Equipping future nonprofit professionals with digital literacies for the 21st century
•Download as PPT, PDF•
1 like•1,355 views
This document summarizes a study that evaluated a course designed to enhance the digital literacies of nonprofit professionals. The study found that participation in the course significantly improved students' digital literacy skills, as measured by a pre-test and post-test survey. Areas that saw the largest increases were appropriation, judgment, multitasking, and networking. The document concludes that equipping students with digital literacies is necessary for their success in the modern nonprofit sector, where digital engagement skills are important.
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Equipping future nonprofit professionals with digital literacies for the 21st century
Similar to Equipping future nonprofit professionals with digital literacies for the 21st century (20)
More from Jimmy Young
More from Jimmy Young (6)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Equipping future nonprofit professionals with digital literacies for the 21st century
- 1. Equipping Future Nonprofit Professionals with Digital Literacies for the 21st Century Jimmy A. Young, Ph.D., MSW, MPA California State University San Marcos Twitter: @JimmySW Web: www.JimmySW.wordpress.com email: jyoung@csusm.edu
- 2. Overview • What are Digital Literacies? • Literature on Digital Competencies • Objectives • Methodology • Findings • Discussion • Implications
- 3. What are Digital Literacies? • New Media or Information Communication Technologies? • New Media Literacies (NML’s) are cultural competencies and social skills that build upon the traditional definition of media literacy (Jenkins et al., 2009). • Participatory Culture
- 5. What are New Media Literacies? • New Media Literacies (NML’s) are cultural competencies and social skills that build upon the traditional definition of media literacy (Jenkins et al., 2009). • Technical Skills • Cultural Competencies
- 6. What are New Media Literacies? • Play • Performance • Simulation • Appropriation • Multitasking: • Distributed Cognition • Collective Intelligence • Judgment • Transmedia Navigation • Networking • Negotiation • Visualization
- 7. Literature • Online Learning and Distance Education (Coe & Elliot, 1999; Thyer, Artlet, Markward, & Dozier 1998; Vernon, Vakalahi et al., 2009; Wolfson et al., 2005). • ICT Literacy and Digital Competencies (Ayala, 2009; McNutt, 2008; McNutt & Menon, 2008; Moore, 2005; Mukherjee & Clark, 2012; Parrot & Madoc-Jones, 2008; Perron et al., 2010and York, 2008). • Standards for Technology and Social Work Practice (NASW/ASWB, 2005) • Students and New Media (Baldridge, McAdams, Reed, & Moran, 2013; Hitchcock & Battista, 2013; Young, 2014).
- 8. Study Objectives • Demonstrate how to enhance the Digital Literacies of students through the evaluation of a nonprofit organizations and digital advocacy course. • Students will increase their level of digital literacies through participation in the course.
- 9. About the Course • The purpose of the course was to examine the role of social media in the human service and nonprofit sector and how to utilize social media for a variety of purposes. The course identified what social media is and how it can be used for marketing, communications, and advocacy within human services in addition to how social media promotes civic engagement. Students learned about participatory culture and new media literacies through the discovery of social media platforms and how to apply this knowledge, which promotes critical thinking skills, encourages collaborative problem solving, and acknowledges the role of social media in forming networks and affiliations that can strengthen civic engagement.
- 10. Methodology • Design • Quasi-experimental Pretest Posttest Design • Survey Instrument consisting of 12 separate subscales that match the 12 NML identified by Jenkins et al. (2009). • Data Collection • Qualtrics Survey Software • Start & End of Semester • Data Analysis • Descriptive Statistics • T-test and ANOVA
- 11. Findings • Reliability of the Instrument • Cronbach’s α= 0.78 • Sample size N= 95 overall, N=76 Pre & Posttest • Response rate = 80% • 84.3% Female and 15.7% Male • 85.5% Caucasian and 14.5% students of color • Average Age was 22.9 years old (SD=4.932)
- 12. Findings • Statistically significant improvements were observed in digital literacy across the sample from pretest to posttest.
- 13. Discussion • Digital literacy levels increased after participation in the course. • Infusing courses with digital literacies content can impact the competence and skills of students. • Largest increases were seen in the skills of • Appropriation • Judgment • Multitasking • Networking
- 14. Implications • Increase in digital literacies is necessary. • But what about Participatory Culture? • The main challenge that confronts students as they venture into the nonprofit & voluntary sector in the modern world is related to learning how to effectively interact in digital spaces and how to access and put into use those resources in a professional and knowledgeable way.
- 15. Conclusion The mechanisms people use to engage with each other are evolving and education must evolve as well to include focused and targeted efforts that teach students how to engage to improve their digital literacy and to engage thoughtfully and purposefully in digital spaces.
- 16. References Adachi, P. J. C., & Willoughby, T. (2012). Do video games promote positive youth development? Journal of Adolescent Research, 28(2), 155-165. DOI: 10.1177/0743558412464522 Ayala, J. S. (2009). Blended learning as a new approach to social work education. Journal of Social Work Education, 45(2), 277-288. Beaulaurier, R. L., & Radisch, M. A. (2005). Responding to CSWE Technology Guidelines. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 25(1-2), 129-150. Coe, J., & Elliott, D. (1999). An evaluation of teaching direct practice courses in a distance education program for rural settings. Journal of Social Work Education, 35(3), 353-365. Council on Social Work Education. (August, 2012). Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS). Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.cswe.org/File.aspx?id=13780 Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dattalo, P. (2008). Determining sample size: Balancing power, precision, and practicality. Oxford: University Press. Gee, J. P. (2010). New digital media and learning as an emerging area and “worked examples” as one way forward. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Retrieved from http://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/free_download/9780262513692_New_Digital_Media.pdf Granic, I., Lobel, A., & Engels, R. (2014). The benefits of playing video games. American Psychologist, 69(1), 66-78. DOI: 10.1037/a0034857 Hedberg, J. G. (2011). Towards a disruptive pedagogy: changing classroom practice with technologies and digital content. Educational Media International, 48(1), 1-16. Helsper, E. J., & Eynon, R. (2010). Digital natives: where is the evidence? British Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 503-520. DOI: 10.1080/01411920902989227 Jarvis, J. (2011). Public parts: How sharing in the digital age improves the way we work and live. New York: Simon and Schuster.
- 17. ReferencesJenkins, H. (2006). Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University Press. Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robison, A. J., Weigel, M. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century [white paper]. Retrieved from http://digitallearning.macfound.org/atf/cf/%7B7E45C7E0-A3E0-4B89-AC9C-E807E1B0AE4E %7D/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF Kilpeläinen, A., Päykkönen, K., & Sankala, J. (2011). The use of social media to improve social work education in remote areas. The Journal of Technology in Human Services, 29(1), 1-12. DOI: 10.1080/15228835.2011.572609 Koutropoulos, A. (2011). Digital Natives: Ten Years After. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(4). Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol7no4/koutropoulos_1211.htm Kreuger, L., & Stretch, J. (2000). How hypermodern technology in social work education bites back. Journal of Social Work Education, 36(1), 103-114. Literat, I. (2014). Measuring New Media Literacies: Towards the Development of a Comprehensive Assessment Tool. Journal of Media Literacy Education 6(1): 15-27. McNutt, J. G. (2008). Web 2.0 tools for policy research and advocacy. Journal of Policy Practice, 7(1), 81-85. DOI: 10.1080/15588740801909994 McNutt, J. G., & Menon, G. M. (2008). The rise of cyberactivism: Implications for the future of advocacy in the human services. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 89(1), 33-38. DOI: 10.1606/1044-3894.3706 Moore, B. (2005). Key Issues in Web-Based Education in the Human Services: A Review of the Literature. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 23(1/2), 11-28. DOI: 10.1300/J017v017n0102̱ Mukherjee, D., & Clark, J. (2012). Students’ participation in social networking sites: Implications for social work education. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 32(2) 161-173. National Association of Social Workers. (2005). NASW and ASWB Standards for Technology and Social Work Practice. Washington, DC: NASW Press. Retrieved online August 28, 2013 from:
- 18. References Perron, B. E., Taylor, H. O., Glass, J. E., & Margerum-Leys, J. (2010). Information and communication technologies in social work. Advances in Social Work, 11(1), 67-81. Potter, W. J. (2013). The expanding role for media literacy in the age of participatory cultures. In A. Delwhiche & J. J. Henderson (Eds.), The Participatory Cultures Handbook (pp. 232-243). New York: Routledge. Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5) Retrieved from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20- %20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital %20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants: Do they really think different? On the Horizon, 9(6), 1-6. Retrieved from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital %20Immigrants%20-%20Part2.pdf Ransdell, S., Kent, B., Gaillard-Kenney, S., & Long, J. (2011). Digital immigrants fare better than digital natives due to social reliance. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(6), 931-938. DOI:10.1111/j.1467- 8535.2010.01137.x Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. (2005). Research methods for social work (5th ed.). United States: Thompson Learning, Inc. Shorkey, C. T., & Uebel, M. (2014). History and Development of Instructional Technology and Media in Social Work Education. Journal of Social Work Education, 50(2), 247-261. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc. TEDxTalks (Producer). (2010, April 13). TEDxNYED - Henry Jenkins - 03/06/10 [Video podcast]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFCLKa0XRlw Thyer, B., Artlet, T., Markward, M., & Dozier, C. (1998). Evaluating distance learning in social work education: A replication study. Journal of Social Work Education, 34(2), 291-296. U. S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies [Electronic Version]. Retrieved from, http://www.ed.gov
- 19. References Vernon, R., Vakalahi, H., Pierce, D., Pittman-Munke, P., & Adkins, L. F. (2009). Distance education programs in social work: current and emerging trends. Journal of Social Work Education, 45(2), 263-276. Vogt, W. P. (1999). Dictionary of statistics & methodology: A nontechnical guide for the social sciences (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wolfson, G., Marsom, G., & Magnuson, C. (2005). Changing the nature of the discourse: Teaching field seminars online. Journal of Social Work Education, 41(2), 355-361. York, R. (2008). Comparing three modes of instruction in a graduate social work program. Journal of Social Work Education, 44(2), 157-172. Young, J. A. (2015). Assessing New Media Literacies in Social Work Education: The Development and Validation of a Comprehensive Assessment Instrument. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 33(1), 72-86. DOI: 10.1080/15228835.2014.998577 Young, J. (2014). iPolicy: Exploring and Evaluating the use of iPads in a Social Welfare Policy Course. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 32(1-2), 39-53.
Editor's Notes
- Henry Jenkins is a media studies scholar who has been studying and writing about Participatory Culture for years. He describes Participatory Culture as a culture with relatively low barriers to artistic expression and civic engagement, where strong support for creating and sharing creations exists and there is some type of informal mentorship whereby experienced participants pass along knowledge to novices” (Jenkins, Clinton, Purushotma, Robison, & Weigel, 2009, p. 3). A participatory culture is also one in which members believe their contributions matter and feel some degree of social connection with one another. A Participatory culture shifts the focus from individual expression to one of community involvement. So examples of Participatory Culture include the opportunity for freedom of expression by remixing digital content to share messages in online communities such as Facebook or YouTube. Participatory culture provides the opportunity to work in teams and use collaborative problem solving to develop new knowledge such as through Wikipedia; and participatory culture shapes the flow of media content through blogging, videos, and podcasts (Jenkins et al., 2009). Additionally, this slide represents and example of Participatory Culture as Henry Jenkins himself shared that he was getting ready to deliver a presentation on Participatory Culture and so he typed that phrase into Google and discovered this slide. Someone had used his white paper and to create this slide to sum up the main points in a way that looks better than something he could have created on his own. So Jenkins explains that as we create content and put it out on the web than people are able to use this and remix it into something that can be incredibly engaging and powerful. BUT. To be clear, participatory culture is not simply Web 2.0 or social media. In fact Jenkins would argue that participatory culture existed before the Internet but that social media tools have expanded the opportunities of participatory culture and what one can now do (TEDxTalks, 2010). Next slide
- Jenkins et al., (2009) Identified 12 new media literacies in his white paper “Confronting the Challenges of a Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century.” In the interest of time, I’m not going to go through these but his white paper is freely available if you search for it on google. This study is grounded in the New Media Literacies (NML) Framework and the concept of participatory culture as identified by Jenkins et al. (2009). The NML Framework and participatory culture resonates with the ecological perspective of the social work profession because it envisions people as active participants in the environment, or the new digital environment. “The emphasis is not just on how people respond to media messages, but also on how they engage proactively in a media world where production, participation, social group formation, and high levels of nonprofessional expertise are prevalent” (Gee, 2010, p. 36). The idea with participatory culture and new media literacies is that many aspects of our lives are coalescing around diverse interests, whether it be politics, religion, economics, or something purely personal (Potter, 2013), and we are now sharing this with individuals from around the world. New media has altered the meaning of literacy to require new habits of mind, new ways of processing culture and interacting with the world (Jenkins et al., 2009). This is having a dramatic impact on education and is clearly impacting our professional as well. Next slide Play: the capacity to experiment with one’s surroundings as a form of problem solving. Performance: the ability to adopt alternative identities for the purpose of improvisation and discovery. Simulation: the ability to interpret and construct dynamic models of real-world processes. Appropriation: the ability to meaningfully sample and remix media content. Multitasking: the ability to scan one’s environment and shift focus as needed to salient details. Distributed Cognition: the ability to interact meaningfully with tools that expand mental capacities. Collective Intelligence: the ability to pool knowledge and compare notes with others toward a common goal. Judgment: the ability to evaluate the reliability and credibility of different information sources. Transmedia Navigation: the ability to follow the flow of stories and information across multiple modalities. Networking: the ability to search for, synthesize, and disseminate information. Negotiation: the ability to travel across diverse communities, discerning and respecting multiple perspectives, and grasping and following alternative norms. Visualization: the ability to translate information into visual models and understand the information visual models are communicating as a key method for coping with large data sets and being able to make sense of the complexity of our environment.
- .
- Lastly, a common misunderstanding of technology is the focus on what the tools do and do not allow. The conversation on digital technology and learning needs to include a focus on the participatory aspects of this new digital culture and how increasing knowledge around new media literacies can address the challenges we face as social work educators and the challenge of our students entering the profession. Expanding our view of new media, digital technology, and understanding participatory culture will help social work students to build upon the skills they bring to the classroom. Social work educators have the exciting opportunity to empower students to build upon those skills by incorporating new media literacies in a way that will expand knowledge, create opportunities for collaboration, and prepare students for social work practice in a new and diverse society.