Equipping future nonprofit professionals with digital literacies for the 21st century

Equipping future nonprofit professionals with digital literacies for the 21st century

• 1.
  Equipping Future Nonprofit Professionalswith 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: [email protected]
• 2.
  Overview • What areDigital Literacies? • Literature on Digital Competencies • Objectives • Methodology • Findings • Discussion • Implications
• 3.
  What are DigitalLiteracies? • 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
• 4.
  Participatory Culture
• 5.
  What are NewMedia 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 NewMedia Literacies? • Play • Performance • Simulation • Appropriation • Multitasking: • Distributed Cognition • Collective Intelligence • Judgment • Transmedia Navigation • Networking • Negotiation • Visualization
• 7.
  Literature • Online Learningand 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 • Demonstratehow 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-experimentalPretest 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 ofthe 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 significantimprovements were observed in digital literacy across the sample from pretest to posttest.
• 13.
  Discussion • Digital literacylevels 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 indigital 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 peopleuse 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.