave, Mahesh P. (2002). Classrooms with Wi-Fi. T H E Journal 30(4). Retrieved January 23, 2005, from Academic Search Premier database.
Charney, Davida, Newman, John H., and Palmquist, Mike. (1995). “I'm just no good at writing:” Epistemological Style and Attitudes Toward Writing. Written Communication 12(3), 298-329.
Daly, John A., and Miller, Michael D. (1975a). The empirical development of an instrument to measure writing apprehension. Research in the Teaching of English 9(3), 242-249.
Daly, John A., and Miller, Michael D. (1975b). Further studies in writing apprehension: SAT scores, success expectations, willingness to take advanced courses and sex differences. Research in the Teaching of English 9(3), 250-256.
Dean, Christopher, Hochman, Will, Hood, Carra, and McEachern, Robert. (2004). Fashioning the emperor's new clothes: Emerging pedagogy and practices of turning wireless laptops into classroom literacy stations. Kairos 9(1). Retrieved March 20, 2005, from http://english.ttu.edu/kairos/9.1/binder2.html?coverweb/hochman_et_al/intro.html.
Hochman, Will, Dean, Christopher, Hood, Carra, and McEachern, Bob. (2003). Proposal for computerized writing instruction at SCSU. Southern Connecticut State University. Retrieved March 20, 2005, from http://www.southernct.edu/~hochman/Laptoplabproposal
Lowther, Deborah L., Ross, Steven M., and Morrison, Gary R. (2001). Evaluation of a laptop program: Successes and recommendations. In Building n the Future, NECC 2001, pp. 1-8. Proceedings of the 22nd National Educational Computing Conference, Chicago, Illinois, June 25-27, 2001.
Mehlenbacher, Brad, Miller, Carolyn R., Covington, David, & Larsen, Jamie S. (2000). Active and interactive learning online: A comparison of Web-based and conventional writing classes. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 43(2), 166-184.
Nilson, Linda B. (2003). Teaching at its best: A research-based resource for college instructors. 2nd ed. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.
Palmquist, Mike, Kiefer, Kate, Hartvigsen, James, and Godlew, Barbara. (1998). Transitions: Teaching Writing in Computer-Supported and Traditional Classrooms. Greenwich, Connecticut: Ablex Publishing.
Palmquist, Mike, and Young, Richard E. (1992). The notion of giftedness and student expectations about writing. Written Communication 9(1), 137-168.
Staley, David J. (2004). Adopting digital technologies in the classroom: 10 assessment questions. Educause Quarterly 3, 20-26.

Mission

dansoneson — Thu, 28 May 2009 11:34:03 CDT

Our mission is to promote the use of technology to support teaching and learning at Southern Connecticut State University. We help faculty and students explore the possibilities of supporting student learning through technology. We consider student-centered, collaborative pedagogical learning goals as the starting point for digital tool implementation: digital tools must foster student learning in a variety of ways that both support existing pedagogies and explore new ones. The pedagogical value of technological implementations is the central guiding principle. We aim to employ available interactive and collaborative technologies to support the academic mission of the institution with a particular focus on using technological innovation to improve learning effectiveness.

Digital Academic Fellows will

approach technology and pedagogy with an open mind and a spirit of collaboration, exploration, and invention;
collaborate with the Provost / Vice President for Academic Affairs to ensure that academic technology decisions are driven by pedagogy and not the other way around;
actively lobby for the primacy of teaching and learning in digital technology policy decisions;
actively engage colleagues with ideas and innovations discovered through explorations;
provide students with opportunities to discuss and experiment with, about, and through technologies whenever possible;
advocate for the Digital Academics values.

Resources

petroskid1 — Sat, 23 May 2009 07:44:12 CDT

Glossary: Provides some definitions of key concepts related to Digital Academic activity

Links to online materials

White Papers: Position papers regarding technology in academia

Glossary

petroskid1 — Sat, 23 May 2009 07:42:42 CDT

There is no abstract available for this page revision.

Activities

dansoneson — Fri, 22 May 2009 14:38:48 CDT

Activities promoted and carried out by our community of Digital Academics include initiatives, presentations and workshops. We also provide a space on our web site for airing of issues concerning technology, both as a means to identify problems as well as to suggest solutions.

Initiatives

Presentations

Workshops

Campus Tech Issues

Digital Academics Home

hedreenr1 — Fri, 22 May 2009 14:06:43 CDT

Digital Academics is a community of faculty who have a strong interest in the use of technology. Members of our group are excited about the use of technology in service of teaching. We are not all experts in technology, but we are all passionate about teaching. Our common ground is that we all believe that digital technology has tremendous potential to enhance and transform our classrooms. Some key issues we seek to explore are:

Technology in Service of Pedagogy - We seek to explore ways that technology can enhance student understanding that enhance, complement, or replace traditional teaching methods. We do not advocate the use of technology just because it's trendy, cool, or what everyone else is doing...rather we look to use it because it provides unique educational opportunities.
Expanding Pedagogical Approaches Through Technology - We are interested in the ways that contemporary and emerging technologies offer new possibilities for the way that we teach. With emphasis on collaboration and exploration, we seek ways that technology can help us teach better. We actively raise questions about teaching practice, old methods and new, in an effort to understand how technology can expand and possibly transform the ways we teach.
Technology is Pedagogy-Nothing evidences the new century in education so much as the way digital technology has become so deeply integrated into our learning lives. The ways in which we use online resources shapes our pedagogy so powerfully that we must become more critically adept as educators when we chose to employ them. Instead of perceiving technology as an “add-on,” we will develop strategies to critically and creatively determine the effects of present and emerging technology as an integral to our pedagogy.
Understanding Our Digital Lives - Even though many of our students have extensive experience with computers and other digital technologies, they may not have the critical and social awareness of the impact these technologies can have on our lives. Digital Academics strives to develop strategies for helping students cope with their digital lives, all while learning their chosen area of academic study. We don't suggest every course should change focus to technology, but rather that our courses help students to come to terms with the technologies that permeate their lives.

More About Digital Academics	Activities	Resources
Mission	Initiatives	Links
Vision	Presentations	White Papers
Digital Fellows	Workshops
	Campus Tech Issues

A Converging of Learning Literacies

petroskid1 — Fri, 22 May 2009 13:44:33 CDT

A Converging of Learning Literacies

Will Hochman’s remarks to professors attending the 2nd Interdisciplinary Forum at SCSU on Teaching and Learning through General Education, October 25, 2002, 2-4 P.M., EN 1

First, let me say that I believe any vision of general education for Southern must include first year writing instruction. That’s my job. I’m a compositionist. I strongly believe that our current attempts to teach academic discourse, and teach with it, must continue to be supported. Synchronous to participating in, and respecting the work of our writing faculty, I spend more and more of my time thinking about teaching college literacy skills with computers.

In her keynote address to the largest gathering of composition teachers in l998, Cynthia Selfe taught us to pay close critical attention to the challenges of teaching technological and traditional literacies. In her words, “We have, as a culture, watched the twin strands of technology and literacy become woven into the fabric of our lives—they are now inscribed in legislation, in the law—in the warp and woof of our culture. But, recognizing this context, we cannot allow ourselves to lose sight of either formation. We must remind ourselves that laws write the texts of people’s lives, that they constantly inscribe their intent and power on individuals.” Selfe (who later developed her remarks into her award winning book, Technology and Literacy in the Twenty-First Century) stressed several key issues in her ongoing call for active, critical thinking and teaching with computers.

First, she advised us to avoid overly narrow, official versions of literacy practices or skills. (Historically, literacy standards have been used by dominant groups to oppress others.)

Second, Selfe understood that if we see that written language and literacy skills are the professional business of all educators, then so too is technology. In my opinion, it is no longer acceptable for professors to claim ignorance of using computers and the WWW while claiming to be literacy teachers in the 21st Century.

Third, “we have to resist the tendential force that continues to link technological literacy with patterns of racism and poverty.” Here at Southern, I understand this concern and believe we must make it our mission to ensure that our students have access and encouragement to participate in 21st Century cyberspace. Our students must not be left behind because they came to school without their own personal laptops or computers.

Finally, Selfe stresses the idea that humanists must also become technologists “to construct a robust and accurate understanding of the ways in which technology functions in our culture.” Not only must we improve our own technological literacy, but we must improve our ability to understand and criticize technology. Computers are no longer the learning responsibility of one department or field.

As we heed Selfe’s advice at Southern, we might begin to think about how technological and traditional college literacies have converged. Are we asleep at the wheel? Do we stay in our safe, traditional worlds of literacy or will we greet our new century with new learning?

Today, I’m calling for a stronger approach to improve our students’ literacy acumen by finding ways for Southern’s faculty to understand, criticize, teach and integrate computers more actively in our teaching. Al Chai, our chief IT officer, and John Daponte, the Chair of ETAC and an Southern’s Computer Science Department have lead the progression towards technological literacy here, but their work must be supported across the curriculum. Humanists must no longer delimit computers from their learning lives.

When we teachers understand that students benefit from computer instruction and collaboration that may simply involve word processing guidance,

when we learn to use email as part of our classes,

when we become better readers, writers and users of the WWW,

and most important, when we recognize that literacy is dynamic and evolving technologically,

we will understand that we must focus on doing a better job to integrate technology as a learning resource in our approach to general education.

Thank you for letting me speak to you today.

Works Cited

Selfe, Cynthia. Technology and Literacy in the Twenty-First Century: The Importance of Paying Attention. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1999.

Work I would have cited...

Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide by Henry Jenkins but it wasn't published by NYU Press until 2006. If you are interested in the best understanding of how "convergence culture" is affecting us across the curriculum, read this book!

Profile Template

petroskid1 — Fri, 22 May 2009 09:19:43 CDT

This template is set up to help us to share personal information about each other. Fill in the blanks with your information. This will be an important way for the community to track participation of members, so please add relevant activity in the space provided. This is more about open sharing than it is about checking up on people, so feel free to add any information about yourself that you'd like others to know. You can always change from the template format...it would just be great if you kept your activity section on the page. And of course, please delete this italic text once you get started!

Hello, my name is [NAME HERE]!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Digital Academic Fellow
Department:

Home town:
Location:

Astrological sign:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digital Academic Profile

Digital Academic Points Earned:

Recent Activity (within the last year)

Date	Activity	Description
dd/mm/yy
dd/mm/yy
dd/mm/yy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Digital Life...

My approach to technology:

My favorite teaching exercise with/through/about technology is:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More about me...

Interests:

What else you should know about me:

About Digital Academics

dansoneson — Thu, 21 May 2009 14:37:15 CDT

Digital Academics is a community of faculty at Southern Connecticut State University that supports and nourishes the application of digital technology within Southern's learning community. Please click on the links below to learn more about our mission and vision, as well as to read about our community of Digital Fellows:

Mission

Vision

Digital Fellows