370. Why Don’t Students Read?

There has been a consistent downward trend in the amount of time college students spend reading and completing assignments outside of class. In this episode, Betsy Barre joins us to discuss some strategies that might be used to increase student motivation to engage with assigned coursework.

Betsy is an Assistant Provost and the Executive Director of the Center for Advancement of Teaching at Wake Forest University. In 2017 she won, with Justin Esarey, the Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education’s Innovation Award for their Course Workload Estimator. Among her many other roles, Betsy is also a Professor in the Department for the Study of Religions.

Show Notes

Transcript

John: There has been a consistent downward trend in the amount of time college students spend reading and completing assignments outside of class. In this episode, we discuss some strategies that might be used to increase student motivation to engage with assigned coursework.

[MUSIC]

John: Thanks for joining us for Tea for Teaching, an informal discussion of innovative and effective practices in teaching and learning.

Rebecca: This podcast series is hosted by John Kane, an economist…

John: …and Rebecca Mushtare, a graphic designer…

Rebecca: …and features guests doing important research and advocacy work to make higher education more inclusive and supportive of all learners.

[MUSIC]

John: Our guest today is Betsy Barre. Betsy is an Assistant Provost and the Executive Director of the Center for Advancement of Teaching at Wake Forest University. In 2017 she won, with Justin Esarey, the Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education’s Innovation Award for their Course Workload Estimator. Among her many other roles, Betsy is also a Professor in the Department for the Study of Religions. Welcome back, Betsy.

Betsy: Thanks, it’s great to be back.

Rebecca: Today’s teas are:… Betsy, are you drinking tea today?

Betsy: I am drinking tea and I’m drinking a raspberry tea.

Rebecca: Oh, that sounds nice. It sounds like it would be really refreshing for what is a very hot October day here. [LAUGHTER]

Betsy: Oh, it’s hot for you all, okay.

John: Yeah, we’re recording it at the very end of October, and it warmed up into the 70s today.

Betsy: Wow.

Rebecca: Like upper 70s, yeah.

John: It was in the 30s and 40s earlier this week. So it’s a nice change. And I am drinking a peppermint spearmint blend today

Rebecca: That sounds nice and refreshing as well.

John: It is.

Rebecca: I have a Scottish afternoon tea, but also a giant thing of water, because it is so hot. [LAUGHTER]

Betsy: Smart.

John: I should have brought a giant thing of water, because I’ve been sitting in this chair now for three hours because I had back-to-back meetings, but I had refilled the tea. [LAUGHTER] We saw an article and the September 25, 2024 issue of Inside Higher Ed, discussing how much time college students spend reading. This article provided a variety of evidence indicating that students are increasingly relying on YouTube videos and ChatGPT or other AI summaries rather than the articles that faculty assigned them to read. We saw your reaction to this article on social media, [LAUGHTER] and wanted to follow up with you on this. What do you think are the causes of this decline in reading by college students?

Betsy: Sure, and just so the listeners know, I think my reaction on social media was, “Well, this was a depressing read before bed.” So I think that was my initial reaction, and then we had some good discussions. So I think the causes are complicated. I think what struck me the most about the article that I, in full disclosure, sort of clicked on it because I was curious and have been thinking a lot about the relationship between AI and reading. And what struck me about the article was it wasn’t just AI and it was a general, sort of long standing issue of, at least from my perspective, how students think about work outside of class, and I think we’ve talked about this before in other contexts on this podcast as well. And that I think reading, and particularly the kinds of reading that professors often assign, is something that’s time consuming. So yes, writing papers is time consuming, problem sets are time consuming, reading is especially time consuming often if we’re giving them challenging things to read, and students are always looking for ways to speed up that time. They’re resistant to having to spend a lot of time outside of class. They often think “my time outside of class should be for studying, not necessarily doing a bunch of, quote unquote busy work.” And so if they can find ways to get around the reading and still, quote unquote, learn the material, like if I’m still getting an A in the class without having to do the reading, I think the most depressing thing about that article was that there was no student they talked to. I think it was some dramatic claim like that they didn’t find any student who did all the reading, [LAUGHTER] or something along those lines. And I’ve seen this throughout my career. I’m sure you all have as well. And even talking with students, some of my best students, my students that I advise. When I was working at Rice, I worked with students who were student advisors to younger students, and they would often, quite explicitly say: “the most important advice I can give you is you don’t have to do all the reading.” So to me, it’s like a long standing issue. There are lots of causes. I don’t think it’s just AI, but certainly AI isn’t making it easier for us.

Rebecca: What’s lost when students start relying on video or AI generated content instead of written work specifically, when we narrow in on this idea of reading?

Betsy: Yeah, I think this is a really important question. Those of us that are thinking about AI in the classroom, how it’s disrupting, if it is disrupting education, we need to be honest with ourselves as we’re thinking about our goals and whether we need to revisit our goals. And so one really radical question you could ask, and some people who are not humanists [LAUGHTER] or not even educators often will ask like, “Well, is it really that important to be reading these long texts anymore, if they can just get summaries for their job? Like, why do we need to teach these skills? Is it as important anymore?” And I’m open to that question, but I think there’s a lot that is lost, and I think there’s a lot of really recent interesting work that I’ve been reading, thinking about, about how reading functions for us. And the way I like to think about it is that, well, there’s different kinds of reading, first of all, so that’s worth saying too. So sometimes we have students read almost as a replacement for content delivery. So it’s like I would give a lecture, but I don’t have time to give a lecture, so read these notes from my lecture, or here’s a training manual, [LAUGHTER] something just that basic, like read this math book to learn how to do this problem. And then you have literature, which I think a lot of people when they’re talking about reading, they think about literature, and we could talk about that more, but I also often, as somebody who is a big fan of non-fiction, like I have a lot of books. I have a huge library, and people often assume that means I read a lot of literature, which I actually don’t read a lot of literature, not anything against it, but, I think we often forget the value of just being a reader about non-fiction as well. So there’s reading for entertainment, or not entertainment, but just like feeling putting yourself in the perspective of another, which is really important, we want to help our students engage in perspective taking. But I actually think what’s often happening with deep reading of texts, because it’s slow, because it takes time, is students are actually engaged in the reflective process that is necessary for learning; that in an ideal world, they’re not just skimming and like getting the information. Sometimes our students do read that way, like I literally am just turning the page and reading every word and say I read the text, like I did my homework. But what you ideally want is for students to read with all of their background knowledge, interacting with the text so that they make inferences. They think about whether they agree with what’s said is true. They try to explain it back to themselves. They ask questions of the text, and that is only possible if they’re taking time. If they have a summary given to them, or if they’re just reading a summary, all the insight that would come from that reflective process, they lose. And so there’s a sort of learning opportunity that is lost. And I definitely don’t think students think of reading this way, and that’s partly on us to help them understand that the function of reading is not just like dumping information in your head, that there’s more that should be going on when you’re reading.

Rebecca: Seems like that same opportunity is lost when you take the approach of I have looked at every single word on this page.

Betsy: Yeah, yeah, right. Get back to the discussion we’ve had before about my workload estimator when I was really interested in how long it takes students to read. As I sort of briefly dipped my toe in the literature on reading as a sort of biological act. And one of the things that is pretty clear in the literature is that good, strong readers will speed up and slow down at different times, and they’ll pause and they’ll circle back to different things. And oftentimes, college students, it really is this, like, steady rate, left to right, just like reading the words, and that’s decoding, like, that’s a skill, like, I’m just reading the words so that I know that word, I know that word, I know that word. But they’re not actually thinking about the meaning of the text as a whole. And so helping them understand that is important, and that that suggests you should slow down and speed up at different times and not just check something off your list.

John: And in general, students are not just cutting back time on reading. They seem to be cutting back time on pretty much all activities outside of class. The American Time Use surveys have found a pretty steady decline over the years, going way back before COVID, but it certainly was accelerated during COVID, that shows that students are spending less time doing class work outside.

Betsy: And that’s been a big concern of mine, generally. I think, honestly, the article in Inside Higher Ed was prompted by AI and concerns about reading, but then ended up [LAUGHTER] realizing they were actually discovering more interesting things about student perceptions of work, and I don’t think it’s just on them, and I’m sure I’ve shared this before in these conversations about workload, is that oftentimes we, as institutions, structure the degree making certain assumptions about how much time students will spend. We aren’t always clear about that, but we’re like, “Oh yeah, you can work a 40 hour a week job,” but we’re trying to make it flexible for students, and often what we mean by flexible is that you can do it in less time, and I don’t think we’ve often grappled enough with like that learning requires time on task, and that we need to help our students understand, and we ourselves also need to understand that the less time students spend, the less they’re going to learn. But higher ed’s built on this model that students are going to, of their own initiative, put time into the learning outside of class, and that isn’t often happening, and I think it’s pretty consistent from the research that that’s not happening and it’s getting worse. And as much as I hate the like, “oh, in my day…”, [LAUGHTER] there is literature that shows that it is actually getting worse… how much time students are spending, and it’s not just because they’re resistant. They’re not coming in expecting to spend that time. And so that’s its own interesting like, how do we set expectations for how much time students should be spending? And individually, we can do that. But I think our institutions can do that as well. And oftentimes we’re giving them other things to do outside of the classroom with, like campus life and other activities that can also take time away. I know we’ve talked about this before, because I know Rebecca we’ve talked about in like art, like, there’s more of an expectation that you’re in the studio all the time, and that’s just kind of a norm. But that’s not true for other students who are working a lot.

Rebecca: We still have the same problem with reading.

Betsy: Yeah, actually, I’m curious. [LAUGHTER] Do you think, sorry, I’m gonna ask you questions now. Do you feel like there’s even more resistance to reading because they want to just, like, do hands on practical like, let me just do this stuff?

Rebecca: I think sometimes that they see more value in that if we’re not really explicit about what the reading or what those other kinds of activities help you gain to complement those hands-on skills, then I think that would be true, where there’s practical hands-on activities in a class. So speaking of other pressing news, the National Assessment of Educational Progress indicates that the pandemic accelerated the downward trend in the reading skills of K-12 students that began around 2012, which really is exemplifying what you were just saying, Betsy, about students not coming in with this [LAUGHTER] expectation of reading. And the proportion of 13-year old students that reported that they read for fun declined from 27% in 2012 to 14% in 2022. What strategies might we use to help encourage students to read more and to develop their reading skills? Full disclosure, I have a second grader that I’m super trying [LAUGHTER] to encourage to read for fun for some of these same reasons.

Betsy: Yeah, these questions are very, very interesting, and I’ve been reading a lot about it. Ironically, I’ve been reading a lot about reading, and I can’t remember where I was just reading the other day, but similar kinds of things, like among college students, and maybe it was in this article too. Like, if you ask them to name your favorite book, or something, the most meaningful book, and how much they struggle to come up with their favorite book. For a long time, I thought, and again, this is my bias, because I really like non-fiction, and I think non-fiction reading is really important. I remember when I was in K through 12, non-fiction was literally like, you’re reading a manual. It’s like, the most boring stuff you could ever read. [LAUGHTER] So like, either you’re doing something very exciting in fiction, or you weren’t really reading arguments, you were reading information, you weren’t actually reading arguments. And so for me, I was like, “We need to teach young people to read for argument.” This is really important, and to learn how to think about ideas. And so I do think that some of that has come into K through 12 over the past 10 – 12, years. But I think also that’s meant that there’s been more pressure with testing, etc., to do that kind of reading for argument and reasoning, which is a good thing. I’m glad that that’s happening, but that probably means there’s less room for the fun stuff that the students get to read. And I also think there’s something about, and maybe this is me being a nerdy idealist too, but, like, it’s not just fiction that it can be fun. You can also have fun reading for argument. If students are passionate about a topic, they’re passionate about sustainability, they’re passionate about art, getting them to read some exciting things about that could be valuable too. And honestly, I think we’re reading a lot, but we’re reading in different ways online, and so that’s an also fascinating question of how that’s changing the way that people read, and then for our young people, I think we’re still figuring this out, but to the extent to which video is replacing reading, and how that is changing their abilities and their habits, and it’s like a muscle. I think there’s been a lot of people have written about reading that it’s not something that’s natural to us. The language is natural to us. But reading is something we invented. It’s like a technology we invented. So you actually have to, like, get them to practice it, get all of us to practice it. If we’re not using it a lot, it becomes harder and harder for us to engage that skill. And it’s a lot of different things. So I don’t have major advice about how to get your kids to be excited, other than giving them fun things that they choose to read. The standard things of teaching, giving people choice, letting them see the value of it in some ways. I mean, that’s important too, because if they feel like they’re just doing it to check a box, like this was a lot of time I could have been spending doing something else. What’s the value of this? I think that’s where summaries and videos are really interesting, because students may be able to get a summary or watch a video of it really quickly, and do fine on our assessments, and then if we’re upset, like you didn’t do the thing I really wanted, the burden is on us to make the case for why that additional step was important, if they did just as well on our assessments. And I think we got to figure that out, and maybe we find out that it’s not as important to do the reading, but I have a hunch that the reading is important, and we just need to figure out how to better assess and explain to students why that’s important.

John: And with the switch to AI summaries and the switch to videos for summaries of material, there’s a lot of nuance that’s likely to be lost, that is captured in the written word. And along with that slower cognitive processing, I think students are getting a much more superficial understanding of many of the concepts we want them to learn about. And I think we may also see that a little bit in social media, much of the divisive social media, would not have the same effect if people had done a little bit more reading [LAUGHTER], or were not just tuned into their particular local networks and they had a broader understanding of what is reality [LAUGHTER] and what is not.

Betsy: Yeah, there’s some interesting questions about how information and argument… there’s the question of the medium, of how it’s spread, and fascinating questions on that front, too. Yeah, I was talking to a friend about this after we were having that discussion on social media the other day… the Inside Higher Ed article… and in philosophy, and not just philosophy, but in allied humanistic fields, there’s historically, even before AI or thinking about summaries, there have been a lot of debate about the value of assigning primary sources to students. So do I need to have them read Kant? Granted, it would be in translation, but do I need to have them read John Stuart Mill? Or can I have them read a secondary summary of those sources, whether it’s a textbook or a secondary sort of argument that sort of gives you an overview of the various moral theories. And I’ve always been a very strong advocate that, in certain classes, secondary sources are more important than the primary… in certain classes. So in some classes, the primary sources are important, but in other classes, the secondary sources are fine depending on what your goals are. So if your goal is for them to take the moral theory and then apply it, then in some ways, what’s more important is that they get quickly to the application. If your goal is to deeply understand Kant, of course, you got to read the primary source, like it’s not even a question. And so what’s interesting is I was talking to my friend about this, is that I was thinking, in some ways, AI summaries may raise similar kinds of questions. Well, first of all, you have the issue of it could just be wrong. So, let’s be clear about that, where it’s not good enough yet. So I’m imagining a world in which it’s perfect. It would be my summary, [LAUGHTER] not mine, but like anybody, it’s not that I’m perfect, but like, there would be a good summary that we’d be happy and proud to put in front of our students, and it’s not there yet. So I want to be mindful of that. So first of all, there’s the problem of it not being fully accurate and missing things, but if it is a good summary, then I think one question could be asked is “Well, is it like a secondary source that they can quickly get the material and then do something else with it?” And maybe in some classes, that’s valuable, that I want them to then integrate it with other things, or I want them to do something else. And so that’s where sort I’m of landing was on that. That’s kind of interesting, but I’m coming around to this idea of, as you helpfully reminded the listeners, is this idea that taking the time is itself necessary for building the connections and having the insights, that it’s actually the inefficiency of the reading that’s a good thing, that it takes a lot of time like, and so a lot of people like, “Uh, you know, this thing could have been an article.” There’s this book that could have been an article, and oftentimes they are right about that, because it repeats itself, like oftentimes books will repeat themselves. They’ll go on like weird sort of tangents. But sometimes, as a reader, you think of a different insight the second time you read the thing, and that there is something about that inefficiency of the medium that allows us to do the sort of reflection and inference and have insights that we wouldn’t have had if we got the quick summary. So I know that seems a little strange, but I’m starting to think this more. So it’s not like I want to give them difficult things that are intentionally difficult, but I want them to just spend time on it, that’s the big thing. It’s not I want them to bang their head against a really hard text. I want them to spend time thinking about their own view. I think oftentimes people think about reading as I’m learning from somebody else. And of course, that’s true, but it’s just as much about you reflecting on your own thoughts, or it should be you reflecting on your own thoughts and connecting prior knowledge with new things you’re picking up. And this is why annotation is so important in my classes, I try to really emphasize annotation as an important skill, but you wouldn’t have to do that to have that moment. But yes, as you can tell, I swing back and forth on what I think about how bad it is. Is it good? Is it disaster if they’re using summaries? Sometimes, I think it might be okay, but as long as they’re spending time. I guess that’s my point. If you got a summary, and you spent a ton of time with that summary, and we’re thinking about it with respect to other things, and you may be building similar connections, assuming it’s accurate, and you’re applying it in ways that are kind of interesting, than you would reading the primary source. But again, it just depends on the goal for your course.

Rebecca: I think you’ve underscored this idea that it depends on context, and there’s times when a video or a summary could help someone spark interest or find out whether or not this is the source or the article that’s worth reading.

Betsy: Yes, absolutely, absolutely.

Rebecca: …or digging into so there’s certainly value in having those tools available to us as instructors, but we have to really think intentionally about when to employ them and when not to make substitutions, when the slow read is the thing that maybe we’re looking for, but also help students understand why we’re making those choices. And it always comes down to being really explicit about why we’re doing things.

Betsy: Yeah, part of my interest in reading is also, if I’m being honest, it’s also tied to my sort of interest in the liberal arts, more generally, and interdisciplinarity, and just the sort of value I’ve seen in my own life, but that I see in others who I deeply admire, who have really broad knowledge of a lot of different things. These are the well read people that you encounter, and they just know a bunch of stuff, [LAUGHTER] and they’re like, “Oh, yeah, I read this thing over here the other day, or I read this, and I’m pulling from that literature.” And there’s something for me personally, that’s really attractive about that. And so I often think about, how do I model that for students? How do I help them see that as attractive, and to see that it’s not just something you’re born with, that this is something that through a sort of disciplined skill and practice of making time in your day for reading or for learning, and it’s really for learning, but reading is the way in which most of us do that, can have major benefits for your life as a person, to help you understand the world, help you understand yourself as you move forward in the world. And so I often think about, how do I help them see that really well read people, really smart people, quote, unquote, are not just naturally smart, but they’re often just really well read, and they’ve taken the time to read, to make it attractive to them, because motivation is ultimately, at the end of the day, what we need to be thinking about here is, how do we motivate students to do this? And I think a lot of us think back to, “Well, what motivated me” like, “Why was I interested in reading?” Not the perfect answer, because students aren’t all us, but at least, it can help us start thinking of some ideas that might be useful for some of our students.

John: One of the things I see when I teach labor economics, and sometimes in introductory economics, is we talk about the economics of education, and one of the things we look at is what the value of an education is to individuals. And two of the models we talk about are the human capital model, where there’s skill development and people end up being more productive because they’ve acquired skills, but there’s also the signaling model, where basically it’s the credential or the degree that has value. And I’ve seen a shift over the last decade or so in students’ perceptions of this, where they seem to be thinking of education more as this credential they get rather than just that they’re acquiring some skills that may be useful in their future life, in terms of being able to do a variety of things. And it’s hard to break that.[LAUGHTER]

Betsy: It is.

John: What can we do to help students see that they really are developing skills through reading and through engaging with their coursework in ways that are a little less superficial?

Betsy: Yeah, it’s a tough one. There’s no easy answer here. When I teach, I get to teach what I want to teach, which is nice, being a Director of a Teaching Center, and I usually try to teach things that I think will attract students’ intrinsic interest. So as I shared before the podcast, I often teach a class on sex and relationships and ethics. So I get them to read about ethics, because they’re interested in their relationships. But what I try to do, again so it’s not just like, hey, I’m going to sneak it in and then you’re not going to realize it. Yes, they’re reading hard stuff, but to try to get them to reflect in a meta way about this is valuable in other areas of your life too. It’s not just here that a question comes up in life. I don’t have kids, but I have friends that have kids, a question for their kids, or some medical issue comes up, and academics usually approach this very differently. [LAUGHTER] They’re like, I’m gonna go read things. I’m gonna go read things to figure this out. I guess googling counts as a kind of reading, but academics are doing something different than somebody who’s not an academic might do, and to help them see that, that skill of being able to quickly figure out where you can go to get not just want the canonical view, but to get conflicting views. Like, I know how to find second opinions about this issue that I’m curious about. And here’s a debate in the literature about and often this is why, probably doctors find us super annoying, is that we come in with, like, multiple research articles, [LAUGHTER] with different views on something. That’s probably not attractive to some of our students, but helping them see that it’s relevant to all areas of their life, and not just getting a grade for school. I think the more we can tie our courses to things that they will be doing later in life, I think it will at least help, but even just getting them to have conversations. I’m glad you’re talking about this in your labor class. Like, what is college for? And they may be right in some ways, that it is this signaling mechanism, but then to empower them to say, like, was that how you want it to be? Would you want something better? And like, what would it look like if you had something better? And how can we help together to make this environment one where you can do something more than just collecting a degree to signal that you are now ready for a job. But I don’t have any clear solutions. I’m glad you’re talking about it, though. I think that’s the first step, is getting them to reflect on their own reasons for being in school for sure.

Rebecca: So new faculty, it’s often something that we talk about on the podcast… and I know that we’ve talked a bit about it before too, Betsy… start their teaching careers with certain sets of expectations. One might be that their students would complete their readings outside of class, and then maybe they quickly realize that their students don’t do that, and then you’re trying to negotiate what to do. And perhaps the response is that they use in-class instruction time to make up for it, and then students realize, “Oh, I don’t have to do the reading.” And then downward spiral from there. What strategies can we use as instructors, or can we encourage instructors to use to motivate students to complete assignments outside of the classroom. And this goes beyond just readings, but when we started this conversation a little bit, but I think it’s also ways to help our instructors feel prepared for the classroom and for this idea that, like, oh, students are going to do stuff outside of class, but only if we kind of set up the parameters, maybe in the right way.

Betsy: So it’s interesting. There have been a number of pieces about student reading that have come out since the Inside Higher Ed piece. So there’s my friend Jon Malesic, writes for The New York Times a piece. I don’t if you saw that New York Times piece about “There’s a Very Good Reason Why Students Aren’t Reading,” and it’s related. Actually, the argument is similar to the one that John just… it’s about preparing for jobs. And maybe that’s not important, but there have been a couple other ones, and I’m always fascinated by reading the comment section, which I should never do, [LAUGHTER] but I do read the comment section. And the number of people who are just like, mad at faculty, and they’re like, just make it hard, like, hold them to high standards, and they’ll do it. Like, if they’re not doing the reading, it’s because you’re not making it hard enough. I mean, there’s some truth to that, but it’s also the case that, well, first of all, some schools, you can’t just fail all your students. [LAUGHTER] They’re not going to let you do that, but it’s also really a challenge to figure out how, especially now with AI, to assess them in a way that is well designed enough that you’re not punishing the students who did do the work outside of class, but that you are somehow capturing those who didn’t do it, like unless we’re going to actually follow our students around and watch what they’re doing and check off boxes and sort of model like that. It’s going to be tough for us to design it like an exam that perfectly distinguishes between those who didn’t do it and those who did do it. Now, of course, it can distinguish between knowledge, but that’s a different story. So I guess that’s a long way of saying, I don’t think that the sort of, let’s just create a bunch of hard quizzes is the solution. I do think that if we just read it to them when they come to class, I think, Rebecca, you’re 100% right. Like they’re gonna figure out very quickly I don’t need to do that. And in fact, that’s why they tell other students that you don’t need to do the readings. They’re not stupid. And one strong recommendation, I just started reading this book called 10 to 25: The Science of Motivating Young People. It came out in, I think, the end of August or September by David Yeager, and he’s a developmental psychologist who also taught high school. And again, I’m only on chapter three. What I appreciate about it is the way he talks about motivation is that we often talk about young people as if, like they’re neurobiologically incompetent, like they don’t have fully develop prefrontal cortexes, so they’re just idiots, and we gotta just tell them what to do, because they can’t be trusted. And he sort of debunks that and says, actually, neuroscience suggests that there was a good reason for us to promote that for the sake of, like, the death penalty. We didn’t want to, like, have the death penalty on young people, so we really pushed that undeveloped prefrontal cortex for a while. But in fact, our students are quite strategic and thoughtful, but they just have different goals than us. [LAUGHTER] What they’re very interested in is social status and respect. So this is really interesting, but so far, he isn’t saying anything that’s like radical to anyone who’s been a teacher, but it’s nice to put it all together and to think about, how can we use the things they care about to motivate them: social status and respect? And so one thing, it’s not perfect, instead of just trying to, like, negatively incentivize them with a low grade and that sort of thing, and one thing that I think has been somewhat useful for me is getting them to work together outside of class. I know that’s easier said than done at an institution. I’m at an institution where my students aren’t working 40 hours a week, it’s hard to get them organized outside of class at other places. I want to fully acknowledge that. But the more there’s sort of a social cost and also a social benefit to the work that they’re doing, the more they’re going to care about it. Now that’s not exactly reading [LAUGHTER] together, but it’s at least discussing the reading, and then maybe they can model for each other: here’s the things you can do outside of class, or in class. So even just something like when you come into class, the first thing we’re going to do is, I’m going to put you into pairs, and you’re going to come to class with three questions about the reading. A lot of people do like come with three questions about the reading, but the element that I like about what I’ve done sometimes is that I have them ask those three questions to the other student, and the other student has to answer them. And so if this becomes like a regular habit practice, first 5,10 minutes of class, you know you’re going to get paired up and have to answer one of your fellow students’ questions. Now some may have no shame at all and be like whatever. I didn’t do the reading, but the hope is that that sort of social pressure of I might have to be able to answer my friend’s questions about the reading might motivate them to do some reading too. I do really love like Hypothesis and Perusall, the kind of social reading annotation tool not going to solve all these problems, but leaning into the social aspects of the classroom, I think can be really powerful, and then also just not underestimating our power, if they respect us as instructors, to encourage them and to thank them for the work they’re doing. So when they’re doing the hard work of reading, I think sometimes we focus on the negative. We’re so annoyed when they’re not reading, and then we shame them and we’re pissed, myself included, I get really mad, but when they do do the reading, and they show up and they’ve got really insightful questions, honoring that, showing them that respect and saying like this is really great, that was really close reading. With your friends around watching let me say that this student has read really closely, and that’s a kind of motivating thing for them too. It’s like, I want to make my professor proud, and I want the other students to see that I’m doing too now, different contexts matter. Maybe you’re on a campus where that’s too nerdy, it’s not going to happen, but I’ve seen it happen. I definitely have seen that happen, and at least as a nudge in that direction.

John: And so if we wanna get students to have more practice in reading, Hypothesis or Perusall is one strategy. But for many Gen Ed courses, there are also adaptive learning, or personalized learning systems, where students read a little bit, but then they’re asked questions, where they have to make connections to the material that become a small part of their grade. So it does add just a little bit of incentive to do that, where it’s actually often easier just to work through it that way than to rely only on a summary. But you can also provide videos, where if you created the videos, or if you use a tool that takes existing videos and embed questions in them. It’s having them look at it, perhaps a little bit more deeply, and doing a bit more cognitive processing while they’re watching the video to try to make those connections. And we do know that multimodal learning is beneficial, so seeing it from multiple perspectives is good, as long as they’re not relying only on shortcuts, and so I think some of those tools, in some cases where that’s available, that could help as well.

Betsy: Yeah, these are all good. I’m actually realizing I didn’t fully answer the question about new faculty too, because there’s a number of things that I think it’s useful that new faculty be thinking about. Like, I had a new faculty member that came to me at one point and said, like, “Am I like, totally radical to think that maybe I should have a whole class where I assign no reading?” Like, it’s kind of radical question, you know, they’re scared because there are cultural norms associated with that. And so I actually want to just say, in response to John too, that the multimodal stuff is important. Like, I’m not someone who is, like, never any video. Sometimes there are places and context and purposes for that. And I do think there’s some interesting benefits to digital reading that, like, if you’re reading on a screen, there’s some downsides that are really interesting to talk about too. But because I think it doesn’t have to be a downside, but just the habit of how we’ve traditionally built our habits of reading on screens is to read at the surface level, and so we tend to just go faster. But if you build in these, like the quiz questions in the video, where you build in spots to pause and reflect and ask questions. And I’ve kind of done that before with Hypothesis, or even before Hypothesis existed, you could sort of annotate a PDF and you just seed it with questions or summaries and have the students engage, or at least slow down, like slow down here, and think about this. I want you to think about this question. I think that’s great. Like, I love that idea. I think the more we have some strategies that people have used that seem to have worked, that we can share with our new faculty. Because I think the temptation with new faculty is often like, I’m just going to do a quiz, or just to assume they’re going to read it no matter what which they often won’t, or to assign too much. So that’s also part of it too, like being really intentional about how much you assign, and then to make sure that you’re rewarding them for that careful reading is important. The last time I taught, I was teaching a first-year seminar where their reading was an outcome. So something like, it’s a university-wide set of outcomes. So I didn’t get to choose these outcomes. But one of them was, like, critical reading, and it was post AI, so it was recently, and I thought, “Hmm, how am I going to assess?” because normally you would assess reading by giving a paper, and if you can’t write this paper, you probably didn’t read it very closely. And now that’s not always so clear, that connection is not always so clear. So I decided to do some in-class reading annotation where they hadn’t seen the reading before. They had homework where they had to annotate their readings, but they could do that on their own, like I wasn’t really policing that. But the incentive for them doing that was I would give them feedback, because they would have, on the midterm, and in the final I would be giving them a new section of text that they hadn’t read before. That was philosophy about sex, like so, about sexual ethics, and then they would have to annotate that. And what really struck me, and I talked to my students about it again, we got very meta about it, was they were quite good at this, quite good at it, which was shocking, because, and I guess it depends on where you are. I want to be mindful of that. But I would say that what was noticeable to me was that when I didn’t give them the time and the incentive to read closely and read well, they wouldn’t do that, and then they’d come to class and they wouldn’t know what was going on. And it’s just as easy for a faculty member, and this is important for new faculty to hear too, is to assume, “Oh, our students don’t really know how to read, or they’re really struggling,” when it may just be they don’t put the time into it. It may just be they’re not putting time into it. But when I gave them time in class to read a passage really closely, to ask questions, to draw inferences, to do all the things that we want them to do, they were very much able to do that, in the varying levels, but many of them did quite a good job. And so I asked them, I was like, “This is amazing.” And they’re like, Oh my God. They’re like, we would never read like this. It would take so much time. And they weren’t saying it to be rude to me, but they were like, how would you ever read this closely? And it goes back to this issue of how much time are they expecting to set aside time for class. And even if they do set aside time, the idea of sitting for an hour with a text is just very foreign to them. And so having those conversations with our students, I think, is where we just gotta begin and explain why we think it’s useful, and also share our own struggles. Like I actually think it’s really just as useful for me to share sometimes that, in my life, podcasts and videos and all these other things that I’m so busy and I’m reading quickly, that my stamina for sitting with a textbook, not a textbook, but a book that’s actually like a print book. I’ll give another recommendation too. Adrian Johns has a history book. So he’s a historian at the University of Chicago, and I picked this up a couple weeks ago. It’s a history of the science of reading. So it’s called Information, Media, and Mind in Modern America: The Science of Reading. And it’s a real history. So it’s, like, very dense, and I’m loving it, but I’m like, “Whoa. It’s been a while since I’ve read a very long and dense history.” So letting students know this is a muscle that you have to practice to build that stamina. And unfortunately, and I think that’s what I appreciate about some of the other articles that have been floating around about reading, is that when we give them shorter passages, it’s great they can learn how to read for argument, but they may not be getting the stamina or practicing having the stamina to sit for periods in time and read. And the biggest question I have left open to me is, why is that important? Because I think somebody could ask me, like, why is that important? Isn’t that just a technology we don’t need anymore? And so I think the burden is on those of us that want to defend that practice. So saying, here’s the extra stuff it gives you, beyond just watching a video or even listening to an audiobook, right? The audiobook… I listen to tons of audiobooks, but what’s missing when you’re listening to an audiobook versus reading a text and figuring that out, I think, is a really important question for educators, particularly humanists, as we move forward.

Rebecca: One of the things that you just underscored when you were describing what you do in your class, Betsy, is it sounds like you’re teaching students how to annotate a text, rather than assuming that students know how to annotate a text or how to read closely. And that seems like if that’s an expectation that instructor has, that that’s something that we would actually need to include maybe some instruction around, if that’s something that we want students to be doing.

Betsy: Yeah, that’s absolutely right. Thanks for drawing attention to that. And I actually think that we all have different purposes. And I think just like with writing, we often just assume students know how to write in our discipline, and then they go from English to history to econ, and we all have radically different expectations for what good writing is. And the same thing is true with reading, actually. We all read differently. We all expect students to be asking different questions of texts when they’re reading. And so, while I do give them guidance, I often say, when you’re reading for philosophy, here’s some questions you should be asking, or here’s some things I want you to be reflecting on. And so I do have a little guide of the kinds of annotations, like “note when it reminds you of something else you’ve learned in class.” So this is again, trying to connect it to their prior knowledge or something else you know in your life. If you disagree with something that is said, circle that and explain why. If you are confused, ask a question, and it’s the kind of basic stuff of processing information when you’re learning. But I want to nudge them in that direction. But of course, they’ve also learned to annotate texts. A lot of them, when you ask them about annotation, a lot of my first-year students, at least, they remember it from literature class where they were doing something very different when they were annotating the text, which is fine, but just different. So I think we do if we want students to annotate or to learn how to read, we have to talk to them about different kinds of reading. And so I actually also sometimes will assign some short readings about reading [LAUGHTER] in the first week. So my former colleague at Rice, who’s a historian, Caleb McDaniel, has a blog post called “How to read for history.” And even though I don’t teach history, it’s pretty good, at least allied enough that it works pretty well. And then there’s a couple pieces about reading philosophy that I really appreciate. It’s basically like you’re struggling with the author over your mind, of like, whether you’re going to agree or not, and sort of thinking of reading that way, that you’re like, in this battle with the author, which students do not think of, right? They’re like, I’m just reading it because my professor says it’s true and I’m just going to it’s true, and I’m just going to try to process the information for the exam. And so assigning those short pieces on reading and then having a conversation about reading can be really fun, but at the end of the day, we’re still going to run up against, even if I convince them that there’s a value to reading, how much time they have. And they have many motivations, many concerns, many things that are of interest to them as they should, and how do we get the thing we want them to do to be top priority? And I think that’s just always a challenge for teaching, particularly for college instructors, and that’s where I think that book on motivation is at least helping me try to think creatively about some things that I might do socially, to nudge them a little bit towards reading a little bit more carefully. Also, I want to do an experiment with them, like, I haven’t done this yet, but people have done these with AI experiments where you would have, like, half the class read it closely, and half the class read just the summary, and then have a discussion, and then have a meta discussion about how that went. The students who read it all closely, and they might actually do the reading that time, because they’re participating in an experiment. And the more you can get them to discover the thing we want them to believe, I think that might have some of a role, but I think the overall summary of a lot of what I’ve been saying today is that I think if we haven’t done this already, it’s time that we actually have explicit conversations with students, that we actually engage them in conversations about this, instead of just trying to pull on the edges with like little strategy changes. If we expect them to read, maybe we don’t, but if we expect them to read, we’re going to have to talk to them about it and get their thoughts and have some discussion about it.

John: One of the things you suggested earlier is the value of being well read in general. I’m wondering if we could use AI a bit to help motivate students, because it’s going to lead to some pretty dramatic transformations in job markets. Many of the job categories that are most popular today didn’t exist 30 or 40 years ago, and many of the things they may be doing in the future could be very different than what they think they’re doing when they’re motivated towards this one particular career and just reminding them that the world is changing quite a bit, and they may need to be prepared to go in different directions than they initially expect in response to those changing roles or the changing job market conditions.

Betsy: Yeah, 100% I also think… our teaching center is in a library, like many teaching centers, and I’m very happy about that, because I really love libraries, and I’ve often talked that sometimes like I really got to get the students on board with this, but about the symbolic power of libraries. And one of the things that I think is really interesting in the AI age is helping students think about the library. You walk out, you look at the stacks, and it’s just like a whole bunch of information. Oh, isn’t that amazing? But you can also think of it as like human knowledge, the collection of human knowledge throughout centuries. It’s all here. And so some of our students may not be there yet, but some of our students, I think, are anxious about competing with AI, like, I still want to show that there’s some value to the human and to say, like, this is the collective knowledge of humanity, right? Reading. And what’s ironic about it, of course, is that the reason AI is as good as it is is because it is actually drawing on that collective knowledge of humanity, and it’s really a mirror of us more than it is us. But that’s another reason to motivate them is to say, like the reason it’s capable of doing what it’s doing is because it is essentially kind of well read. And so for you to be aware of all of these fields, all of these questions that you might ask of the AI, you’re going to be better able to ask questions of the AI, you’re going to be able to perform, hopefully, better than the AI. So yeah, the more we can help them see the value of this, beyond just narrow training, I think is a good thing, and I do believe that we can make a case for liberal arts in the age of AI, because there’s so many questions it raises that narrow training is not going to prepare us to answer. But I do love the idea of thinking about like libraries, and there’s something beautiful about a library, I don’t know. I almost feel like I should teach a class on the book or something, or about reading, because there’s more to it. It’s in our pop culture too. It’s not just a bunch of nerds who are sitting off in an ivory tower. There’s a lot of interesting stuff. You think about Game of Thrones, like there was that big library in Game of Thrones, which I loved. But I think it’d be interesting to get students to reflect on what is going on when we use a library, what’s the library trying to symbolize here, and what happens if we don’t read? I mean, I’d be curious to know what students would think. I haven’t really asked them that, like what if we stopped reading all together, will we be okay? [LAUGHTER] And they might say, “I don’t know, as long as we have videos, like we’re good,” but it’s worth engaging them in this conversation, because I don’t think we have a clear answer yet, and whenever that’s the case, getting students as conversation partners is just as important as figuring out how to nudge them in particular directions.

Rebecca: I think sometimes the benefit of the AI conversation is reminding them that they need to gain expertise, just as you were kind of indicating Betsy in kind of the area that you want to use AI in, and the surrounding areas, that if you gain expertise, then you can use the tool better and more efficiently, because you could write better prompts, etc, and get the tool to do what you want it to do. But if you’re writing as a novice in a discipline, then it kind of spits out novice-like answers. [LAUGHTER]

Betsy: Yeah. And actually, one of the things I love about being a teaching center director, I’ve always loved interdisciplinary work. It’s part of why I did religious studies instead of philosophy for my PhD. So I did philosophy in undergrad, and then I wanted to do comparative ethics. I did that in a religion department because it was area studies, so I could do a little history, a little anthropology, a little philosophy, is that I have always loved interdisciplinary work, and I like being a teaching center because now I get to expand it even broader, like I can go talk to physicists, I can go talk to dancers, you know, much broader [LAUGHTER] than even my own narrow area. And I do sometimes think that my prompting is because I have that wide sort of swath. And I can say, well, let me actually pull these two weird things together that no one would think to pull together, and then its answers are amazing because it actually has that wide swath of knowledge, but you have to know how to prompt it to do that. Also, the more you know about the interconnectedness of knowledge, the better able you’ll be to engage with AI as well. So, yeah, really fascinating thought there, for sure, and trying to encourage them on that front.

Rebecca: Gotta use every tool in the toolbox.

Betsy: Yeah, that’s right, [LAUGHTER] including sometimes external reinforcement. Sometimes we need to nudge them with a little bit of motivation that way. But, they do read some things, but it’s interesting what they read, and why are they reading it, and how can we leverage those things that they do read? And I guess I just am feeling this is often the case, you want them to have at least one powerful experience reading. You want them to see firsthand what the benefit is. You still will have an uphill battle after that, because they have lots of other prior interests, but sometimes they come in and they just don’t even see the value at all. Of like, “I’ve never had a reading experience where I had an aha moment.” I bet you there’s some students that that’s the case, and so giving them a powerful reading experience, and maybe that means there is some in-class reading that happens not because I don’t trust you, but because I just want to have this moment where I’m going to walk you through this. I meant to say this before John and I forgot to mention this, because you were mentioning doing the reading and then inserting the questions in the reading and sort of walking them through a video. There’s real power for instructors to help students see how you read a text. So even if it’s not a common practice, like doing one read aloud, where you like… think aloud is often that’s used in the literature… where you will read a text and pause, and at every part that you would normally pause and say, like, “Oh, now I would normally ask this question of the text,” or “now I’m thinking of this, and now I’m reflecting on that.” And that can be really powerful for students, because that is not how they’re reading. To help them model what you want them to do, but also to help them see, oh, I can see why yeah, you’re gonna get a lot more out of that experience if you’re doing that than if you were just reading and decoding the words, which is often what they do. And I hope that listeners, if you have solutions for this challenge, will write in or call in and maybe on the next episode, because it’s really tricky. And I often said that I actually think AI is more of a threat for reading than it is for writing, because I think students don’t like to spend a lot of time outside of class, and they haven’t been convinced of the value of reading yet. And AI is pretty good at reading, not amazing, but pretty good if you give it the full text. And so yes, something we’re all going to have to face and figure out. And so I hope that we’ll think about it collectively, learn from each other.

Rebecca: So we always wrap up, as you know, by asking, what’s next? [LAUGHTER]

Betsy: Yeah, so I’m reading these books, one on motivation and one on the science of reading, and I think we’ll probably do that motivation book as a reading group, on CAT, next semester. We’re also having Jim Lang come to campus in the spring, and so I’m also interested in how this intersects with attention as well, motivation and attention and reading and all these things that he’s interested in all sort of mixed up together. And so I hope that next semester, this will be something of a theme. I know I have some faculty who are really interested in thinking about reading and the future of reading, and it’s a core learning outcome of our Gen Ed. And so we’ve also been thinking about doing some programming around the faculty who are teaching. Courses where they’re supposed to be teaching critical reading to rethink, what does this mean in this age, and how do we motivate students to do this? How do we assess it? So hopefully, maybe I’ll have more insight in a year as we talk about it at Wake Forest. But that’s where we’re going next.

John: Well, thank you. It’s always great having these conversations with you, and we’re looking forward to that next one

Betsy: That’s the same. Thanks so much.

Rebecca: Yeah, thanks so much.

[MUSIC]

John: If you’ve enjoyed this podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on iTunes or your favorite podcast service. To continue the conversation, join us on our Tea for Teaching Facebook page.

Rebecca: You can find show notes, transcripts and other materials on teaforteaching.com. Music by Michael Gary Brewer.

[MUSIC]

192. Skim, Dive, Surface

Digital texts and materials have been increasingly used in college classes. In this episode Jenae Cohn joins us to explore some of the affordances of digital texts and discuss strategies for effectively engaging with digital material. Jenae is the Director of Academic Technology at California State University Sacramento and the author of Skim, Dive, Surface: Teaching Digital Reading, which has been recently released by West Virginia University Press.

Shownotes

  • Cohn, J. (2021). Skim, Dive, Surface: Teaching Digital Reading. West Virginia University Press.
  • Christina Haas (1997). Writing Technology: Studies In The Materiality Of Literacy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., 1996
  • Smale, M. A. (2020). “It’s a lot to take in.” Undergraduate Experiences with Assigned Reading. CUNY Academic Works. 1-10.
  • Smale, M. A., & Regalado, M. (2016). Digital technology as affordance and barrier in higher education. Springer.
  • Hypothesis
  • Perusall
  • Power Notes
  • Kalir, R., & Garcia, A. (2019). Annotation. MIT Press.

Transcript

John: Digital texts and materials have been increasingly used in college classes. In this episode we explore some of the affordances of digital texts and discuss strategies for effectively engaging with digital material.

[MUSIC]

John: Thanks for joining us for Tea for Teaching, an informal discussion of innovative and effective practices in teaching and learning.

Rebecca: This podcast series is hosted by John Kane, an economist…

John: …and Rebecca Mushtare, a graphic designer.

Rebecca: Together, we run the Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching at the State University of New York at Oswego.

[MUSIC]

Rebecca: Our guest today is Jenae Cohn. She is the Director of Academic Technology at California State University Sacramento and the author of Skim, Dive, Surface: Teaching Digital Reading, which has been recently released by West Virginia University Press as part of the superb series on teaching and learning, edited by James Lang. Welcome, Jenae.

Jenae: Thank you, Rebecca. Thanks for having me.

John: We’re glad to talk to you again.

Jenae: Such fun.

John: And we’re really glad to see your book out. When we last talked to you, you were finishing it up but we didn’t actually get to see it. So this time, we’ve had a chance to actually read it before talking to you.

Jenae: Oh, I’m so thrilled you’ve had a chance to read it. It’s so exciting to get to talk to people about it, finally.

John: Today’s teas are… Are you drinking tea?

Jenae: I am drinking tea today. I’ve got an English Breakfast tea.

Rebecca: I’ve got a Scottish afternoon tea. So, do you have something for the evening, John? [LAUGHTER]

John: No, I actually have English Breakfast tea from Tea Pigs, which is a new tea company for me. It was a gift.

Rebecca: That’s an unusual choice.

John: It’s very good, actually.

Jenae: I’m always up for new tea recommendations. I have a whole tea shelf. I was really born ready for this podcast. So I am wishing I had some Sleepy Time now to complete the full…

Rebecca: I know, right?

Jenae: …section of daytime to nighttime. That’s alright, it’s still morning here for me. So, I wasn’t quite ready for that yet. [LAUGHTER]

Rebecca: I go straight for the afternoon, even in the morning. So we’ve invited you here today to discuss Skim, Dive, Surface. Digital content has been really increasing in our college classes for some time. And there are some affordances of digital content that print content doesn’t have, like OER and some accessibility features, etc. Can you talk a little bit about some of the affordances of digital content?

Jenae: Sure, I’d be glad to. And I love that we’re starting from this place of affordances., ‘cause I think often enough in our teaching, we can make choices about what we use based on our prior experiences, or what we found comfortable. And I would love to see us having a measured conversation about what we get when we make these choices, to be really mindful about the kinds of choices that we make. So, to me, one of the greatest affordances of thinking about adopting digital text is their flexibility. Digital texts can be modified and they can be transformed on different kinds of devices and using different kinds of applications. So when you’re encountering a printed book, something that publishers and writers really love is that you can really control the experience. And sometimes there’s real pleasure in seeing that really controlled experience. But, for a student, for a teaching context, being able to modify the size or the shape of the text, to modify the spacing, to be able to cut and paste and remix things, that can really be of tremendous benefit on the learning side of things. Rebecca, you mentioned equity-based concerns around digital reading as well. And I think that’s, to me, the hugest motivation to doing this work. We know that, according to EDUCAUSE data that’s been collected for years, we know that mobile device usage in college classrooms is nearly ubiquitous at this point. Mobile devices are not a luxury device, they are the standard device that students use. And they’ll often choose to use a mobile phone for their learning more than a laptop, more than buying scores of heavy textbooks. So the more that we can make our learning experiences accessible on mobile, the easier it is for us to be able to reach students who, again, may not have access to more than one device or who may not have the budget to be buying all their books, who might be doing a lot of their learning on a bus on their way to campus, for example. When people start repopulating campuses, one thing I think we’ve learned in the Covid-19 pandemic is that mobile phones were often a more stable source of WiFi internet connection than home wireless access was. So we also knew that from a kind of a download access perspective too, mobile really provided a lot of touch points that made access to materials even easier. But I sometimes struggle to read on a mobile phone. That’s not how I learned to read. But there are some things that I read all the time on my mobile phone. So the more that we can think about, again, what’s possible in those spaces, the transportability, the adaptability, the flexibility, the more we can start to think inventively about how we’re distributing and thinking about access in those spaces.

John: You mentioned mobile devices as a platform for student reading. And that’s especially true for first-generation students and students from lower income households, who face some of the greater challenges in being successful and continuing their studies. So I think that adds to that equity component, And one of the reasons we’ve been pushing for this on our campus… and I think this is true everywhere… is that, in general, text in digital format is easier to distribute to students through the LMS so they have day one access, where if you have physical textbooks, generally students have to pay for them, and sometimes that’s a bit of a struggle for students in coming up with the funds to require textbooks. And certainly with OER, but with digital materials in general, you can have them there so that all students start from an equitable standpoint.

Jenae: Absolutely. It’s a great point that often our OERs are digitized, which makes them more affordable when we’re concerned with student budgets. Not all digital texts are affordable, but the other piece I’d like to mention here, that I think I always appreciate underscoring is that a lot of libraries have way more access to digital collections through the kinds of publication packages that they purchase. I think we forget about the amazing resources our librarians are thinking about. And so many of our librarians are educators who are being really thoughtful about what they’re procuring online, there’s also this real potential if we’re willing to accept that good, deep, close, mindful reading can happen on screen that we really get this world of new things that might be opened up to vis-a-vis collaborating with our librarians, and thinking about what kinds of types of texts or resources might be really well suited for the kinds of educational goals we might have.

Rebecca: I think one of the things that I discovered from doing some interviews with students about their experience learning during the pandemic, is that access to textbooks was actually a really big problem, because some of them depended on course reserves and things physically in the library. And then when they went home during remote learning, and then maybe even any online courses afterwards, they just had a lot less access, because, previously, they might have shared a physical book with other students even so that it was more affordable,

Jenae: Right, absolutely. I think libraries had to be really creative in giving students that access that maybe we took for granted, when we were thinking about the campus from a brick and mortar only perspective. And especially when it comes to books and reading, we kind of come by the attachment to the printed books quite honestly. Decades of survey research suggests that students and faculty alike prefer and find, or at least think that, they read more effectively by print. Librarians have researched this, literacy scholars have researched this, neuroscientists have researched this, and they’ve all basically found the same result. So I think there’s been a lot of behavior that has been driven around that data. And I don’t mean to suggest that we should ignore that data, I think there’s probably lots of people who do read more closely and more analytically when they have a paper book in front of them. I don’t think that data means that it’s impossible to read in a digital space effectively well, we really just have to be thinking about strategies that work for it and assignments that are aligned.

Rebecca: As a designer, I appreciate the physical artifact of a book. And I was really, really, actually very resistant to reading online, but wasn’t for pleasure, which is really weird, because I’m a digital designer. I design websites, I design apps, that’s the kind of design I do. And I was really resistant to that for all of those kinds of emotional reasons probably. And it wasn’t really until the last couple years that I started using a digital format for more scholarly work or research. I don’t know why I didn’t do it sooner. I’m discovering all of the affordances that I should have known as a designer who designed things digitally, [LAUGHTER] it’s just you get into habits and you don’t think of these things. So can you talk a little bit about some of the reasons why students find reading digitally more challenging than in a print format?

Jenae: Sure, there are a number of things that come up when students read online. One of them is what rhetorician Christina Haas studied a long time ago, back in the early 90s, actually. So we’ve been thinking about digital reading for quite some time. But she found in some small scale studies of student reading behaviors online that students lost what she coined “text sense” this ability to sort of locate and recall information based on where they appeared spatially. So one real challenge is when you read online, and you’re moving from kind of the logic of a codex, a traditional printed or bound book, which sort of moves from left to right in a certain kind of way, is a linear narrative order. When you move from that to what is typically sort of a scroll when you read on a screen, that creates a different sense of spatial awareness of where you might find that information. So it can be harder to remember, for example, where a certain key point was made, where you don’t have the materiality of paper to dog ear a page, for example, to create a kind of tactile difference in where you find information. That can be a challenge. So you do have to come up with some new strategies for simple memory and comprehension recall. The other research in this space, again, especially from cognitive psychology and neuroscience has demonstrated that in small time studies people of all ages, young and old, do tend to remember information better from print, again, especially if it’s short recall, because of that text sense, that ability to really quickly and nimbly place where information might be found in a book. Another challenge to reading on screen that students might have that they might have been used to in print are some strategies around annotation as well. I think that, in a lot of contexts, students have learned how to use a highlighter or a pen to underline or mark where important information is on a page. And it’s not always immediately obvious where you might do that annotation work online, unless you have learned about tools available for markup. So I’ve always been surprised when I’ve worked with students at all kinds of institutions… every place I’ve been in, there’s always this range of what students just know about how to markup or read digital documents. Some students know all about PDF editors and readers. Some students know about browser extensions or add ons that might allow them to annotate web pages. But many don’t. Many think that the only way that you can mark up a text is by printing it out. And this isn’t just students, faculty, professionals, people all over are still learning. I don’t know that, for whatever reason, there’s necessarily widespread awareness of what it really can look like to manipulate texts that are not designed to be manipulated,…again, especially documents like PDFs that are stable, that are designed not to be necessarily changed. So there is a certain amount of scaffolding that we would need to do with students to help them understand exactly how they can directly engage with or build upon that affordance, and as we discussed at the beginning of this conversation, to have that real flexibility to modify and engage with the text and make it their own.

John: And students at some point in their educational career had learned how to use highlighters, and they were given highlighters by their parents at some point. But as you said, they’ve never been taught how to mark up digital documents. One of the things you suggest is that that’s probably something that we should work with them on in our courses. Are there any suggestions of where that should occur? Or is that the conversation, perhaps, we should all have with our students when we’re giving them digital text?

Jenae: Right, I think there’s a couple things we’d want to engage with students on and not take for granted. And I would maybe even take one step back and just engage students in conversation about what it looks like for them when they read in academic context. To your point, John, I do think that many students have been equipped with some of the skills to do basic markup in print. But some didn’t even get that. Maura Smale, who’s a librarian and researcher herself,has a great article about reading, and she surveyed a bunch of students and the quote that still really stands out to me, she talked to one student who said “In college reading is your problem.” And that quote, really still just sticks out to me, because it just goes to show that, I think,as instructors in a college setting we can take for granted that students have learned this academic skill to be able to figure out what to do with the reading. And as instructors, I think we need to be challenged to think really critically about what we also want students to be doing with that reading. Do we want students to read for content uptake? Are we wanting them to learn key terms, critical definitions, concepts? Are we asking students to do what a lot of humanities faculty call close reading, which is trying to unpack language and see what we learn from language choices? Are we wanting students to read like writers, that is, are we wanting them to read to emulate certain conventions in the discipline or the field? So there’s a lot of reasons why we need students to read. Sometimes we don’t always articulate this. So I would say that one thing we could do with students is to make explicit what our intentions are for the reading task as well. And to also ask, “What have they done? What strategies have worked for them? What have they found useful?” Just as you might ask them to do the same when they’re starting a new writing project, we want to think about the genres of what they’re reading and how those genres might shape the kind of actions that they take. Then when you start thinking about media on top of that, then we can start to open up to what strategies, tools, or resources might make those ways of reading possible. So just as an example, if you’re wanting students to read closely, just read for language moves, to do a close reading, those kinds of markup and annotation tools might be extremely useful for, say, color coding a document for certain kinds of moves or patterns that they’re noticing in the language. But if you’re wanting students really to read in a more curatorial way, that is wanting students to read for research, pull out a bunch of main points, put them together, come up with their own argument or analysis, maybe that highlighting is still useful, but there might also be tools like citation managers, bookmarking tools, heck, even a really good word processor, using the sort of capacity of the word processor to copy and paste and bring things over to make a kind of collage of new ideas. These are other kinds of tools we can leverage as reading tools. But again, we’ll have to think about why those tools might be serving our purposes successfully. And it won’t always be obvious to students what those hacks are. Sometimes they’ll come up with new things and ways to do it, but until we make explicit the ways that we are inviting this reading work, it won’t be clear how to really adapt the media in any way.

Rebecca: And I think one thing that comes up in your book, too, is the idea that there’s a lot of tools to handle a lot of these different techniques, some only work on one platform, which might not be the most optimal choice. But sometimes that’s all you have, and that you need to find a suite of options that are available across different platforms and things like that, because we don’t want students who have to read, perhaps, on their phone to feel like they’re not included or that they don’t have access to things and that there are tools available but they may not be aware of them. I’m always surprised even for students not realizing that there’s an Acrobat reader for their phone and that they can have things read out loud to them with a pretty easy free tool.

Jenae: Yes, text-to-speech applications are so transformative for so many students, text-to-speech applications are the perfect example of “accommodations for some” are “accommodations for everyone.” As long as we, to your point Rebecca, make those options really visible, we can really empower students to figure out what works well for them, that we don’t need to get too rigid in our conception of what’s possible. I was worried that some readers would see all those tool options in the book and think, “Oh, that’s so overwhelming. I don’t want to have to learn how to use six different things, so I don’t know how to recommend to students a whole suite of things that I barely use any of them myself.” And so I do encourage readers or listeners who are feeling that way, or having that reaction, to just know that they’re not alone in doing this work. I would say there are resources on your campus that you can tap into to learn what some of the options are. A lot of institutions do have some really good local tools and solutions that go beyond the kind of private or free options that are more well known and well recognized. So I really tried to steer away in the book from naming particular tools where I could, that’s one really good way to date your book, and make it not very useful after a small sliver of time. But I do have an appendix with some contemporary options in case people really just want the list of tools. But I would encourage collaboration, not just with other colleagues in your department or your discipline, but again, I’m really pushing hard for libraries today. [LAUGHTER] Libraries are really great places to talk to about these tools, IT offices, teaching and learning centers. And I suspect that listeners to this podcast are already tapping into those resources. But it’s a good reminder that staff and faculty on campus can really partner on some of these initiatives. And these offices are there to do the research, to create the infrastructure that makes these different options available to everyone.

John: One of the things that economists have often noted is that when new technologies appear to do things that were done in a different way, in the past, people generally try to do the things in the same way. So when, for example, water power was replaced by internal combustion engines, and then later by electric power, and so forth, people initially were using the same basic systems where there was one central mechanism transmitting power to different locations in the building. And it took decades and in some cases, centuries, to fully exploit the new technology. I think the same thing happens when we have new ways of teaching. When people first started teaching online, they initially tried to replicate all the things they did in the classroom, whether they worked well in the classroom or not, they tried to come up with equivalents, and it took a while for us to come up with more effective ways of teaching asynchronously. I think maybe the same sort of thing is happening here. And that initially, the first thing people wanted to do were to be able to highlight and to be able to put bookmarks in digital text. But as you’ve suggested, there’s a lot more that you can do when text is in a digital format. What are some of the ways in which digital reading environments can transform the way in which we engage with content more effectively than occurred when it was in a fixed print format? You’ve mentioned a little bit about that. But I think there’s several other things you talk about in your book.

Jenae: Yeah, I have the most affection for the chapter where I cover 1000s of years [LAUGHTER] of media history, which was also the hardest and most painstaking chapter to write, because I was terrified that I would misrepresent all the complexity of book history. But in any case, we can get back to that at some other point.

John: Before we leave that, though, that was one of the things that really struck me, where you mentioned talking about how when people were first reading, they were reading aloud as the normal default mode of reading, because that’s how communications had taken place in the past. And there was concern that reading silently would result in learning less than by speaking the text aloud. And it struck me that that’s happened so many times with any new technology in education or ways of engaging with content.

Jenae: Yes, I think it’s really easy to forget that history. And to forget that books are a new technology. Books themselves, as a ubiquitous technology, are only a couple hundred years old. That’s so mind blowing. I could not stop geeking out over that [LAUGHTER] as I was working on this book, to realize that so many of the assumptions about reading and writing I have held so dear, are very contemporary assumptions that in… gosh, just like the 16th century, the 17th century, orality was really the primary means of distributing information, of comprehending information. Memory was the most valued component of being a literate individual… that is so different in the moment we’re in now where we want to sort of ossify ideas in a very linear form, which is really what a Codex, the printed book, privileges as a technology. There’s a very iterative relationship between media technologies and what we value in our thinking. And something that struck me in writing this book are the cyclical patterns in which our technologies and assumptions we make about our technologies change our assumptions and values about what good learning is, or what acceptable sociability is, or what acceptable learning behaviors look like. And so the same thing is happening in a digital moment where because reading on screen looks different than reading on print, it’s less linear, it’s less controlled, it is less bound… there’s a pun there… is less bound to a certain isolated knowledge space that the author kind of creates. Those things seem like they are less rigorous and less scholarly, when, again, those perceptions of what rigor is and what good reading is. It’s a social construct that’s bound up in the material conditions of how we learn.

John: But even going back further, the book itself was seen as something that would cause us to lose the memory skills that people had from trying to memorize things directly. People objected to books, they objected to reading silently. And we’re seeing exactly the same objections to digital reading. I thought that whole section of your book was fascinating. And I learned a lot from it.

Jenae: Oh, thank you, I’m so glad. [LAUGHTER] Again, it was the portion of the book that I feel like was definitely the last practical part of the book. But maybe as a humanist, in my own training, I really enjoyed that process of getting to tell a very, very, very slivered slice of that history, because really, there’s no way I could really capture centuries of scholarship. But I felt like we needed to have some context to recognize that what we’re struggling with is not new, I think it’s easy in narratives about technology to just focus on the novelty, to focus on what’s shiny and different. And as a technologist, I resist that too. That really, when we’re thinking about technology, I like to shift the conversation more into thinking about space, and about behavior, and about activity, and less about what’s the latest, greatest gadgetry for the sake of gadgetry? I realized I never answered your question. It got us started on this about what we could do differently with digital reading. So I’m happy to go there.

John: So what are some of the new ways of engaging with content provided by digital formats.

Jenae: So I think there’s a handful of things that are really, I’d say, uniquely possible in digital environments. And I’ll frame what I’m about to describe in terms of the digital reading framework that’s really at the heart of this book. And so there are five strategies for digital reading, that they’re broad strategies and, in many ways, the strategies that you could use for reading in any media, but I call them strategies for digital reading framework, because I think you can uniquely map some affordances in digital environments to the strategies. So for example, one thing that’s really unique about digital environments is how easy it is to curate… curation is the first part of my framework… how easy it is to curate lots of different pieces of information, and bring them together. You can, of course, do curatorial activities in print by, say, organizing index cards, or putting together a filing cabinet of articles and information. But online, you can curate even more of a detailed level. So, for example, there are activities I really like to do with students where we use things like tags, you know, metadata, that users generate to create clusters of information. So, if you invite students to tag, for example, a collection of articles they’re finding for research, they can start to see what key topics or terms might be shared across sources they might not have otherwise seen, if they were just trying to index that. You could put together broad buckets of information under those tags much more easily with citation management tools, for example, or you could go even a little bit more old fashioned and use bookmarking tools for this in your browser. You have bookmarking tools where you could create folders that are basically topical tags to sort things. You can even do it on a desktop if you want to do this offline, you could create folders that are organized by subject headers or tags to put things together and create collections of resources. That’s one thing I think is unique is its ability to bring a lot of information together. The other thing I think is really unique and exciting about working online is the second part of my framework, which is connection, which is this easy ability to link lots of different pieces of information together. Again, you could do this in print when you look at the references section of a printed out article or the works cited of a book. You can find them there, but when you’re online, it’s so much easier to generate and follow hyperlinks from one website to the next or to look at a citation trail and see who has cited whom and see how particular ideas are connected to each other, or even at the sentence level to see whether a reference to a particular person or place can be connected to encyclopedic information about that person or place to deepen your knowledge of things that are referred to in the text itself. Let’s say there’s also a description of an image or a graph, you could find the illustration of that and make that connection between the visual and the textual to create a more multimodal experience as well. Again, all possible in print, just easier and uniquely accessible to do when you’re doing this work digitally, I’ll say one more thing that I think is unique about working digitally. And I’m gonna veer a little off from the framework here, but we can return to that if you’d like, but that reading digitally can be even more nimbly social, and more easily shareable. With print, the best ways that we can share ideas are by talking about this, as we’re doing now. Of course, if you go to a used bookstore, you might find some good books that have written annotations of people of yore in them, which always feels like a wonderful discovery. But online, there are all kinds of tools where you can annotate together in real time. So this can be done in something as simple as a Microsoft Word document with Track Changes where you can share back and forth, a Google Doc, a lot of people use now as a really easy way to annotate in real time, and of course, there are specialized tools that make social annotation visible as well, Hypothesis is a very popular one, Perusall, is another popular one, Power Notes is another popular one. There’s a whole suite of things now that are really encouraging students and faculty to work together to make their thinking really visible and social in one text. And I think all those movements have such transformative potential to spark conversation, because reading really is about having a good conversation.

John: I’ve been using Hypothesis in a couple of my classes now for the last three years and students have just found it so incredibly engaging, and that they’re reading things so much more deeply and having conversations right in the text, which is so much more informed than when they were working on a discussion forum online talking about it, or even when we had class discussions about it. My students have generally responded extremely positively to that social annotation process.

Jenae: That’s wonderful. I’m glad to hear it. There’s good scaffolding that needs to make that happen. Your social annotations can turn into a discussion board quite easily. Without the framing, there’s a potential to highlight part of a text and have someone comment and someone else say “I agree.” But, the book actually offers some strategies. It sounds like you’re doing this brilliantly, John, if you’re getting really good results from your students. I’d be curious to hear how you’re framing it because that’s always, I think, the challenge. And in the book, I do talk about some things you could ask students to look for, simple prompts, not just highlighting moments that are important, but also inviting students to ask questions, or inviting students to look at which parts are sort of popular when you do look for things that are important or interesting. So there’s a lot of different ways you can frame that task.

Rebecca: I did that trick with my syllabi during the pandemic, to get students to make sure they’re looking at the syllabus and doing a careful reading of the syllabus and see if there was any policy questions and things and encourage questions about it. And we ended up having some really great conversations as a result of essentially annotating the digital version of the syllabus.

Jenae: Yes, that’s a great assignment. Remi Kalir has some great articles about annotating the syllabus. I don’t know if that was part of your inspiration. And Remi Kalir and Antero Garcia also just wrote a great book about annotation from MIT Press that I think is really… someone’s listening to this and thinking, “Oh, I want to learn more about annotation.” My book is one starting point there. But their book is a much deeper dive into just annotation as a learning practice.

John: We’ll include the citation for that in the show notes.

Rebecca: When we start talking about social annotation, one question that may arise for folks is privacy issues and ethical issues about sharing and making something that historically we might be thinking of as being a private experience more public. So can you talk a little bit about some of these ethical issues around digital reading?

Jenae: Yes, I’d be glad to. And in the third part of my book, I address this conversation in a lot more depth. So this will be sort of a thumbnail sketch of thinking about the real ethical dimensions, as you put it, to digital reading. So, when it comes to social annotation, in particular, we have to be, I think, really thoughtful in our framing about what we’re asking students to share. One thing I would suggest is, as instructors, if you’re going to ask students to use any kind of annotation-based software, (A) to make it really clear to students who will see it. So with most social annotation tools, you can control the privacy settings to make sure that certain annotations might only be visible to the class community. But as an instructor, there is, I think, a little bit of responsibility on you to do that research and to make sure you understand before you ask for mandates and tools, that you know, where students data is going, when they enter it into any kind of cloud-based platform or internet-based platform, in particular. I think this is where tools like Google Docs, especially, get into very dicey privacy-based territory, because Google, in particular, we know has a track record of… especially if you’re using an instance of Google Docs not managed by your institution… that data is owned… all of your written data is owned by Google and is used for optimizing their ad services. So I think before we just sort of uncritically adopt these tools, we have to think about the implications of what we’re doing and give students the option to opt out. Social annotation can be really powerful and really transformative. But there always needs to be ways for students to contribute if they don’t want to have their words online or they don’t want to use a platform. Even if it is private to the class, we still always need to let students make evidence of their work private, because ultimately their thinking is their intellectual property. But it’s also just we want to make sure students have the agency to decide where and how their thinking is made visible. So I would say the other thing we want to think about with digital leading too is where we’re asking the students to read. I think we can forget that every website we go to on the internet is tracked, whether that’s the browser based cookies, if we’re using a university proxy network, a VPN, the University knows [LAUGHTER] where we’re going on the internet. Again, that sounds a little scary, but it’s true. That’s just the reality of the connected world that we live in. It’s not necessarily dangerous, but it could be. There’s always sort of potential for data to be weaponized in ways that we need to be cognizant of. So I would just say that, for as many possibilities as there are, there are also risks that we need to assess and be mindful of. And I realize one reaction to this risk is let’s just go back to paper [LAUGHTER] and forget about it. Why put ourselves into the surveillance network that is the internet for our learning. But there are real risks to reading in print too. There’s less permanence. If I spilled my tea on this book, this book work is no longer accessible to me. It’s like paper’s actually a very fragile technology that way. There’s a reason that some people’s whole jobs are to be preservationists of print materials. So we have to kind of weigh the risks and affordances. And again, give our students choices where we can. So that might just mean, again, as an instructor, letting students for example, if they don’t want to annotate publicly, they could probably easily do the annotation in a Word document and send that to you privately to have it be an offline document, they can even expand their thoughts on a print book and take a picture. If they’re really insistent on doing that, that’s still a kind of digital reading, in a way, even if they’re using a print-based technology to do the optical work of scanning the words on a page, they can again, snip a picture, send it to you, and keep the digital infrastructure intact. And I think encouraging questions… If you as an instructor don’t know what the privacy policies are on the technologies you use, again, partnership with your IT office that looks into information security concerns all the time, your accessibility office that might also be thinking about the risks associated for students who might not always be able to use particular technologies, these are all things that can start to be thinking about when we design these activities and work in these spaces. It might not all happen at once, and that’s okay, too. I think it’s always good to experiment and think about what’s best for maintaining an active learning environment. But these are considerations that we don’t want to ignore, and it might just take our own continuous learning and our own continuous digital literacy development to really make sure we’re understanding just what we’re doing when we’re asking the students to work online.

John: You mentioned that that’s especially a concern with Google tools that are personal Google tools that you might ask students to use. But when you work with Google Apps for Education, there’s generally an agreement where the educational institution owns the data, which provides more privacy protection…

Jenae: Yes.

John: …and Google agrees not to use that in any commercial manner.

Jenae: Yes, that’s a great point. And so it’s certainly worth, if you don’t know, if your institution has a Google for Education license, this is just something to look into. Because to your point, John, the kinds of licenses your institution manages centrally may impact the ways in which student data is used. And yet another example of this… if your institution matches certain tools to protect logins behind Single Sign On authentication for your tool, so students have to log in with their university username and password, that also usually suggests a greater level of security than say a student has to create new accounts and logins to use the tool. Even more risky is if certain tools invite students to create an account with their Facebook username or other social media kinds of connections. If you’re looking to expand your students’ reading behaviors to some tools, it’s always worth just thinking about, “Okay, what are the access points my students will have to engage in to use this? To what extent is it disconnected from our university’s existing infrastructure? And what are the risks of moving further away from the infrastructure or using it?” And again, if you don’t know and you have questions, this is really what a lot of experts on campus are happy to talk to people about to understand those choices more clearly.

John: And even if there is a Google Apps for Education agreement, not all the apps that are provided may be subject to the terms of that. I know, in the SUNY system, there was a core set of apps that were negotiated. And then many other apps such as YouTube were not part of that agreement. So, use of that, or at least at SUNY, is not subject to the same set of protections as are the core apps of the educational platform, though, it is worth exploring, as you suggested.

Jenae: Yeah, I know, it’s kind of in the weeds. And sometimes it’s like, “Oh, gosh, all the legal and technical stuff is super complicated, it’s kind of frustrating.” But I think there’s also really, again, exciting potential to learn with your students. The world we live in now is a world where we both have access to so much more and once more things open up more risks just emerge. just kind of part of living in an interconnected world. And so I think that being curious is a really great habit of mind. And so sometimes I get down these conversations, I too can feel a little bit like, “Oh, it’s so annoying that we have to ask all these questions.” And yet I try to approach it from a perspective of curiosity. And that was part of my motivation for writing this book, too, was just being really curious about imagining what would happen if we really developed a clear understanding of what we get when we do our operations in digital spaces. What’s possible there, and how do we explore that in ways that are engaged and thoughtful and attuned to the material conditions of the world we’re in?

John: One of the nice things about your book is you include a set of activities that you can use in classes to help students engage more effectively with digital content. Could you share, perhaps, a couple of those?

Jenae: Sure, so this can kind of bring us back to our framework a bit. So maybe I’ll share a couple activities that we haven’t talked about yet. So a third component of the framework is “creativity.” And so these are activities that really inspire students to create new ideas based on what they’ve read. We know that reading is mentioned to inspire new thoughts and develop new ideas. So one activity that I think has a ton of potential is one that I call “visualize that” where we ask students to create some infographic or a map of what they’ve read and invite them to really take a step back. Again, doing this online isn’t possible in print. You could have someone draw an infographic. But there’s a lot of tools where students can easily create shapes, create maps, you could do this in your cyber tools, you could use this in explicitly designed mind mapping tools. And if you have students who can’t use these visual tools, or for whom visuals was not an especially effective way to learn, I found a good workaround is actually students create a spreadsheet, like an Excel spreadsheet, where they map connections between ideas to take a step back from the reading itself. So I think that’s one activity that is really exciting for reading digitally. Another one is in the contextualization section of the framework, which really invites to think about not just like how a text exists on its own, but why it exists, who wrote it, etc. So there’s one really simple activity that I call “the journalistic investigation,” gathering the who, what, where, when, why… which, again, you could do this in print, but what’s really nice about doing online is you could have students basically create a shared resource where they work together to gather: “Okay, what do we know about this author? Who are they? Where do they come from? Why do we care about them? Why did they write it? What are the contexts in which this book, or this article, or this piece of research exists?” …and to really inspire students to see text, not just kind of as a floating isolated thing that came from this author’s genius brain, [LAUGHTER] but that exists in a particular context. And that can really shape the way they understand that past.

Rebecca: Thanks for all those great ideas, Jenae, and really thinking through all of these different considerations of reading online and reading digitally. I know that everyone that picks up a copy of the book will find many nuggets within the pages that are far beyond what we talked about today. But we always wrap up by asking: “What’s next?”

Jenae: Yes. So one thing relevant to this book that’s next is that I will be at the Distance Teaching and Learning Conference hosted by the University of Wisconsin – Madison in August. I’m really honored to be one of the invited speakers of that conference where the theme is what’s next. And the topic for me is “what’s next is text.” So making the argument that as we think about futures of online learning, after a year of working remotely, that we really can take a step back to be thinking really critically about what we do with text in online spaces. I think a lot of folks got really into video and audio and the online moment, all of which is wonderful. And yet text is one of the most accessible, flexible, ways that we distribute content and engage with learning and learners if students don’t have access to high bandwidth, internet speeds using chat and using text-based tools really has tons of potential. So I’m thinking about expanding some of this work into, I would say, an even broader conversation about low-tech online learning is kind of where I’ve been really interested in going next with some of my work and thinking about how we kind of strip out the, I think, intimidating overhead of really high-tech gadgetry when we talk about teaching grant technology to remind ourselves that teaching with technology actually involves a lot of tools that are extremely low bandwidth, extremely easy to use, and can be really transformative and have a really high impact. So I don’t know what my next big project is, but I think I want it to have something to do with like low tech, high impact. I haven’t decided how yet. But immediate next is that conference. I hope to see some people there.

John: It’s great talking to you and we hope when you do come up with that next thing you want to address, that you’ll join us back on the podcast again.

Jenae: Oh, I hope so too. Thank you so much again for having me, always such a pleasure to speak with both of you, John and Rebecca. Thank you.

Rebecca: Thanks for your time, Jenae.

[MUSIC]

John: If you’ve enjoyed this podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on iTunes or your favorite podcast service. To continue the conversation, join us on our Tea for Teaching Facebook page.

Rebecca: You can find show notes, transcripts and other materials on teaforteaching.com. Music by Michael Gary Brewer.

[MUSIC]