Journal of Academic Development and Education JADE Issue 10 | Page 84

ARTICLE #6 | 85 84 | JADE FABIENNE EMMERICH & ASH MURPHY The particular format or presentation of text seems to encourage an adapted form of processing information with a focus on immediacy and speed of information retrieval. The text is in flux, multi-layered and connected. Through its interactive nature readers make decisions on the depth and/or direction they take their reading. When revisiting a site it will invariably have changed, as sites are continuously updated. Rose (2011) mentions that the word reading may not properly capture this type of information processing. Rather they are swiping, scanning, and filtering; it involves split second decision-making and pathway selection. But these reading skills designed for hypertexts are ineffective in the academic context where deep reading in crucial. To students deep reading may appear intimidating. A 1000 page textbook is surely a daunting prospect when one is used to thumbing through short, rapid information dispensing tweets. And if Roskos and Neuman (2014) are correct in their assertion that word knowledge is linked to reading ability then it stands to reason that hyper reading, designed to be accessible, is beginning to inhibit our students ability to read a slow burn text or article. The Students Prensky (2001) devised the term ‘digital native’, based on the finding that by the time students graduate university they will have spent 20,000 hours watching television, 10,000 hours playing video games, and less than 5,000 hours reading (Prensky 2001). Importantly Prensky does not specify how much less than 5,000 hours reading takes place; it could be very much less. It is also important that Prensky’s initial study predated the advent of the smart phone. 1 Assuming Prensky is correct and the situation has only proliferated with the rise of technology, then we are predominantly dealing with students that while not averse to reading are certainly less practiced in the habit of deep reading. Speed and interactivity are crucial factors in how digital natives like to receive information, anything too slow is laborious, and anything too static is uninteresting. Their ability to deep read is therefore a key skill that should be supported as part of studying for a (law) degree. Deep reading requires an ability that is not a matter of disposition but of practice (Hermida 2009). Gregor et al. (2008) make the point that not all digital natives have the same skill sets and as such it is incorrect to assume a uniform level of digital engagement; this means a focus should remain on traditional learning techniques akin to the digital immigrant. 2 However if we as digital immigrants remain 1. Had this been included the results may have been even more one-sided. 2. It is important to note that if you are born before 1980 the International Education Advisory Board suggests that you are a digital immigrant. DIGITAL NATIVE FIRST YEAR LAW STUDENTS AND THEIR READING SKILLS IN A POST READING WORLD steadfastly arrogant in the virtues of how we did things, then it is very likely we will alienate the digital native and encourage a divisive culture. Any successful learning method will be built around the expectation of both those teaching and those learning (Spencer and Seymour 2013). It therefore appears clear that when we sit down to design our modules we must take into consideration the manner and form of reading that digital natives typically engage. Thinking about the Way Forward: Structured Reading in Administrative Law Together with Angela Rhead, a learning developer at Keele University who specialises in supporting and structuring students’ reading practices, we created three hours of dedicated structured reading as part of the 2017/18 administrative law module. 3 In week 4 we converted a double lecture slot into a structured reading workshop led by Angela Rhead. This was coupled with a structured reading tutorial in week 5. Both sessions were designed to encourage students to reflect on their reading practices, to think about possible barriers to reading and most importantly to read in a group. 4 The piece of reading we chose was a short public law judgment. We asked students to bring to the reading workshop a single-sided print out of the judgment prepared as a scroll. We brought along copies of a worksheet prepared by Angela Rhead that encouraged students to analyse the overall document structure of the judgment (date, type of court, name of the judge, area of public law, summary of facts and key rulings), the context in which it was written, and the structure, internal coherence and persuasiveness of the material judgment. We applied a reflective teaching methodology to explore our collaborative experiences with our students during these 3 hours of dedicated structured reading (Rogers, 2001). We took an inductive approach in order to learn more about our students’ reading practices. We noted down our general reflections after the sessions. 5 We then discussed our reflections and started to explore questions about the reading practices of digital natives within the wider context of the shift towards onscreen reading, the particular nature of screen space and the differential reading practices that it produces. From our reflections we noticed two main puzzles: first, the majority of students did not bring along to the reading workshop 3. For more information on Angela Rhead, see www.keele.ac.uk/ studentlearning/aboutus/angelarhead. 4. This was part of a wider effort to focus on academic and legal skills development. The reading bloc was followed by a lecture/tutorial combination on writing. 5. No reference to individual students was made.