�ݺ�ߣ

Digital Literacy
The Online Scholar
Noëlle Cowling
Faculty of Military Science
Stellenbosch University

 Small Multi-Disciplinary Faculty
on satellite campus in Saldanha
 Campus is the domain of the
Department of Defence
 All students serving members of
the DoD
 Half the student body composed
of distance learners.
 Limited resources and outdated
infrastructure.
 Full integration with Stellenbosch
University’s ICT system.

 Challenge wrt staff and student
readiness for e-learning
 Student group diverse with highly
disparate competencies
 Faculty members also diverse ito
willingness to utilise technology in
teaching – resistance can be a
challenge
 Current online learning is too
static and not sufficiently
interactive

 Enhance staff digital literacy
 Particularly within the Web 2.0 space
 Intervention will assist staff in improving
their online profiles
 Create platforms for staff to share their
research and teaching online
 Improved collaboration with other
scholars
 Create a safe space for staff to explore
and develop
 Improved digital literacy should carry
over into teaching practice
 Increased visibility of scholars and their
work

 The Faculty of Military Science is
geographically and intellectually isolated
 The online sharing ethos clashes with
the military culture of securing
information
 Collaboration in terms of research and
teaching practice between scholars in
the FMS and other institutions is less
than half the national norm
 Many staff members lack confidence wrt
utilizing new technologies
 Lecturers are responsible for the uptake
of new tech in their courses
 Training and support effort is often
directed to the student level and not the
staff level

 Staff training has taken the form of scheduled
but limited workshops or lunchtime sessions
often focusing on using the LMS
 In 2012 we were more innovative and
introduced a weekly session on a specific
emerging tech
 Not enough hands on training and follow
through in terms of introducing new tech
 Most staff currently have limited web profiles
 Only one of approx 65 faculty is currently
actively curating his research online
 Almost no research dissemination effort after
publication
 No active sharing of ideas etc via
blogging, Twitter etc

 Tools were selected based upon various
affordances highlighted in the literature
 Tools selected were:
◦ Academia.Edu
◦ LinkedIn
◦ �ݺ�ߣshare
◦ Twitter
◦ Google Sites
 Academia.Edu
◦ Collaboration
◦ Research streams and updates
◦ Curatorship
◦ Networking
◦ Tracking tools
◦ SEO

 LinkedIn
◦ Widely used in the Faculty
◦ Can embed �ݺ�ߣshare presentations
◦ Great SEO
 �ݺ�ߣshare
◦ Media Sharing Service so encourages
extended literacy with regards to other
sites such as YouTube and Flickr
◦ Great platform to share teaching ideas
◦ Promotes Open Education
◦ Provides Information on who accessed
your presentations

 Twitter
◦ Micro Blogging
◦ Aggregator of latest information
◦ Dissemination Tool to ensure research
gains traction
 Google Sites
◦ Ready platform for e-portfolio
◦ Robust echo system including many apps
and tools
◦ Track citation impact
◦ Offers research and teaching tools
◦ One common online identity

Digital literacy noellecowling

Description of Intervention
 This is a teacher to teacher type intervention
 The aim is to utilise the 5 selected tools,
introducing one a month over six months in order
to develop the digital literacy skills of the selected
participants. In doing so they will create,
enhance and improve their online profiles and
collaborative efforts. Links to their research
papers will be uploaded as well as their best
presentations being housed in �ݺ�ߣshare.
Finally participants will be encouraged to create
e-portfolios for life long and life wide learning
and curatorship.
 The Project Group
◦ 5 Faculty members selected
◦ Demographically diverse
◦ Middle of the road tech users

Description of Intervention
 Survey used to indicate their uses of online
profiles
 Followed by project briefing and
introduction of first tool
 Outcomes were constructed in order to
ensure buy-in and listed as
◦ Improved digital literacy
◦ Free online digital makeover
◦ Curatorship competencies
◦ Expansion of networks and collaboration
opportunities
◦ The ability to assess how often online presence/work
is being viewed or utilised
◦ Participation in the growing open access environment

Key Points
for
Effective
Practice

 Maintaining enthusiasm and “buy-in”
from staff
 Strong selling points are required to
ensure continued participation
 Ensure that some of the tools are not
replicating the functions offered by
other and that management of too
many streams becomes difficult
 Find a balance between maintaining
momentum in the project and creating
a pressure situation for participants

 Provide rapid training for each tool
with best practice guidelines
 Provide ongoing feedback and support
 It is crucial not to lose sight of the fact
that that the primary aim of developing
digital literacies remains the end goal
of this venture, with the development
of the online identities being a
secondary goal.

How did I go about exploring what I
needed to do?
 Started by searching a few blogs and
�ݺ�ߣshare
 I discussed my idea with my edutech
colleagues
 I searched the online profiles of numerous
faculty members and decided there was
definitely a need for such an intervention
 I researched and evaluated a number of
tools
 I conducted a small survey of the group
members

How did I design my learning activity?
 The main point of departure was to ensure that the
tools selected complemented each other
 The 6 month timeframe was chosen in order to
provide a month to master each tool as well as to
ensure the activity fitted into one semester
 The decision to hold rapid group training sessions
of one hour per tool was made in order to fit
training into a lunch break and make it accessible
to all faculty members
 Each tool is therefore presented as an independent
entity with a “clip-on” type of approach
 The personalised support model is designed to
ensure one on one support and contact in order to
ensure the continued commitment of each
participant.

How did I formatively evaluate my
prototype learning activity?
 evaluated the comments on my blog
 discussed various strategies and
ideas with my colleagues
 participated in the online meetings of
the digital literacies group
 noted the facilitators comments
 As I learnt more and read more I
made adjustments to my initial plan

 The project is still formative to an extent and adjustments
will probably still be made
 One recommendation is to design an online course for
this intervention which could be accessed across different
institutions
 The intervention creates safe spaces for scholars to
explore a number of Web 2.0 tools in a manner which is
directly relevant to them
 It would be possible to conduct some interesting research
in terms of how these scholars developed and if they
became more engaged with other scholars as a result of
participating in this intervention
 One recommendation by our web manager is to do away
with static online profiles on the Faculty website and
instead create link through buttons for each members to
their various platforms. Should this become policy it will
almost make the maintenance of online academic profiles
mandatory. The intervention is therefore timely
 A final recommendation is make the training/briefings
accessible to all interested staff members. The initial
group will continue as planned however for purposes of
evaluation and development

The building blocks of the networked scholar (Laura
Czerniewicz,
Academics’ online visibility, �ݺ�ߣshare)

Two excellent guides
 http://openuct.uct.ac.za/article/academ
ics-online-presence-guidelines
 http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsci
ences/2011/09/29/twitter-guide/

References
 Bower, M. (2008). “Affordance analysis – matching learning tasks with
learning technologies Educational Media International.” Vol. 45, No. 1, March
2008, 3–15.
 Conole, G. and Alevizou, P. “A literature review of the use of Web 2.0 tools in
Higher Education.” A report commissioned by the Higher Education
Academy, The Open University, August 2010.
 Czerniewicz, L., & Brown, C. (2005). “Access to ICTs for teaching and
learning: From single artefact to inter-related resources.” International
Journal of Education and Development using ICT [Online], 1(2).
 Dunlap, J. and Lowenthal, P (2012). “Intentional Web Presence: 10 SEO
Strategies Every Academic Needs to Know.” Boise State University, 2012.
 Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2004) “Digital Literacy: A Concept Framework for Survival
Skills in the Digital Era.” Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia.
13(1), 93-106.
 Goodfellow, R. (2011) “Literacy, literacies and the digital in higher
education.” Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 16, No. 1, 131144.
 Greenhow, C., Robelia, B. an Hughes, J. (2009) “Learning, Teaching, and
Scholarship in a Digital Age Web 2.0 and Classroom Research: What Path
Should We Take Now.” EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER, 38: 246.
 Hanson, J. (2009) “Displaced but not replaced: the impact of e-learning on
academic identities in higher education.” Teaching in Higher
Education, Volume 14, Issue 5, pages 553 – 564.
 Henderson, M. and Bradey, S. “Shaping online teaching practices The
influence of professional and academic identities.” Campus-Wide
Information Systems, Vol. 25 No. 2, 2008, pp. 85-92.

References cont…
 Herrick, D.(2009 ) “Google This! Using Google Apps for Collaboration and
Productivity.” SIGUCCS’09, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
 Hiradhar, P. and Gray, J. (2008) “From a social digital identity to an academic
digital identity: Introducing ePortfolios in English language enhancement
courses.” Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, V34(3) Fall.
 Kelly, B. and Delasalle, J. (2012) “Can LinkedIn and Academia.edu Enhance
Access to Open Repositories?” In: OR2012: the 7th International Conference
on Open Repositories, Edinburgh, Scotland.
 Kemp, B., & Jones, C. (2007). “Academic Use of Digital Resources:
Disciplinary Differences and the Issue of Progression revisited.” Educational
Technology & Society, 10 (1), 52-60.
 Kirkup, Gill (2010). “Academic blogging, academic practice and academic
identity.” London Review of Education, 8(1), pp. 75–84.
 Priem, J and Costello, K.L. “How and why scholars cite on Twitter.” ASIST
2010, October 22–27, 2010, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
 Ross, J. (2011) “Traces of self: online reflective practices and performances
in higher education.” Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 16, No. 1, 113126.
 Veletsianos, G. (2011) “Higher education scholars’ participation and practices
on Twitter.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning.
 Veletsianos, G. and Kimmons, R. “Networked Participatory Scholarship:
Emergent techno-cultural pressures toward open and digital scholarship in
online networks.” Computers & Education 58 (2012) 766–774.

�ݺ�ߣ

Digital literacy noellecowling

More Related Content

Digital literacy noellecowling