The Path to Informed Citizenship: Curricular and Co-Curricular Media Literacy Efforts in American State Colleges and Universities

Chapman Rackaway, Ph.D.

Fort Hays State University

Author Note

Chapman Rackaway, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Political Science, Fort Hays State University.

Correspondence should be directed to Dr. Chapman Rackaway, 316 Rarick Hall, Fort Hays State University, 600 Park Street, Hays, KS 67601. Phone: (785) 628-5391. Email: cbrackaway@fhsu.edu.

Introduction

Civic engagement is a continuing need for students in higher education. Since Robert Putnam (2000) pointed to a decline in civic engagement reducing social capital in the early 2000’s, efforts at the university and community levels have sought to bring the disengaged back into their communities in a constructive manner. Civic engagement involves skill and it is built of multiple foundational skills; among the more important of these skills are media and literacy. This manuscript will explore the progress and direction of media literacy programming as a civic engagement initiative at institutions with a specific civic engagement commitment.

Over the span of more than a decade, state comprehensive colleges and universities have participated in a nationwide project to advance many aspects of student civic engagement. Known as the American Democracy Project (ADP), the effort, under the aegis of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU), has built a multi-campus effort to build and bolster civic engagement skills among college students (Anonymous, 2006). Eight sub- programs, America’s Future, Civic Health, Civic Agency, Deliberative Polling, eCitizenship, Political Engagement Project, Global Engagement, and Stewardship of Public Lands, have all emerged from the ADP collaborative.

ADP’s eight areas encompass a wide-ranging series of civic engagement areas. The America’s Future initiative focuses on personal debt and solutions to the problem. The Civic Health program focuses on the engagement of the community in ADP campuses. Civic Agency serves as a center for training community organizers and change agents. Deliberative Poling provides an in- depth process of policy learning and opinion harvesting. The eCitizenship initiative seeks to build civic skills in an online environment. The Political Engagement Project focuses on registration, education and voting mobilization. Global Engagement works to expand civic skills to solve worldwide problems, and the Stewardship of Public Lands makes effort to protect national parks and wildlife areas. Summed together, the eight ADP project areas represent the most vital areas of civic engagement work in the United States colleges today.

As the organization and its efforts have matured, new needs have emerged. One of those is informed citizenship, used synonymously for media literacy. Civic engagement, at its core, has concerted individual and/or collective citizen efforts to affect social and political change, has some necessary preconditions. To constructively produce change, one must be well-enough informed to know what problems exist, what solutions are possible, evaluate those solutions, find a level of government appropriate to that resolution, and guide the resolution through the governmental process. Without knowledge, engagement is that much more difficult. ADP embraced media literacy through The Informed Citizen Project, a sub-program of the eCitizenship initiative. As a civic engagement effort, how far has media literacy curricular and co-curricular programming advanced since Informed Citizen began?

Civic Engagement

Colleges have had various piecemeal projects geared toward civic engagement for decades, even if the term was not used. Schools have been doing service learning in varying degrees and intensity since the 1980’s. Service learning was embedded in individual courses and was often bereft of larger intent or theory (Stanton, Giles, & Cruz, 1999). A clarion call emerged for more purposive use of engagement efforts with the publication of the groundbreaking Bowling Alone.

Robert Putnam first showed declining social capital and limited civic engagement in America was a real phenomenon (Putnam, 2000). Using decades of data showing decreasing group membership, senses of community, trust in others, and trust in government, Putnam’s work was another clarion call to re- engage with communities. Members of AASCU took the book as a prompt to invigorate civic engagement efforts on college campuses and ADP was born.

AASCU created the American Democracy Project in the early 2000’s. Starting with a small but committed group of member schools, the ADP movement grew quickly on college campuses, leading to coordination of existing efforts as well as the creation of new ones. As state comprehensive universities cooperated more, best practices emerged in voter registration, education, and mobilization efforts (Gastil & Levine, 2005; American Democracy Project, 2006). While these significant studies showing the growth and usefulness of civic engagement among college students were an important development, other scholarship showed that other needs have to be considered at the same time. Pippa Norris (2003) in particular pointed out that civic engagement is not simply a skill in and of itself taught to students as one would teach written communication or argument construction.

The work of Norris forces the reader to think about the precedent skills that are necessary to activate an individual’s propensity to become civically engaged. Specifically, Norris explores the gap between access to information and engagement. Reinforcing Zukin, Keeter, Andolina, Jenkins & Carpini’s (2006) point, Norris (2003) claims that without access to and a desire to use information, civic engagement is not possible for the masses. In other words, simply providing civic engagement opportunities to students is not the answer. The base skills supporting civic engagement must be built so they can be activated. Media literacy skills are part of the prerequisite skill set for the civically engaged (Aufderheide, 1993).

Media Literacy

The Center for Media Literacy defines media literacy as “the ability to access, analyze, evaluate and create media in a variety of forms.” The Center publicizes two core points on its webpage: First, media literacy is education for life in a global media world, and second, the heart of media literacy is informed inquiry. The concept of informed inquiry is the most significant point connecting media literacy to a civic engagement effort.

Colleges, regardless of location or type, attempt to build critical thinking and inquiry skills. Few classes are standalone ones specifically geared toward critical thinking and inquiry. Instead, those skills are embedded in the topical work endemic to each course. That course (and instructor)-specific focus means that campus-wide critical thinking efforts are uncommon. Prior to Informed Citizen, there was no coordination of inquiry efforts at the college level, just as there was no coordination of such civic engagement efforts prior to the American Democracy Project.

The disconnect is striking, especially when one considers literature on civic skills education. Colby, et al. (2007, 2010) point to critical thinking and inquiry skills as part of the core of every higher education experience a well- prepared citizen should have. And yet few universities have taken the large-scale approach to media literacy as a civic skill described by Kirlin (2002), Colby, and others.

Competing definitions of media literacy exist, but the Kaiser Family Foundation’s is most straightforward: “the ability to access, analyze, evaluate, and produce communication in a variety of forms” (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2011). Collecting, critiquing, and disseminating information are all vital skills for the citizen. Building those skills can be a daunting task. As Silverblatt, Ferry, and Finan (2009) point out there is no one simple and direct truth to point students to. Media literacy is often a difficult thing to plan lessons for because the foundational skills are so basic (Bean, 2011).

Recent developments have expanded media choice and made media literacy much more important. As the internet has become a ubiquitous presence in the daily lives of ever more people, it has changed the way the typical citizen communicates. Tim O’Reilly is commonly associated with coining the term Web 2.0 to describe the modality of online communication where media consumers are also able to be content producers (O’Reilly, 2005).

Students being introduced to media literacy do not simply need to be inculcated in concepts such as ideological and source bias, but in best practices of online communication. Understanding content from others was important pre- internet, but today understanding one’s own content is equally important (see Shirky, 2010; Reynolds, 2006; Bauerlein, 2011; and Powers, 2010).

Bringing Media Literacy to Civic Skills Education

As the ADP has expanded its efforts into the eight areas of emphasis described earlier, the question remains if civic skills are being built as per Kirlin’s recommendations. Prior to Informed Citizen, no dedicated media literacy program has been part of ADP, the efforts may be similar to how both service learning and civic engagement efforts started: fragmented but purposive, with the potential to grow into larger movements. The Informed Citizen Project’s efforts to collect media literacy best practices in education should provide a good measure of media literacy programming’s advance into curricular and co-curricular activities.

Method

In the fall of 2012 the authors distributed a survey to more than 400 institutional coordinators of the American Democracy Project with thanks to the organization’s staff. The American Democracy Project membership is an important component to the sample for this survey, since ADP represents the largest collegiate effort at building civic engagement among students in the United States today. Begun in 2003 by the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU), ADP has grown to be the central clearing house for engagement efforts, ranging from voter registration and mobilization drives to public forum sponsorship and social media uses in the public sphere. Coordinators are individuals on faculty, staff, or administration of a university who oversee the campus’ ADP efforts, and thus are best positioned to know all facets of the campus’ civic engagement activities including media literacy.

A total of 39 out of 400 potential respondents completed the survey during the course of a month in mid-2012. The survey probed respondents on the media literacy efforts on their campuses. As ADP member institutions, those schools should be the most likely to engage in media literacy education as a base skill for civic engagement. Most of the respondents had been involved as ADP partner institutions for more than 6 years of the decade-long lifespan of the organization. More than half were not part of the ADP initiative most closely associated with media, the eCitizenship initiative. So while civic engagement was a mission-central theme of most institutions involved, they were not specifically oriented towards online media as the eCitizenship data suggested. More than three quarters of the respondents were faculty members, indicating a strong curricular orientation may be present.

The survey distributed to campus coordinators focused on the respondents’ general attitude toward media literacy as a designated campus leader for civic engagement issues. Respondents were then prompted to audit their campus’ civic engagement and media literacy efforts by the second section. In the third section, the respondents were asked to rank-order their priority for media literacy efforts on their campuses, and the fourth section turned to specific evaluations about the importance of media literacy generally among the respondents. Finally, respondents were asked about online and social media use to connect media literacy with new online and mobile news sources.

Results – Orientation Toward Media Literacy

Overall, respondents report a general support for media and information literacy as skills and needs to be filled at the college level. More than ninety percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they believe it is vital for student to be civically engaged to have media literacy skills, and while no respondents said they disagreed or were neutral, just under six percent of respondents said that the media and information literacy skill set was not a vital one for students who wish to be engaged. Strongly agreeing respondents were more frequent in responses to the information literacy question than the media literacy question, suggesting that information literacy is valued even more highly than media literacy among civic engagement leaders.

Table 1

“I believe that it is vital for students who want to be civically engaged to have media literacy skills.”
Strongly Disagree	5.88
Disagree	0
Neither Agree nor Disagree	0
Agree	32.35
Strongly Agree	61.76

Table 2

“I believe that it is vital for students who want to be civically engaged to have information literacy skills.”
Strongly Disagree	3.03
Disagree	3.03
Neither Agree nor Disagree	0
Agree	18.18
Strongly Agree	75.76

More than three in five institutions surveyed indicated that their college actively provided some form of media literacy education to their students, while

more than three quarters of the respondents said they were providing active information literacy skills to their students. Less than a fifth of respondents to both questions indicated they were not sure about their campus’ efforts, supporting the assertion that respondents’ roles made them well-qualified to understand the efforts at work on their campus.

Table 3

“I believe my institution is actively providing media literacy education to our students.”
Strongly Disagree	0
Disagree	18.75
Neither Agree nor Disagree	18.75
Agree	43.75
Strongly Agree	18.75
Table 4
“I believe my institution is actively providing information literacy education to our students.”
Strongly Disagree	0
Disagree	12.12
Neither Agree nor Disagree	12.12
Agree	45.45
Strongly Agree	30.3

The next two questions probed respondents for their evaluation of the media and information literacy skills students entering college have. An identical 42% of respondents to both questions said that they neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement that their students entered with good skills in each area. Just over twenty percent agreed or strongly agreed that their students came with proper preparation to evaluate media and information, while nearly forty percent disagreed with the statement that their students entered with the appropriate set of skills. Fewer strongly disagreed regarding media literacy skills, reinforcing the earlier idea that the respondents value information literacy skills more and see it as a slightly greater need.

Table 5

“I believe my institution’s students enter with media literacy skills”
Strongly Disagree	15.15
Disagree	21.21
Neither Agree nor Disagree	42.42
Agree	18.18
Strongly Agree	3.03

Table 6
“I believe my institution’s students enter with information literacy skills”
Strongly Disagree	18.18
Disagree	18.18
Neither Agree nor Disagree	42.42
Agree	18.18
Strongly Agree	3.03

In the previous three sets of questions about media and information literacy skills, respondents answered very consistently between the two skill sets. Whether prompted about student preparation, active programming, or need, no differences emerged between answers on media and information literacy. However, when asked if students leave their institutions having media and information literacy skills, a different trend emerged. More than half of respondents strongly agreed or agreed their students leave with media literacy skills, while only 21% of respondents said so about information literacy skills. Indeed, the modal category for the information literacy skills question was to neither agree nor disagree. The finding that respondents are unsure if students leave with information literacy skills, despite a strong belief that their institutions are providing appropriate training, is a significant finding.

Table 7

“I believe my institution’s students graduate with media literacy skills”
Strongly Disagree	0
Disagree	9.09
Neither Agree nor Disagree	36.36
Agree	45.45
Strongly Agree	9.09

Table 8

“I believe my institution’s students graduate with information literacy skills”
Strongly Disagree	18.18
Disagree	18.18
Neither Agree nor Disagree	42.42
Agree	18.18
Strongly Agree	3.03

Results –Curricular Offerings

The next section of the survey prompted respondents to audit their campuses for civic engagement efforts, first at the curricular and then the co- curricular level. Curricular efforts relate solely to elements of existing or proposed classes, while student organizations, volunteer efforts, and other non-class related efforts are included in the co-curricular part of this investigation. Table 9 reports the results from campus curricular media and information literacy offerings, divided into seven different categories: news consumption, recall, print and online media, web 2.0, source differentiation, critical thinking, and polling. More than half of all institutions responded by saying they were doing each of the seven different activities, with the most indicating that critical thinking was embedded in their curriculum at a rate of 90%. Least of all was polling and data criticism, where only 65% of all respondents said they had a dedicated course or course element that trained students in the particular skill. Clearly most respondents believed they were engaged in an aggressive and systematic curricular effort to build media and information skills.

In open-ended responses the survey asked for course offerings that included media and information literacy components. Communication, English, and political science courses were most commonly mentioned, though two respondents indicated specific information or media literacy courses offered at their institution. Philosophy and global studies courses were also mentioned as class offerings featuring media or information literacy components.

Table 9 – Curricular Offerings	No	Yes
News consumption (amount of media students consume for news and types of news consumed)	21.88	78.13
Recall of news (Ability to relate information consumed from news sources)	15.63	84.38
Print and online media (Differentiating types of media and their effects on information and learning)	15.63	84.38
Web 2.0 and students as content producers (Use of social media for news consumption and creation)	29.03	70.97
Source differentiation (Understanding bias and differing news quality based on source)	21.88	78.13
Critical thinking (Understanding significant policy implications of news)	9.38	90.63
Polling and data criticism (Structure and meaning of polling information)	35.29	64.71

Results – Co-curricular Efforts

One would expect that co-curricular activities, long the province of ADP institutions, would be even more embedded in campus culture and used even more aggressively than curricular efforts. However, as Table 10 indicates that the opposite appears to be the case. Sixty percent of respondents indicated their college or university had co-curricular systems in place for critical thinking skill- building and print versus online media use, and nearly as many had web 2.0 components. Half of campuses surveyed had a news consumption element, leaving less than half with source differentiation, news recall, or polling and data criticism co-curricular programs. ADP institutions appear to strongly favor curricular methods of skill-building, despite the emphasis on co-curricular programs through much of ADP activities.

Table 10 – Co-curricular Efforts	No	Yes
News consumption (amount of media students consume for news and types of news consumed)	50	50
Recall of news (Ability to relate information consumed from news sources)	62.07	37.93
Print and online media (Differentiating types of media and their effects on information and learning)	40	60
Web 2.0 and students as content producers (Use of social media for news consumption and creation)	41.38	58.62
Source differentiation (Understanding bias and differing news quality based on source)	60	40
Critical thinking (Understanding significant policy implications of news)	40	60
Polling and data criticism (Structure and meaning of polling information)	56.67	43.33

The findings that critical thinking and source differentiation are priorities at eCitizenship initiative universities are not surprising. Critical thinking has become a celebrated cause by academics because of previous studies showing critical thinking skills highly lacking among incoming students and in need of remediation. (Halpern 1999) Since the survey was conducted at eCitizenship schools, which have dedicated online civic engagement programs, the online-print source differentiation effort prevalence is also not surprising.

As with the curricular questions, respondents were asked to share co- curricular media and information literacy offerings at their institutions. Many have Times Talk brown bag news discussion forums, while most others focused on the university’s student newspaper or journalism programs.

Results – Priorities

The third section of the survey asked respondents to prioritize among the seven categories of media and information literacy efforts listed in the previous section: news consumption, recall, print and online media, web 2.0, source differentiation, critical thinking, and polling. The intent of this section was to determine what the most important elements of media and information literacy skills respondents believed existed. Respondents were asked to rank-order their preferences from 1 being the highest to 7 being the least.

In Table 11 the prioritization shows a clear value towards critical thinking as the most important skill – almost three times as many respondents chose critical thinking as the top skill than the next highest categories, source differentiation and print versus online media. Respondents distributed their preferences equally except for critical thinking. Clearly the base skill of critical thinking emerged as highest importance among faculty responding to the survey. The finding is not surprising, since critical thinking has emerged as one of the skills seen as most lacking among incoming college students and most vital to instill in students prior to graduation. (Halpern, 1999)

Table 11

1.00	2.00	3.00	4.00	5.00	6.00	7.00
News consumption (amount of media students consume for news and types of news consumed)	2	2	8	4	7	5	4
Recall of news (Ability to relate information consumed from news sources)	2	3	3	7	11	6
Print and online media (Differentiating types of media and their effects on information and learning)	6	4	4	7	2	9
Web 2.0 and students as content producers (Use of social media for news consumption and creation)	1	5	5	3	4	9	4
Source differentiation (Understanding bias and differing news quality based on source)	7	7	3	3	4	3	5
Critical thinking (Understanding significant policy implications of news)	17	3	1	2	3	6

Polling and data criticism (Structure and meaning of polling information)

4

1

4

5

8

5

5

Results – Reflection

The final section of the survey asked respondents to reflect on their own use of media, specifically online sources. To see what sources faculty use in civic engagement efforts geared to media and information literacy skills, we asked respondents if they had used online materials such as video sharing, collaborative documents, e-mail, social media, course management tools, wikis, social bookmarking, microblogging, and instant replay communication in their courses. Most respondents indicated regular e-mail usage, along with video sharing (YouTube videos in class, for example) as well as blogs and newspapers. Relatively few used social bookmarking sites like Digg or Reddit, Twitter, or synchronous communication methods like Google Voice. Roughly half of respondents used social networking such as MySpace or Facebook, suggesting a developing use of media that is separated between ‘power users’ and more traditional users who rely on readily available tools such as YouTube and e-mail. The lack of student-focused Web 2.0 tools such as Twitter stands out as user- content creation is not widely present among coordinators at respondent institutions.

Table 12

Have you used any of the following social media in the classes you’ve taught? (Please check all that apply):
Response	Response Count	Percentage
Learning Management System (i.e Blackboard Learn )	1	3.33%
Desire2Learn	1	3.33%
course homepage and discussion formats	1	3.33%
Newspapers and/or magazines	27	90.00%
Social Network sites (i.e., Facebook, Myspace, LinkedIn)	15	50.00%
Blogs	20	66.67%
Television	19	63.33%
Wikis (e.g., Wetpaint, TWiki )	11	36.67%
Video sharing sites (e.g., YouTube, blip.tv)	24	80.00%
Podcasts	8	26.67%
Texting	4	13.33%
Video/DVD	25	83.33%
E-mail	27	90.00%
News sharing/ Crowdsourced content sites (e.g. Digg, YahooBuzz, Wikipedia)		40.00%
	12
Photo Sharing (e.g., Flickr, Picasa)	6	20.00%
Internet Chat (e.g., MSN chat, Yahoo Messenger, Skype)	8	26.67%
Twitter	4	13.33%
Collaborative Platforms (e.g., GoogleDocs, Google Wave)	13	43.33%

Table 13 reports responses regarding the engagement of students in classes when the online tools are used. Whether it is online social media such as Facebook, televised media such as DVDs, or print media like newspapers, respondents generally indicated that students were much more engaged when they used those media in their classes. A disconnect emerges between responses suggesting strong student engagement and skill-building benefits with earlier findings indicating that respondents do not believe students leave their institutions with strong information literacy skills, however.

Table 13

If you have used or are presently using the following types of media in your classes, did you or do you find students to be more engaged?

	More engaged	Somewhat engaged	Exactly the same	Less engaged
Online social media	15	6	1	0
	68.18%	27.27%	4.55%	0.00%
Print media	12	10	2	3
	44.44%	37.04%	7.41%	11.11%
Televised media (TV, offline video, DVD)	12	12	1	2
	44.44%	44.44%	3.70%	7.41%

The final question in the survey asked respondents to look forward and examine future needs for media and information literacy. The vast majority of respondents answered that they saw online tools as vital to the future of education and media literacy specifically. Almost two-thirds of all respondents said they thought media tools were very important, and no less than ten percent found them ‘somewhat important.’ More than ninety percent of respondents said that student knowledge of social media was important or very important, and another ninety percent indicated that it was important for their peers to know social media and develop skill sets to use it in the classroom.

Table 14

	Not important at all	Somewhat important	No opinion	Important	Very important
How important do you think media tools are to the future of education?	0	3	0	8	20
	0.00%	9.68%	0.00%	25.81%	64.52%
Do you think it is important for students to understand new technology tools such as social media?	0	2	0	14	15
	0.00%	6.45%	0.00%	45.16%	48.39%
Do you think it is important for your fellow peers to understand technology tools like social media?	0	3	0	10	18
	0.00%	9.68%	0.00%	32.26%	58.06%

Discussion

ADP member institutions have implemented media and information literacy programs but generally as parts of other disciplinary programs. Perhaps the haphazard nature of media and information literacy education is best summed up by a response to one question in the survey:

“Media is so pervasive in US culture that it is impossible to escape, regardless of your major or profession. Newer media technologies allow for better classroom experience when used properly, however current pedagogical practice does not take advantage of this tech. More often, students are distracted in the classroom while they use social media such as Facebook. Moreover, traditional media images (TV, movies, advertisements, magazines, newspapers to some extent) are still quite powerful in their effects on college students’ expectations, self-esteem, etc. All of these in turn affect the educational experience.”

Media literacy appears to be at the stage in its development exactly where service learning and civic engagement were prior to 2000: haphazard, taught and practiced by specialized evangelists in the field. As the literature on civic skills shows, building these competencies are incredibly important. Just as civic engagement efforts have matured under a system of coordination and collaboration, so might media literacy efforts.

As a response to this need for a systematic approach to media and information literacy, the ADP eCitizenship initiative has begun a new program, the Informed Citizen Project. Aimed at collecting best practices, sharing them, and guiding institutions to providing quality media and information literacy to their students, the Informed Citizen Project is an extension of the eCitizenship initiative.

References

Anonymous (2006). Electoral voices: Engaging college students in elections. Washington, DC: American Association of State Colleges and Universities.

Aufderheide, P. (1993). Media literacy. A report of the National Leadership Conference on Media Literacy. Washington, D.C.: Aspen Institute, Communications and Society Program.

Bauerlein, M. (Ed.). (2011). The digital divide. New York, NY: Tantor.

Bean, J. C. (2011). Engaging ideas: The professor’s guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Colby, A., Beaumont, E., Ehrlich, T., & Corngold, J. (2007). Educating for democracy: Preparing undergraduates for responsible political engagement (Vol. 19). San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.

Colby, A., Ehrlich, T., Beaumont, E., Stephens, J., & Shulman, L. S. (2010). Educating citizens: Preparing America’s undergraduates for lives of moral and civic responsibility (Vol. 17). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Gastil, J., & Levine, P. (2005). The deliberative democracy handbook: Strategies for effective civic engagement in the twenty-first century. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Halpern, D. (1999). Teaching for critical thinking: Helping college students develop the skills and dispositions of a critical thinker. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 80(4), 69-74.

Henderson, B. (2007). Teaching at the Peoples’ University. Boston, MA: Anker Publishing.

Kaiser Family Foundation. (2011). Key facts about media literacy. http://www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/key-facts-media-literacy.pdf

Kirlin, M. (2002). Civic skill building: The missing component in service programs? PS: Political Science and Politics, 35(3), 571–575.

Macedo, D. and Steinberg, M. (2009). Media literacy, a reader. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Norris, P. (2003). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the internet worldwide (Vol. 40). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is web 2.0? http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is- web-20.html

Powers, W. (2010). Hamlet’s Blackberry: A practical philosophy for building a good life in the digital age. New York, NY: Harper.

Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Reynolds, G. H. (2006). An army of Davids: How markets and technology empower ordinary people to beat big media, big government, and other Goliaths. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Inc.

Shirky, C. (2010). Cognitive surplus: Creativity and generosity in a connected age. New York, NY: ePenguin.

Silverblatt, A., Ferry, J., & Finan, B. (2009). Approaches to media literacy: A handbook. New York, NY: ME Sharpe Incorporated.

Stanton, T. K., Giles Jr, D. E., & Cruz, N. I. (1999). Service-learning: A movement’s pioneers reflect on its origins, practice, and future. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Zukin, C., Keeter, S., Andolina, M., Jenkins, K., & Carpini, M. X. D. (2006). A new engagement? Political participation, civic life, and the changing American citizen. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Appendix

Table 1

“I believe that it is vital for students who want to be civically engaged to have media literacy skills.”
Strongly Disagree	5.88
Disagree	0
Neither Agree nor Disagree	0
Agree	32.35
Strongly Agree	61.76

Table 2

“I believe that it is vital for students who want to be civically engaged to have information literacy skills.”
Strongly Disagree	3.03
Disagree	3.03
Neither Agree nor Disagree	0
Agree	18.18
Strongly Agree	75.76

Table 3

“I believe my institution is actively providing media literacy education to our students.”
Strongly Disagree	0
Disagree	18.75
Neither Agree nor Disagree	18.75
Agree	43.75
Strongly Agree	18.75

Table 4
“I believe my institution is actively providing information literacy education to our students.”
Strongly Disagree	0
Disagree	12.12
Neither Agree nor Disagree	12.12
Agree	45.45
Strongly Agree	30.3

Table 5

“I believe my institution’s students enter with media literacy skills”
Strongly Disagree	15.15
Disagree	21.21
Neither Agree nor Disagree	42.42
Agree	18.18
Strongly Agree	3.03
Table 6
“I believe my institution’s students enter with information literacy skills”
Strongly Disagree	18.18
Disagree	18.18
Neither Agree nor Disagree	42.42
Agree	18.18
Strongly Agree	3.03

Table 7

“I believe my institution’s students graduate with media literacy skills”
Strongly Disagree	0
Disagree	9.09
Neither Agree nor Disagree	36.36
Agree	45.45
Strongly Agree	9.09

Table 8

“I believe my institution’s students graduate with information literacy skills”
Strongly Disagree	18.18
Disagree	18.18
Neither Agree nor Disagree	42.42
Agree	18.18
Strongly Agree	3.03

Table 9 – Curricular Offerings	No	Yes
News consumption (amount of media students consume for news and types of news consumed)	21.88	78.13
Recall of news (Ability to relate information consumed from news sources)	15.63	84.38
Print and online media (Differentiating types of media and their effects on information and learning)	15.63	84.38
Web 2.0 and students as content producers (Use of social media for news consumption and creation)	29.03	70.97
Source differentiation (Understanding bias and differing news quality based on source)	21.88	78.13
Critical thinking (Understanding significant policy implications of news)	9.38	90.63
Polling and data criticism (Structure and meaning of polling information)	35.29	64.71

Table 10 – Co-curricular Efforts	No	Yes
News consumption (amount of media students consume for news and types of news consumed)	50	50
Recall of news (Ability to relate information consumed from news sources)	62.07	37.93
Print and online media (Differentiating types of media and their effects on information and learning)	40	60
Web 2.0 and students as content producers (Use of social media for news consumption and creation)	41.38	58.62
Source differentiation (Understanding bias and differing news quality based on source)	60	40
Critical thinking (Understanding significant policy implications of news)	40	60
Polling and data criticism (Structure and meaning of polling information)	56.67	43.33

Table 11

1.00	2.00	3.00	4.00	5.00	6.00	7.00
News consumption (amount of media students consume for news and types of news consumed)	2	2	8	4	7	5	4
Recall of news (Ability to relate information consumed from news sources)	2	3	3	7	11	6
Print and online media (Differentiating types of media and their effects on information and learning)	6	4	4	7	2	9
Web 2.0 and students as content producers (Use of social media for news consumption and creation)	1	5	5	3	4	9	4
Source differentiation (Understanding bias and differing news quality based on source)	7	7	3	3	4	3	5

Critical thinking (Understanding significant policy implications of news)	17	3	1	2	3	6
Polling and data criticism (Structure and meaning of polling information)	4	1	4	5	8	5	5

Table 12

Have you used any of the following social media in the classes you’ve taught? (Please check all that apply):
Response	Response Count	Percentage
Learning Management System (i.e Blackboard Learn )	1	3.33%
Desire2Learn	1	3.33%
course homepage and discussion formats	1	3.33%
Newspapers and/or magazines	27	90.00%
Social Network sites (i.e., Facebook, Myspace, LinkedIn)	15	50.00%
Blogs	20	66.67%
Television	19	63.33%
Wikis (e.g., Wetpaint, TWiki )	11	36.67%
Video sharing sites (e.g., YouTube, blip.tv)	24	80.00%
Podcasts	8	26.67%
Texting	4	13.33%
Video/DVD	25	83.33%
E-mail	27	90.00%
News sharing/ Crowdsourced content sites (e.g. Digg, YahooBuzz, Wikipedia)	12	40.00%
Photo Sharing (e.g., Flickr, Picasa)	6	20.00%
Internet Chat (e.g., MSN chat, Yahoo Messenger, Skype)	8	26.67%
Twitter	4	13.33%
Collaborative Platforms (e.g., GoogleDocs, Google Wave)	13	43.33%

Table 13

If you have used or are presently using the following types of media in your classes, did you or do you find students to be more engaged?

	More engaged	Somewhat engaged	Exactly the same	Less engaged
Online social media	15	6	1	0
	68.18%	27.27%	4.55%	0.00%
Print media	12	10	2	3
	44.44%	37.04%	7.41%	11.11%
Televised media (TV, offline video, DVD)	12	12	1	2
	44.44%	44.44%	3.70%	7.41%

Table 14

	Not important at all	Somewhat important	No opinion	Important	Very important
How important do you think media tools are to the future of education?	0	3	0	8	20
	0.00%	9.68%	0.00%	25.81%	64.52%
Do you think it is important for students to understand new technology tools such as social media?	0	2	0	14	15
	0.00%	6.45%	0.00%	45.16%	48.39%
Do you think it is important for your fellow peers to understand technology tools like social media?	0	3	0	10	18
	0.00%	9.68%	0.00%	32.26%	58.06%

Author Biography

Chapman Rackaway is a Professor of Political Science at Fort Hays State University, where he has been a member of the faculty since 2003. Rackaway’s research interests focus on campaign strategy and communications as well as civic participation, and partisan movements. Using technology to advance student learning and collaboration are part of Dr. Rackaway’s core teaching agenda. As former Campus Coordinator for the FHSU American Democracy Project and leader of the campus’ eCitizenship initiative, Rackaway strives to use technology to engage students and activate participation in American democracy. Rackaway is the author of American Government: Political Culture in an Online World, 6th Edition, from Kendall-Hunt Publishing.