This week’s readings offered – I think –important foundational  assumptions and concepts for not only teaching with technology but the state of higher education (especially in the field of Composition studies, I think). I actually read these selections (inadvertently) in reverse order of importance, saving the Barr & Tagg article for last. When I realized this, at first I wished I had reversed that order. But after finishing it, I realized saving it for the final reading actually helped me see stronger patterns. So, I’ll start with Barr & Tagg:

Barr, Robert B. and John Tagg. “From Teaching To Learning: A New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education.” Change Nov/Dec 1995.

Barr & Tagg offer an in-depth overview of what they call two paradigms at work in 1995: what they have termed the “instruction paradigm” (akin to the Banking Model described by Freire) and the “learning paradigm.” The key differences between the two are provided in an interesting  comparison chart, but at the heart it is a difference of focus.  The  “instruction paradigm” (IP) is one that privileges the teaching -- needs and goals of the educational institution and the teacher -- while the  “learning paradigm” (LP) those of the student learner. The authors set  this up as a    problem/solution article, designed as a call for reform.  They argue that reforms are needed in several key areas: 1) academic  mission, 2) criteria for success, 3) teaching/learning structures, 4)  learning theory, 5) funding or productivity, and 6) roles of  participants in the educational system. 

Interestingly, they note that some efforts have failed because they essentially tried to put new wine in old wine skins. Part of this reform must be assessment, they argue; however, at the same  time they concede that the key question is “how?”. They point to two key areas of change where assessment will play an important role: outcomes and classroom best  practices, followed by structures. One of their biggest claims:  “information from a sophisticated assessment system will gradually lead  to the transformation of the college’s learning environments and  supporting structures.” In a nutshell, change the assessment and the  system will fall into the desired alignment. But it all begins when we realign the lens – put the emphasis on learning, not teaching, and everything changes.

Because I read this at the end of reading the other assigned readings, one of my marginal annotations to this text was the following question: “Is the digital literacy reform movement the system Barr & Tagg were hoping for?” Further, as I continued reading, I was reminded of activity and actor network theories from my class with Dr.s R2   … In essence, it seems that Barr & Tagg called for reform, which Jenkins’ 2009 report seems to supply. 

Jenkins, Henry. “Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century.” Building the Field of Digital Media and Learning. The MacArthur Foundation, 2009.

Jenkins continues the call for reform, emphasizing what students have to gain from a transformed lens. His paper also seeks to shift an earlier emphasis common to discussions about technology: from the digital divide of access to  competencies.  I found this shift to be a little idealistic at times, but given my own experiences in the classroom when
teaching with technology, I think the direction is spot on. Critical literacies – giving students the opportunities and the environments that allow them to consider critically the technologies (AND their affordances) that we use every day – are the important learning foci today.

His comment that we need to take an “ecological approach” (8) to technology and education, an idea that again hearkens
back to my Network Theories class (thanks Dr. R). Treating technology as an issue of access or skill acquisition is simply not enough, according to Jenkins. Further, he argues that the conversation errs when it attempts to put textual literacy at odds with digital literacy (an observation I am happy to see in a scholarly source, and not simply in my own musings). His article echoes the focus of Barr & Tagg in terms of switching the lens from teaching-focused to learning-focused, and similarly promotes the importance of evaluation or assessment to this desired transformation process. Here again, outcomes-based assessment holds the key.

Throughout his descriptions, I kept thinking to myself that the field of Composition is uniquely situated as a hub for many of these reforms. Our workshop-based classroom designs focus on learning situations, rather than the one-to-many instructional model. Our classrooms have been informed by learning theories and ‘best practices’ (just look at any of the CCCC workshop agenda).

Critical digital literacy, he argues, must deal with three gaps: participation, transparency, and ethics. The remainder of his article proceeds to outline how key skills drawn from what he calls “participatory culture” can transform these  educational experiences for our students (and those who teach, AND the institutions where this learning takes place).  To accomplish this, Jenkins lays out 11 “needed skills” in our new media culture: play, performance, simulation,  appropriation, multitasking, distributed cognition, collective intelligence, judgment, transmedia navigation, networking, and negotiation. His in-depth descriptions and examples made me wonder how closely these might align with the 8 Habits of Mind from the Frameworks document we read last week, or the Outcomes statements we read. As no doubt predicted, the 6 websites we were asked to skim as part of this week’s reading seemed to reflect many of Jenkins and Barr/Tagg’s recommendations.


Boyer, Ernest L. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. The Carnegie Foundation, 1990.

This extra reading assigned to the 800-level students was one I recall reading in a past class. As the other articles did, Boyer’s is also a class for reform, but this time focusing on the teaching faculty. It calls into question the ways Academia values and defines scholarship, and how – in an environment where digital literacies are creating new avenues for publication and research – the old models no longer suffice. His call for more interdisciplinary work as a way to transform the “culture of the professoriate” would be one way to resolve a system that is “hierarchical and restrictive,” a condition which Barr and Tagg would argue affects the learning environment as well. It seems as though the earlier articles stopped short of demonizing traditional teachers  along with the outdated paradigms (but only just), but Boyer’s
situates the problem in terms of the institutional model of assessment and promotion. I found his results interesting, but also disturbing, in that back in 1990 faculty members expressed dissatisfaction with a system predicated on a structure that reflects the values and practices of the few research-focused institutions…when so many other academic institutions’ missions are far more diversified. Such trickle-down order seems especially preposterous when it comes to our field of Composition studies and digital literacies! Boyer offers to redefine scholarship to loosen these restrictions, but even now, nearly 25 years later, nothing has changed. Too often I’ve heard colleagues remark that scholarship considered for T&P excludes digital publications or curriculum design or community outreach. Could this change through  attrition, as “the old guard” leaves? That hardly seems likely if, as Jenkins points out, too many institutions still follow the Teaching Paradigm described by Barr & Tagg. But digital scholarship does appear to be making headway – perhaps with programs like ours here at ODU, reform may still be possible.

Join this page's discussion (2 comments)