This is the Digital Literacy presentation from the July 2012 conference season.

1. Dr Mark J.P. Kerrigan
The role of Digital Literacy in curriculum design and resourcing.
M.J.P.Kerrigan@Greenwich.ac.uk
Academic staff
Mark J.P. Kerrigan
Antony Coombs
Juliet Hinrichsen
Simon Walker
Researchers
Hannah Trott
Cynthia Nakayenga
Rohan Sharma
Karel Morris
Lupupa Francis
Rebecca Sarto Basso

2. About the project
Develop a strategic understanding of digital literacies at
critical moments of transition, informed and supported
by both internal and external stakeholder groups, to
transform programme development within the context
of graduate attribute initiatives.

3. About the project
Aims of Project
1. Support DL &
Graduate
attributes
2. Enhance transition
moments
3. Link DL to
Curriculum design
4. Foster discovery of
DL
5. Support staff &
students

4. Why resources?
LECTURES (~24h)
TUTORIALS (~12h)
STUDY & ASSESSMENT (~111H)
EXAM (3H)
~150 hours = 15 credit module
These are approximate figures based on a % student effort and assessment pattern.

5. Methodology
Ethical permission was granted. Online
questionnaires + street interviews

6. Transition
This is the main aim of the project and linked to Graduate
Attributes.

7. Transition
50
(A)
45
40
35
Achievement
Response
30
25
20 Assessment
Communication
15
10
5
0
Level 4 Level 5 Level 6
Peer engagement
50
45
(B) Independence
40
35
Integration
Online infrastructure
Response
30
Physical infrastructure
25
20
Professional
15
10
Skills
5
0
Social
ve Q1
ve Q2
ve Q3
ve Q4
ve Q1
ve Q2
ve Q3
ve Q4
ve Q1
ve Q2
ve Q3
4
,Q
Le 4,
Le l 4,
Le 4,
Le 4,
Le 5,
Le 5,
Le 5,
Le 5,
Le l 6,
Le 6,
Le 6,
l6
Teaching
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
ve
Le
Achievement Achievement
Assessment Assessment
Communication Communication
Group Group
Integration Integration

8. Employment
Personal
Institutional
Global
Spheres of DL
Learning to
Learn
Understanding
Professionalism
The Young
Professional
The
Professional
Time
Complexity

9. What is Digital Literacy?
Staff and students were asked to identify what they think DL
means to them. These data as being used to develop a
framework for Greenwich, developed by our student research
group

10. Results
What are the staff and student divisions of digital literacy?
Students Staff

11. Results
What are the staff and student definitions of digital literacy?
Staff
Students

12. The baseline
The aim of this presentation is to review baselline activities
around curriculum resourcing. To start this, we need a context for
the infrastructure.

13. Results
Platforms on which people are working
100
90
80
70
60
%
50 Staff
40
30
20
10
0
100
90
80
70
60
Students
%
50
40
30
20
10
0
)
)
)
)
)
)
C
C
C
AC
AC
AC
(P
(P
(P
M
(M
(M
XP
a
7
r(
st
s
d
on
ge
Vi
w
ar
s
Li
do
w
Ti
op
s
do
w
SX
in
SX
Le
do
in
W
O
O
W
ow
in
W
Sn
SX
O
0% 1-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100%

14. Resourcing the curriculum
Staff, students and publishers (preliminary) were asked about
activities on curriculum design, delivery and resourcing.

15. Results
Choosing a resource to support a programme
%
100
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Subject material 0
Low
Digital material
-
Mobile material
Medium
Student peer-communication %
100
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0
-
Subject material
Support material
Low
Digital material
High
Mobile material
Development of GA
Medium
Student peer-communication
Support material
Development of employability
Development of GA
High
Development of employability
Professional practice
Professional practice

16. Results
How is digital literacy developed for students?
60
50
Frequency
40
30
20
10
0
Social
Curriculum
Via Peers
Placement
Don't know
Ask staff
Already am
Independently
Don't
‘This question assumes
we know what
employers need and I
believe many have
very little or no
understanding of
what is meant by
Digital Literacy.’

17. Results
Curriculum resourcing – publishers’ view (preliminary data)

18. Results
The results were in alignment, that
academic staff strongly influenced the
reading lists and the digital resources
for a course.
Interestingly, when asked about the
student input the academic staff
response indicated that students are
not always involved but this was not
reflected in the student response.
This misalignment suggests that the
involvement of student input in course
resourcing is not transparent and this
requires further understanding.

19. Results
Digital Literacies & delivery

20. Results
What about books?

21. For the future
This small selection of data has indicated some interesting areas
required for DL development in curriculum resourcing and
development.

22. Thank you