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.