Projects and Frameworks

Each of us has a particular interest in teaching.  These interests range from legal issues surrounding data collection, to poverty and education, to the reshaping of the teaching task by digital tools, to developing a theoretical framework for reconfiguring the role of technology in education.  Each of the links below goes to a document that lays out how each of us thinks about a topic.  The content is central, but the documents reveals a bit about our individual interests.


Hugh Culik, "Teaching in a Digital Culture"

Digital tools change the teaching task by giving us rapid access to huge quantities of information. We seem to have two choices: 1) concealing that transformation in "data driven" blackboxes whose outputs seem magically real, or 2) making the difference between information and knowledge the heart of the teaching task. The analysis of how information (data) is selected, organized, and transformed into knowledge is crucial to contemporary education.

Daniel Hoops, "Digital Assets and Currencies in the Information Age"

The words, images, patterns of association, documents, and other online materials seem independent of the medium in which they appear. They seem to be "ours" no matter how they materialize before the audience. However, the issue is more complicated than that, a complexity revealed when the creator of the materials dies.  "Digital legacies" are themselves a complex problem, but for educators, the issue offers an illustration of how to think of our students' digital performances as deserving of the same legal protections that we grant to other assets.

Chris Gilliard, From Redlining to Digital Redlining

In the United States, redlining was institutionalized in the National Housing Act of 1934. At the behest of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, the Home Owners Loan Corporation created maps for America’s largest cities that color-coded the areas where loans would be differentially available. The difference between these areas was race.

Today, digital redlining arises out of policies that regulate and track students’ engagement with information technology.  Acceptable Use Policies (AUPs) are central to regulating this engagement.  To better understand how digital redlining works at community colleges, we sampled Acceptable Use Policies from across the range of Carnegie Classifications. These policies, like the HOLC maps, create boundaries. The boundaries not only control information access and filtering, but also they can determine methods of collection and retention of student data, and how data is passed on to third parties. Differences in the policies of community colleges and research institutions reveal how digital redlining reinscribes class boundaries by creating differential access to information. A discussion of this issue at the Online Learning Consortium (OLC) is available HERE.