We’ve just had our last meeting for this term, where we got a chance to look at some of the data generated by the focus groups. There’s still work to do with PGCE students, but even what we have is exciting: lots of promising stuff around ideas of making spaces, about contrasts between groups in terms of what kinds of digital literacies matter to them and about the use of technology to make or take down boundaries. We also spent some time thinking about the longitudinal data collection that will start in January, and agreed that we’ll try out some of the data generation and curation ourselves to inform our briefings and design. Plenty to look forward to in the new year…
Jude Fransman has run two focus groups this week, one with Masters and one with Doctoral students. We also recorded a small-group discussion with some PGCE students and will be running a full PGCE focus group shortly. I sat in, and Jude and I had some very interesting disucssions afterwards. Some very marked differences across the three groups already emerging in terms of priorities, domains of practice, experiences, identities and so on. We also asked students to draw ‘maps’ of domains of practice – I’ll post some examples of these up here next week. We’ll be using this new data to inform the design of the individual multimodal journaling. – already several volunteers have come forward for this – so we’re feeling kind of excited about what we will find out next.
The first part of the project’s baseline work has now been completed, and a report on this can be accessed here.
The report consists of an analysis of data generated by surveys of students’ experiences of studying at our institution. Specifically, we have analysed comments relating to technology, information access and use of the library. Sharpe & Beetham’s pyramid model for digital literacies was used as a way of structuring and reporting the data, to allow comparisons across the projects in this programme.
Unfortunately, the data weren’t very informative, because the comments were fairly superficial and were heavily shaped by the survey instrument used, which doesn’t fit closely with our project’s aims. However, the process was useful as a way of identifying areas that subsequent baseline activities could focus on in more detail.