Textbook Digital Technology As Affordance and Barrier in Higher Education 1St Edition Maura A Smale Ebook All Chapter PDF

Digital Technology as Affordance and
Barrier in Higher Education 1st Edition

Maura A. Smale
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/digital-technology-as-affordance-and-barrier-in-higher
-education-1st-edition-maura-a-smale/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Disruptive Technology Enhanced Learning: The Use and

Misuse of Digital Technologies in Higher Education 1st
Edition Michael Flavin (Auth.)
https://textbookfull.com/product/disruptive-technology-enhanced-
learning-the-use-and-misuse-of-digital-technologies-in-higher-
education-1st-edition-michael-flavin-auth/
Digital Storytelling in Higher Education: International

Perspectives 1st Edition Grete Jamissen
https://textbookfull.com/product/digital-storytelling-in-higher-
education-international-perspectives-1st-edition-grete-jamissen/
English as a Medium of Instruction in Higher Education

Implementations and Classroom Practices in Taiwan 1st
Edition Wenli Tsou
https://textbookfull.com/product/english-as-a-medium-of-
instruction-in-higher-education-implementations-and-classroom-
practices-in-taiwan-1st-edition-wenli-tsou/
Employability via Higher Education Sustainability as

Scholarship Alice Diver
https://textbookfull.com/product/employability-via-higher-
education-sustainability-as-scholarship-alice-diver/
The Governing Evaluation Knowledge Nexus Swedish Higher
Education as a Case Christina Segerholm
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-governing-evaluation-
knowledge-nexus-swedish-higher-education-as-a-case-christina-
segerholm/
Race Politics and Education in Brazil Affirmative

Action in Higher Education 1st Edition Ollie A. Johnson
Iii
https://textbookfull.com/product/race-politics-and-education-in-
brazil-affirmative-action-in-higher-education-1st-edition-ollie-
a-johnson-iii/
Sustainability in Higher Education 1st Edition Davim
https://textbookfull.com/product/sustainability-in-higher-
education-1st-edition-davim/
Until You Off Limits 1 1st Edition Catharina Maura

Maura Catharina
https://textbookfull.com/product/until-you-off-limits-1-1st-
edition-catharina-maura-maura-catharina/
Fixing Higher Education A Business Manager s Take on

How to Boost Productivity in Higher Education 1st
Edition Christian Schierenbeck (Auth.)
https://textbookfull.com/product/fixing-higher-education-a-
business-manager-s-take-on-how-to-boost-productivity-in-higher-
education-1st-edition-christian-schierenbeck-auth/
Digital Technology as Affordance
and Barrier in Higher Education
Maura A. Smale • Mariana Regalado
Digital Technology
as Affordance and
Barrier in Higher
Education
Maura A. Smale Mariana Regalado
New York City College of Technology Brooklyn College
City University of New York City University of New York
Brooklyn, New York, USA Brooklyn, New York, USA
ISBN 978-3-319-48907-0 ISBN 978-3-319-48908-7 (eBook)

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-48908-7
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016957751
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the
publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect
to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Cover illustration: Cover pattern © Harvey Loake
Printed on acid-free paper
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
For Jonathan and Greg
And for Gus, William, and Charlotte,
who will be college students soon!
And for Jill, who worked so hard last summer
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are indebted to the 743 students and 140 faculty we interviewed or

who completed our questionnaire for this project at Brooklyn College and
New York City College of Technology in 2009–2010; at Borough of
Manhattan Community College, Bronx Community College, The City
College of New York, and Hunter College in 2010–2011; and at BMCC,
Brooklyn College, and City Tech in 2015–2016. We thank them for their
generosity in sharing their time and experiences with us, and we appreciate
the opportunities that this project has provided us to better understand
the students we serve and to make improvements in our libraries and on
our campuses. Sincere thanks are also due to our research assistants
Christopher Baum, Rachel Daniell, Jay Blair, and Brenna McCaffrey for
their work on this project, especially their many hours spent on transcrip-
tion. We are also grateful for the assistance of our library faculty colleagues
at BMCC, Bronx CC, City College, and Hunter College in facilitating our
interviews with students and faculty at those campuses.
Our work has been supported by grants from the City University of
New York PSC-CUNY Research Award program, a CUNY Fellowship
Leave, and Professional Reassignment Leave. We thank the administration
and our colleagues on our own campuses and in our libraries for their
support during our research.
A few passages in Chapters 1 and 2, as well as much of the description of
our earlier research methods in the Appendix, were previously published in
articles we wrote for EDUCAUSE Review Online, Urban Library Journal,
and College & Research Libraries. We would like to thank the editors and
vii
viii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
anonymous peer reviewers who provided us with thoughtful feedback for

those articles.
As this research project has developed over the years, we have been
lucky to work with many talented colleagues at CUNY, in academic
librarianship, and beyond. We thank Nancy Foster for sparking our initial
interest in the study of undergraduate academic culture, and Lesley
Gourlay for her encouragement to write up our research on students’
use of technology as this book. Our long-time collaborations and con-
versations with Andrew Asher and Donna Lanclos have made our research
stronger (and much more enjoyable!), and we look forward to our con-
tinuing work together.
Data from the student SMS survey in fall 2015 was gathered as part of a
larger project, and we are thankful to be collaborating with Project
Director Andrew Asher and our fellow research team members: Jean
Amaral, Juliann Couture, Barbara Fister, Donna Lanclos, and Sara Lowe.
Any project of this length will necessarily spawn conversations both
formal and informal, and we are indebted to our many CUNY colleagues
who have helped us think through this work over the years. Many thanks
are due to Jean Amaral at BMCC for partnering with us on the 2015–
2016 data collection. Alycia Sellie suggested that we have students draw
maps of their days rather than trace them onto campus maps, and we are so
glad that she did. We have benefitted from ongoing conversations with
Frans Albarillo, Jill Cirasella, Beth Evans, and Helen Georgas throughout
the years of our research, especially in considering how our lessons learned
can be applied at our own colleges. We have also appreciated conversations
about students’ use of technology with Matt Gold, Jody Rosen, and Luke
Waltzer, and with the spring 2014 and spring 2016 cohorts of the CUNY
Graduate Center’s Interactive Technology & Pedagogy program.
Jonathan Miller provided thoughtful feedback on our manuscript
(twice!), and we appreciate his sharp eyes and red pen. Our families have
our sincere gratitude for their patience and support while we wrote,
especially on the weekends and during summer vacations. We couldn’t
have done this without them.
Any errors of fact or omission are, of course, our own.
CONTENTS
1 Situating College Students and Technology 1
2 College Students and Fixed Technology 23
3 College Students and Mobile Technology 41
4 College Students, Technology, and Time 57
5 Recommendations for Technology in Higher Education 73
Appendix: Research Methodology 89
Index 99
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 2.1 Off-campus internet access for CUNY undergraduates, 2010

and 2014 (CUNY OIRA 2016a, b). 27
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 CUNY students’ commute time to campus (CUNY OIRA

2016a) 12
Table 2.1 US personal computer ownership, adults over 18 years old,
2015 (Anderson 2015, 7–8) 25
Table 2.2 Student use of personal computers, questionnaire responses
from Brooklyn College, City Tech, and BMCC, 2015 26
Table 3.1 US mobile device ownership, adults over 18 years old, 2015
(Anderson 2015, 7, 10, 11) 43
Table 3.2 Student use of mobile devices, questionnaire responses from
Brooklyn College, City Tech, and BMCC, 2015 44
xiii
CHAPTER 1
Situating College Students and Technology
Abstract All US college students use digital technologies in their aca-

demic work, so understanding their experience using both their personal
and campus technology is vital to supporting student success. Despite a
widely held view of college students as “digital natives” proficient in the
use of digital technology, undergraduates do not all share the same
technology background or own and use technology to the same extent.
Further, the mainstream media focuses on the experiences of residential
students at research-intensive or private colleges and universities, though
commuter and nontraditional students make up the majority of US under-
graduates. Using qualitative methods and insights from the social sciences,
this study at the City University of New York explores how commuter and
nontraditional students are actually using technology for their
coursework.
Keywords Undergraduates Commuter students Nontraditional

students Digital technology Digital literacy Digital divide Student
experience
Chandni1 is an 18-year-old sophomore at New York City College of

Technology (City Tech) who we met in fall 2015 when she participated
in our study of how students use technology for their academic work.
Majoring in liberal arts, Chandni lives in Queens and attends college full
© The Author(s) 2017 1

M.A. Smale, M. Regalado, Digital Technology as Affordance and
Barrier in Higher Education, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-48908-7_1
2 DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY AS AFFORDANCE AND BARRIER IN HIGHER EDUCATION
time, commuting to her classes at City Tech in Brooklyn 4 days a week.

Her commute begins at about 8:30 a.m. when she gets on a crowded
subway train for the 45–60-minute trip to school. In the mornings, she
tries to spend her commute reading course materials or studying notes on
her smartphone, though on the rare occasion that she gets a seat she
sometimes takes a quick nap to catch up on sleep. Her phone is light-
weight enough that she can study even standing up on a crowded train,
reading and reviewing her course materials. Sometimes she buys her
course textbooks, and sometimes she borrows a reserve textbook from
the library, but she never brings the heavy books to school, preferring to
use her phone’s camera to take and store pictures of the pages she needs to
read. To use her phone for studying without internet access, she told us,
“Since I don’t have wifi underground, I screenshot certain things that
I need to study.”
On the day we spoke with her, Chandni headed first to the City Tech
library’s computer lab to work on a paper for her child psychology course,
which she finished and printed in between her other classes. She usually
studies either in the library or in one of the campus computer labs. While
she does have a computer at home, she told us that she couldn’t use it
because “it’s totally messed up because of some virus issue, so I have to get
pretty much everything done at school.” Her sister also has a computer
but won’t let her use it; while Chandni has a tablet computer, she only
uses it occasionally to type up short assignments in the notepad application
since it doesn’t have a word processing application. Chandni always prints
on campus as there is no printer for her to use at home.
At 7:00 p.m., after finishing with her day on campus going to classes,
studying, and hanging out with friends, Chandni heads back to Queens
for her part-time job as a tutor for high school students in her neighbor-
hood. By the time she gets home around 11:00 p.m. that night, her
parents and two siblings are winding down their days. She eats some
dinner before settling into a session of math homework—both with her
textbook and with internet videos to help her work through challenging
concepts—punctuated by talking with friends on her phone. Chandni
shares a one-bedroom apartment with her family and finds it easier to do
her academic work at school since space at home is limited. As well, she
told us that when she studies on her bed it’s easy to fall asleep. In fact,
studying at home is so challenging that she sometimes makes the
90-minute round trip commute into City Tech to use computers, study,
and do homework even on a day when she doesn’t have any classes.
1 SITUATING COLLEGE STUDENTS AND TECHNOLOGY 3
As we see in Chandni’s story, access to and use of digital technology is an

integral feature of the student experience of higher education in twenty-first-
century USA. However, despite the tech-savvy image propagated by the
media, not all American college students own and use digital technology to
the same extent.
In this book, we explore college students’ lived experiences in using
digital technology for their academic work: both in and out of class, both
on and off campus. We consider students’ uses of technology in support of
their coursework—personal computers, mobile devices, and printers—rather
than digital technology use in the classroom. We show that the ways in which
undergraduates use digital technology go beyond checking their grades on
the learning management system or emailing a professor. In particular, we
examine how students—and especially urban commuter students—use digi-
tal technology to create space and time for their schoolwork. At the same
time, digital technology can present unanticipated barriers to students that
impede their academic work and restrict their opportunities for making space
and time for themselves. Understanding how students use digital technology
in the context of their coursework is crucial for colleges and universities to
better support students in their academic careers.
DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY IN HIGHER EDUCATION

There is no question that computing and mobile devices in particular are
thoroughly integrated into our lives, and no less in the realm of higher
education. A recent article claims, “Digital technology is the fabric of
nearly everything associated with teaching and learning” (Brown 2015,
18). From ubiquitous word processing to online course registration to
accessing library databases from home, students, faculty, administrators,
and staff rely on a wide range of computing devices and related applica-
tions in practically every aspect of the higher education endeavor. Digital
technology is also found in the classroom proper, with computer-enabled
podiums, projection screens, and full computer classrooms. Learning
management systems can augment and extend the classroom as well as
provide a platform for online courses. The possibility that a US under-
graduate could move through her college career without being required to
use digital technology in support of her coursework has vanished in the
last decade.
A number of themes are notable in the American conversation on digital
technology in higher education. Most recently, the potential for information
technology to provide a more customized experience for students—“a

learning ecosystem that is responsive and can be personalized”—has been
claimed to encourage student success (Brown 2015, 18). The possibilities
for using student data collected by the institution, by learning management
systems, and by other technology used by students have initiated a conversa-
tion on the potential benefits of learning analytics, defined as “analytics
aimed at learner profiling, a process of gathering and analyzing details of
individual student interactions in online learning activities” (Johnson et al.
2016, 38). Digital technology can provide immediate feedback on assign-
ments and assessments, as well as more targeted interventions such as alert-
ing a student and her advisor if the student’s grade drops. The potential for
these and other innovations in teaching, pedagogy, and student affairs to
contribute to academic persistence and graduation rates is often highlighted
in discussions of digital technology in higher education.
Given its ubiquity in our society, mobile digital technology is also
assumed to be integral to the future of higher education. Recent surveys
from the Pew Research Center (Pew) reveal that most college students in
the USA own at least one mobile device, typically a smartphone (Smith,
Rainie and Zickuhr 2011). While the level of integration of students’
personal mobile devices into their education varies widely across and
within institutions, the availability of wireless internet access on campus
all but guarantees that students who own these devices will use them at
school (diFilipo 2013). Mobile devices have been promoted as a cost-
effective way to incorporate students’ own devices into higher education,
for example, some faculty have experimented with ways to integrate
smartphones into classes as student polling or response technology
(Kelly 2015b, 5). Portable computing may also aid in personalization
efforts by facilitating more immediate contact with students. Overall,
institutions are encouraged to “broker services that help students, faculty
and staff assemble the right portfolio of technology, services and resources
to accomplish their work, no matter whether they are ‘owned’ by the
institution or not” (Kelly 2015a, 2).
A great deal of ink has been spilled about digital technology in higher
education in the mainstream news media (Davis 2014; Lewin 2011),
information technology trade publications (Will 2016; Brown 2015),
and higher education media (Blumenstyk 2016; Kim 2016). Reports
and white papers that discuss trends and predictions in information tech-
nology in higher education appear at least annually (Johnson et al. 2016;
CDE 2014). While some reports of trends, predictions, and new products
do acknowledge some of the constraints of digital technology in higher

education, they are most often wrapped in strongly positive language,
often with little consideration of possible negative aspects of technology
in colleges and universities (Dahlstrom et al. 2015). The media fore-
grounds the corporate perspective in information technology and its
focus on the next big thing in gadgets, insisting, for example, that
“consumer technology trends are driving the enterprise, with the indivi-
dual student the primary driver of product” (Kelly 2015a, 5). As well,
many institutions’ strategic plans reference these trends.
THE TROPE OF THE DIGITAL NATIVE

Many current and future plans for digital technology on campus are
predicated on a generally accepted view of college students as “tech
savvy,” which both fuels a sense of inevitability and undergirds assump-
tions about student success. A pervasive concept in current discussions of
digital technology in higher education is the trope of the “digital native.”
The term was originally coined by Prensky (2001) to describe college
students who had grown up with ubiquitous digital technology: compu-
ters, video games, and the internet. Inherent in the trope of the “digital
native” is the belief that college students in the twenty-first century are
fundamentally different from those who came before, and that their skill
and competency with digital technology is a given, to be assumed. Like
the technology enthusiasm discussed above, the trope of the digital native
is widely accepted and is now a common feature of many mainstream and
educational news media discussions of education at all levels, from ele-
mentary through post-secondary. The breadth of acceptance of the idea-
lized digital native college student can also be seen in its inclusion in
strategic plans at many colleges and universities.
Its pervasive acceptance notwithstanding, the concept of the digital native
has been problematized by many researchers and with increasing frequency
in recent years, who argue that there is little evidence to support it (Selwyn
2014a, 75–78; Wright et al. 2014, 136). Despite what seems like constant
connection to friends and family via text messaging and social networks,
students’ experience of and preparation for using technology in their
academic work is uneven. Research has shown that not all undergraduates
use digital technology the same way or feel equally comfortable with the
technology they must use, especially for their academic work. A recent
survey from the EDUCAUSE Center for Education and Analysis (ECAR)
found that undergraduates expressed a desire to increase both their basic

technology skills and their proficiency with specific applications for their
academic work, findings that “challenge the notion that students inherently
know how to use technology” (Dahlstrom and Bichsel 2014, 34). The
potential consequences of misunderstanding student preparation or access
to digital technology are all too real because assumptions inherent in
the rhetoric of digital natives can set students up for failure. As Lanclos
(2016) has noted, “If your university philosophy is grounded in assump-
tions around digital natives, education and technology, you’re presupposing
you don’t have to teach the students how to use tech (sic) for their
education.”
Unrealistic expectations about what college students know and are
prepared to do with digital technology may especially affect undergradu-
ates who have had limited access and training during elementary and
secondary school (Bennett and Maton 2010; Rideout and Katz
2016, 39). Students from economically disadvantaged households typi-
cally have less access to digital technology in their homes as computers and
internet access may be cost-prohibitive for them and their families
(Bennett and Maton 2010, 5; Rideout and Katz 2016, 5–6). A recent
study found that students from “families with the lowest incomes and
where parents have less education” have the weakest digital skills, which
puts them at a disadvantage in using technology in college compared to
students from more economically or educationally privileged backgrounds
(Rideout and Katz 2016, 5–6). Lack of experience in using digital tech-
nology for academic work is cause for concern. Research points to a
“second-level digital divide” wherein students may lack skills in using
the digital technology they do have access to, pointing out that “profi-
ciency matters” (Hargittai and Hinnant 2008, 109). Indeed, a survey of
the literature found that there is evidence for “the crucial role of digital
skills in differentiating internet users’ opportunities to enhance their life
chances” (Hsieh 2012).
THE PROBLEM OF POSITIVITY IN DISCUSSIONS

OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY
Scholars have expressed concern with the relentlessly positive ways that
academic and news media portray digital technology in higher education.
Selwyn (2010; 2014b) notes that many publications uncritically celebrate
the benefits of digital technology for education, including “assumptions

within the education community that digital technologies . . . are reconfigur-
ing substantially the processes and practices of education” (68; 199). Watters
concurs and extends this critique to suggest that we in higher education are
often drawn to think “that technology is inevitable, that technology is
wrapped up in our notions of progress, and that somehow progress is
inevitable itself and is positive” (Young 2016). Discussions of the opportu-
nities that digital technology can offer for individualized and self-paced—as
well as self-motivated—learning at colleges and universities, and in locations
and at times that are most convenient to the student, are among the most
pervasive (Brown 2015, 18; Selwyn 2014b, 199–200).
However, research has shown that students do not always use digital
technology for the full range of experiences that are theoretically possible
and are often not deeply engaged in individualized and self-paced learning
(Henderson et al. 2015, 9–10). For example, the excitement several years
ago over the emergence of the MOOC—massive online open courses that
promised to make self-directed higher education more widely available—
has given way to the reality of low course completion rates and the
subsequent reconfiguration of many MOOCs as a path for job skills
training (Lewin 2012; Watters 2015). Selwyn (2012) reminds us that
technological determinism—the assumption that more technology
makes things better—is both “misleadingly reductive” and also ignores
“gender, race, social class, identity, power, [and] inequality” (83). He has
consistently called for more critical studies of the use of digital technology
in education and suggests that more research is needed to explore the ways
that digital technology is actually being used by students and in higher
education more broadly (for further discussion, see Selwyn 2014b, Selwyn
and Facer 2013, and Selwyn 2010).
We too are concerned that the realities of digital technology use in
education are more complex than is generally assumed and “include basic
questions of equality and diversity concerning who is (and who is not)
doing what with which digital technologies” (Selwyn 2014b, 209). To
what degree are unqualified positive views of digital technology shifting
the responsibility for ownership of, access to, and competencies in this
technology onto students, who may or may not be able to take them on?
Many of the structures of higher education replicate systemic inequalities
of our broader society, and while the use of digital technology by college
and university students may ideally be intended to resist and dismantle
these inequalities, it may reinforce them instead.
Media attention to digital technology in higher education is especially

focused on elite residential colleges and universities, and very little
research has examined the ways that students at universities like our own
City University of New York (CUNY)—public, urban, commuter colleges
with a large and socioeconomically diverse population of undergraduates
—use technology to accomplish their schoolwork. To resist the often
unchecked enthusiasm for academic technology and the digital native
trope and to convey a clearer picture of the complexities, successes, and
frustrations of being an undergraduate today, we present a case study of
our research into students’ everyday lived experiences using technology
for their academic work.
NONTRADITIONAL AND COMMUTER STUDENTS IN THE USA

Higher education in the USA is almost universally portrayed through the
experience of students ages 18–24 at residential colleges and universities
living on campuses well provided with dormitories, libraries, laboratories,
and athletic facilities. But despite this outsized presence in the mainstream
news and entertainment media, not all students fit the traditional model of
transitioning directly from high school to a 4-year, residential institution
(Casselman 2016; Brown 2016; Johnson 2013; McMillan Cottom 2013).
In fact, residential undergraduates represent a very small percentage of the
total number of students in college, and most US undergraduates are non-
traditional students, or commute to classes, or both. Community colleges—
which typically lack residence halls—educate nearly half of all students in the
USA, and many public 4-year institutions also have substantial numbers of
commuters and nontraditional students (AACC 2016).
The U.S. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES 2015) uses
the following set of attributes to define a nontraditional college student:
Being independent for financial aid purposes, having one or more depen-
dents, being a single caregiver, not having a traditional high school diploma,
delaying postsecondary enrollment, attending school part time, and being
employed full time. (1)
In 2011–2012, fully 74% of US undergraduates “had at least one non-

traditional characteristic” as defined by NCES. This percentage has held
relatively constant over the past two decades: the proportion of nontradi-
tional students was 70% in 1995–1996 (1).
About 85% of US students commute to college (Dugan et al. 2008,

283). While the category of commuter student encompasses much het-
erogeneity, “they are distinct from resident students in a fundamental
way: for them, home and campus are not synonymous” (Jacoby and
Garland 2004, 62). Residential status is not considered a characteristic
of nontraditional students, though there is significant overlap between
nontraditional and commuter students. Overall commuter students are
more likely than residential students to be of the first generation in their
families to attend college, to be older than traditional college-aged stu-
dents, to work more hours, and to attend college part time (Newbold
et al. 2011, 149–151; Kuh et al. 2001, 5). They may live with family
members or dependents, with roommates, or alone (Dugan et al. 2008,
284).
The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE 2016) divides
commuter students into those who live within walking distance and
those who live further than walking distance from campus, a distinction
that may accommodate students who begin their college careers by living
in a residence hall and subsequently move to housing off campus.
However, the distinction between driving and walking students is less
relevant in an urban setting in which driving may be less likely and public
transportation is readily available (Clark 2006, 3). Commuting to campus
on mass transit may provide students with an opportunity to work on
schoolwork, as opposed to students who drive to college. The commute to
campus can be a significant investment of students’ time and has been
found by a number of researchers to define and shape the experiences of
commuter students in college; indeed, “the act of commuting in itself is a
prominent feature of commuter students’ college experience” (Jacoby and
Garland 2004; Clark 2006, 3).
The characteristics of both nontraditional and commuter students
can raise barriers to success. Nontraditional students often have multi-
ple life roles—student, worker, caregiver—that can affect the amount of
time available for their academic work. Further, nontraditional students
“can be vulnerable to challenges that can affect their well-being, levels
of stress and satisfaction, [ . . . ] and likelihood of persisting and attain-
ing a degree” (NCES 2015, 1). Researchers concur that students who
commute are much more likely than residential students to have multi-
ple life roles, and that the nonacademic demands of their lives impact
their experiences as college students differently than for residential
students (Clark 2006). Commuter students have been shown to
minimize the amount of time they spend on campus and may be less
involved in college-related activities (Newbold et al. 2011, 144). When
they are on campus, many commuter students spend much of their
time negotiating obstacles, including finding places to create academic
and nonacademic space (Clark 2006).
With growing urban populations nationwide and around the world, the
urban, commuter, nontraditional student is the present and the future of
undergraduate education (Florida 2016). It is critically important for
administrators, faculty, and staff to understand these students’ experiences
in order to best support them through their college careers. If digital
technology can be used to add flexibility of time and space to students’
academic work, nontraditional and commuter students may especially
benefit from its affordances (and be impacted by its barriers). To under-
stand the use of digital technology by undergraduates for their academic
work, especially nontraditional and commuter students, we undertook a
study at our own institution, the City University of New York, the largest
urban public university in the USA.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT: THE CITY UNIVERSITY

OF NEW YORK
Student demographics at CUNY reflect the university’s mission to provide

affordable opportunities for higher education to historically underserved
populations in New York City. Further, CUNY’s diverse urban student
body represents the future of American demographics: more racially and
ethnically diverse, older, and increasingly urban (United States Census
Bureau 2012a, b). The roots of CUNY lie in the Free Academy, founded
in 1847; CUNY was established as a multi-institution university in 1961
(CUNY 2016). In fall 2015, the university enrolled 245,279 undergrad-
uate students at seven senior (baccalaureate) colleges, four comprehensive
colleges, seven community colleges, and one fully online college, as well as
29,078 graduate students across a number of schools and programs
(CUNY OIRA 2016e). The university has a long history of open admis-
sions for students. Currently, the community colleges and some programs
in the comprehensive colleges have open admissions, while there is greater
selectivity at the senior colleges. Transfer rates within CUNY are high and
many students begin their studies at a community college before transfer-
ring to a senior college (Wrigley 2010).
Undergraduates at CUNY mirror the extraordinary diversity of New

York City demographics. In fall 2014, 37% of undergraduates were born
outside of the mainland USA, and 43% of undergraduates spoke a home
language other than English. Self-reported races and ethnicities of under-
graduates in fall 2014 were 30.7% Hispanic, 26.1% black, 23.1% white,
19.8% Asian, and 0.3% American Indian/Alaska Native. Many CUNY
undergraduates can be appropriately described as nontraditional students:
26.7% are over the age of 25, 35.1% attend college part time, and 30.2%
work at a job more than 20 hours per week. Just over 42% of students at
the CUNY colleges are in the first generation of their families to attend
college; 38.5% report a household income of less than $20,000 per year,
and 57.9% receive Federal Pell Grants to cover some or all of their college
tuition (CUNY OIRA 2015).
CUNY schools are located throughout all five boroughs of New York
City. Our research involved three senior colleges, Brooklyn College, The
City College of New York (City College), and Hunter College; one com-
prehensive college, New York City College of Technology (City Tech);
and two community colleges, Bronx Community College (Bronx CC) and
Borough of Manhattan Community College (BMCC). In 2009–2010, we
undertook a pilot study at Brooklyn College and City Tech, our home
campuses, and we expanded to the additional four colleges in 2010–2011.
We also completed a follow-up study in 2015–2016 at Brooklyn College,
City Tech, and BMCC. The CUNY Office of Institutional Research
(CUNY OIRA 2016a, c, d, e) collects information about CUNY colleges
and students that provides useful background to our study.
Of the three senior colleges where we did this research, two are located
in Manhattan (City College, Hunter College) and one in Brooklyn
(Brooklyn College). All three offer programs in the liberal arts and
sciences and professional studies; each also serves a smaller population of
master’s students.2 In general, students at these three colleges are more
likely to attend college full time and somewhat more likely to have an
annual household income over $20,000 than students at the other col-
leges we visited. The one comprehensive college in our study, City Tech,
located in downtown Brooklyn, is the technical and professional college of
CUNY, offering associate and baccalaureate degrees. Students there are
more likely than at the three senior colleges to attend college part time and
to be the first generation of their family in college. Two community
colleges, BMCC (located in Manhattan) and Bronx CC, both offer associ-
ate degrees in the liberal arts and sciences that prepare students for transfer
to a baccalaureate college, as well as a range of pre-professional associate

degrees. BMCC and Bronx CC students are more likely than those at the
three senior colleges to be part-time students, to have a household income
of less than $20,000 per year, as well as to be the first generation in their
family to attend college.
CUNY is a commuter institution, and just over 77% of CUNY students
are New York City residents. While there are residence halls at six of the
senior colleges, they house less than 5% of CUNY undergraduates, and
some are actually privately owned dorms with students from a variety of
institutions. Some residence halls are located off campus and require
students to take public transportation to get from the dorm to their
campus. Each of the three senior colleges in our study has one residence
hall; City Tech does not, and, like most community colleges in the USA,
BMCC and Bronx CC also do not have residence halls.
Mass transit can be empowering for all New Yorkers including CUNY
students; it is far less expensive to travel throughout the city on subways
and buses than it is to own and park a car. All CUNY campuses are
accessible via public transportation. Data from CUNY student surveys
reveals that slightly more than half of CUNY students commute between
30 and 60 minutes each way (Table 1.1), while about a quarter each have
commutes shorter than 30 minutes and longer than 60 minutes (CUNY
OIRA 2016a). Note that, depending on the number of days per week
students must come to campus, this may be considerably more than the
average length reported by the NSSE of 5 hours per week for full-time
college seniors who commute (NSSE 2011, 15). While the majority of
CUNY students commute to college from the five boroughs of New
York City, some live in the surrounding suburbs; our interviews suggest
that these students are on the upper end of the time required for travel
to campus.
Table 1.1 CUNY students’ commute time to campus

(CUNY OIRA 2016a)
0–30 minutes 24%
30–60 minutes 52%
60–90 minutes 19%
90+ minutes 5%
RESEARCH METHODS AND DATA ANALYSIS

Our own backgrounds in anthropology and current work as academic
librarians led to our interest not only in student interaction with the
college library, but also each student’s experiences in the broader context
of her life as a student. As a result, our findings bridge research on student
use of libraries and broader studies of the undergraduate experience,
complementing and extending them.
In analyzing and discussing our data, we draw on theories of space and
time from the social sciences to understand how students use their digital
technology to produce and negotiate academic space, enabling us to con-
sider students in their environment, both on and off campus, to help make
sense of the everyday student experience. In our research, we have asked
students about the role that digital technology plays in their schoolwork. We
learned that sometimes these computing devices serve as affordances, allow-
ing and making it easier for students to complete their work, while at other
times technology is a barrier and source of frustration for them. For the
purposes of this study, we build on definitions of affordance by Gibson and
more recent technology scholars and will use it to refer to the activities that
digital technology makes possible in order to explore the ways in which
students use those computing devices in support of their academic work.
The term affordance was first used by Gibson (2014, originally 1979)
to refer to what it is possible to do with or in an object or environment.
Gibson suggests that the most basic affordances of an object or environ-
ment are generally obvious, and that people modify objects and the
environment in ways that are beneficial to them (56–60). Gibson further
differentiates between objects that are attached and detached and the
different affordances each allows, and especially the option for detached
objects to be portable (57). More recently, researchers have used the
concept of affordances to examine the varied possible uses—and limits—
of technology by different users, the “consideration of the obvious mate-
rial enablements and constraints of technologies” (Selwyn 2012, 89).
These uses are dependent on both the properties of the technology itself,
what the technology makes possible, as well as the abilities, interests, and
training of the user (Neff et al. 2012, 300–301; Faraj and Azad
2012, 251). As Davis (2015) has noted, the concept of affordances applied
to digital technology “give(s) us language to address the push and pull
between technological objects and human users as simultaneously agentic
and influential.”
We have found it useful to differentiate between digital technology that

is mobile and that which is fixed, aligning with Gibson’s use of detached
and attached. We discuss the ways in which students take advantage of
these technologies as well as how they are prevented from doing some-
thing they need or want to do with both mobile and fixed digital technol-
ogy, barriers that may take many forms. Discussions of affordances and
barriers can help us to understand the active role that mobile and fixed
digital technology brings to bear on the creation of space and time for
schoolwork by our students.
The student experience with technology is not a static interaction with
a device. Rather, it is dynamically constructed by the student within her
environments and with different purposes over time.
De Certeau (1984) describes a distinction between place and space that
helps contextualize our analysis (117). He proposes that a place is a
location that has a defined meaning or purpose constituted by socially
derived rules—the bus, the library, the living room—with both implicit
and explicit understandings about its purpose and what represents accep-
table behavior there. It is the activities that occur in these places, both in
the present moment and successively over time, which produce them as
meaningful spaces (117). In other words, space is what we make of a place.
For example, a student may sometimes use her bed, a place, as a study
space by bringing her laptop and books to it. The presence of many
students studying in the academic library establishes and confirms a shared
understanding of the library as a place for study. However, activities that
constitute a space may or may not be congruent with the intended purpose
or the set of rules for that location, and incongruous activities can under-
mine the rules, implicit or explicit, as when overt socializing leads to a
“party” atmosphere in the library.
Ingold’s (1993) notion of taskscape illuminates each student’s experi-
ence of navigating places and constructing them as academic spaces, and
using digital technology to create meaningful academic spaces for herself.
Ingold—an anthropologist by training—coined the term taskscape to
describe “the temporality of the landscape,” suggesting that “as the land-
scape is an array of related features, so, by analogy, the taskscape is an array
of related activities” (158). Ingold further posits that taskscapes are by
necessity social, “because people, in the performance of their tasks, also
attend to one another”; thus, “the taskscape exists not just as activity but as
interactivity” (160, 163; italics in the original). It also follows that multi-
ple actors may be simultaneously engaged in creating different kinds of
meaningful spaces in the same place, creating the possibility of conflict

over who can define how the space in particular locations is used.
The academic taskscape encompasses the totality of the student experi-
ence, including students’ perceptions of their schoolwork, the locations
where their academic work takes place, the tools or support that are
available to them, and the people they interact with along the way. In a
typical day, a student’s academic taskscape might include time at home
reviewing study notes, traveling to campus to attend class at the college, or
going to the library to work on an assignment. The devices that students
use are critical components of the academic taskscape as well. Technology
incorporated into a student’s taskscape might include using a laptop at
home to download materials from the course website, or using a campus
computer in the library to research and download articles that she emails
to her smartphone to read on the subway or at home later.
Temporality is a critical component of the academic taskscape that
manifests itself in the time needed for academic work, including course
schedules, assignment due dates, and the academic calendar. We argue
that the temporal aspect of a student’s academic taskscape—entwined with
the affordances and barriers of the technology she uses—must be consid-
ered in decisions about institutional use of and support for digital tech-
nology for students’ academic work. How do the affordances and barriers
of technology influence decisions each student makes about where and
when to do her academic work, and how do they affect her success as a
student?
During two cycles of qualitative research with CUNY students and
faculty, we sought to understand students’ scholarly habits: how they
found space and made time to do their schoolwork independently outside
of class, including their use of digital technology for coursework, as well as
the challenges and opportunities they encountered.3
Our first cycle of research during the 2009–2011 academic years
involved a total of 178 students and 63 faculty at six CUNY colleges:
Brooklyn College, City College, Hunter College, City Tech, BMCC, and
Bronx CC. To learn about the contours of a typical school day, we asked
students to draw maps of their activities on a day they came to school,
while other students created photo diaries of objects and locations related
to academic work and scholarly habits. To learn how students approached
their course-related research, we conducted retrospective research process
interviews in which we asked students to recall the steps they had taken to
complete a recent research project. We also conducted open-ended
interviews with faculty members at each college to explore their expecta-

tions and experiences working with students on these assignments.
To continue to explore the undergraduate experience with digital
technology, we conducted a follow-up study for the 2015–2016 academic
year. This second cycle of research included 565 students and 77 faculty
from Brooklyn College, City Tech, and BMCC. To update our knowledge
of how CUNY students move through their school days, we used text
messaging to send prompts to students’ cell phones throughout one day
that asked them to report their location, activity, and affect, and subse-
quently interviewed students about their daily maps. We also conducted
brief interviews with students about their access to and use of digital
technology for their academic work. With the increase in (and enthusiasm
for, in some sectors) online and hybrid learning in higher education, we
were also interested to learn more about students’ and faculty members’
experiences in online and hybrid courses. We invited students taking
online or hybrid courses in fall 2015 and faculty teaching online or hybrid
courses in spring 2016 to complete short, open-ended questionnaires on
their use of digital technology for those courses.
All of our student and faculty interviews during both research cycles
were recorded and transcribed into text. Transcribed interview text and
questionnaire responses were coded to elucidate common themes in the
interviews and responses to facilitate further analysis.
ORGANIZATION OF THIS BOOK

In the next three chapters, we discuss CUNY students’ use of digital
technology for their academic work and its effects on their use of time. In
Chapter 2, we explore the ways in which the immobile nature of fixed
digital technology defines opportunities for students to use it, especially
urban commuter students. While fixed technology may seem far less flexible
than mobile computing and may represent a financial investment that
institutions would prefer not to make, it also has many affordances for
students. The potential for mobile digital technology to enable students
to create space and time for their academic work is both attractive and
promising, especially since many students already own at least one mobile
device. In Chapter 3, we will show that, while mobile technology offers
many affordances, especially in light of fixed barriers, this more recently
developed technological model also introduces barriers for students. In
Chapter 4, we consider the temporal component of student taskscapes.
Digital technology—mobile or fixed—can be used by students to create

time; however, it can also function as a time constrictor, making it difficult
for students to accomplish their academic work. While time is an important
factor in the academic lives of all college and university students, there
are several reasons that time may be more critical to consider for nontradi-
tional and commuter students. We conclude in Chapter 5 that it is impor-
tant for all who are invested in higher education—faculty, staff, and
administrators—to understand students’ use of digital technology, most
especially the interplay of technology and time in students’ taskscapes, so
that we may take action and make the best decisions about technology on
campus to support students’ success in their academic work.
NOTES
1. A pseudonym.
2. In fall 2015, Brooklyn College enrolled 3,203 graduate students, City
College enrolled 2,577, and Hunter College enrolled 6,368.
3. Here, we briefly present our methods of research and data analysis; a more
detailed description is available in Appendix.
REFERENCES
AACC (American Association of Community Colleges). 2016. “2016 Fact Sheet.”
American Association of Community Colleges. http://www.aacc.nche.edu/
AboutCC/Documents/AACCFactSheetsR2.pdf.
Bennett, Sue, and Karl Maton. 2010. “Beyond the ‘Digital Natives’ Debate:
Towards a More Nuanced Understanding of Students’ Technology
Experiences.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 26(5): 321–331.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00360.x
Blumenstyk, Goldie. 2016. “Same Time, Many Locations: Online Education Goes
Back to Its Origins.” Chronicle of Higher Education, June 14. http://chroni
cle.com/article/Same-Time-Many-Locations-/236788.
Brown, Jessie. 2016. “Shifting Policy to Support the ‘Typical’ College Student.”
Ithaka S+R (blog), August 14. http://www.sr.ithaka.org/blog/shifting-pol
icy-to-support-the-typical-college-student/.
Brown, Malcolm. 2015. “Six Trajectories for Digital Technology in Higher
Education.” EDUCAUSE Review, July/August: 16–28. http://er.educause.
edu/~/media/files/article-downloads/erm1541.pdf.
Casselman, Ben. 2016. “Shut Up About Harvard.” Five Thirty Eight, March 30.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/shut-up-about-harvard/.
CDE (Center for Digital Education). 2014. Intelligent Campus: Innovative Tools
in Education Increase Efficiencies. Folsom, CA: Center for Digital Education.
http://www.centerdigitaled.com/paper/Intelligent-Campus-Innovative-
Tools-in-Education-Increase-Efficiencies.html.
Clark, Marcia Roe. 2006. “Succeeding in the City: Challenges and Best Practices
on Urban Commuter Campuses.” About Campus 11(3): 2–8.
CUNY (City University of New York). 2016. “About CUNY.” City University of
New York. http://www.cuny.edu/about.html.
CUNY OIRA (Office of Institutional Research and Assessment). 2015. A Profile of
Undergraduates at CUNY Senior and Community Colleges: Fall 2014. New
York: City University of New York. https://cuny.edu/about/administration/
offices/ira/ir/data-book/current/student/ug_student_profile_f14.pdf.
–––. 2016a. 2012 Student Experience Survey. New York: City University of New
York. https://cuny.edu/about/administration/offices/ira/ir/surveys/stu
dent/SES2012FinalReport.pdf.
–––. 2016b. 2014 Student Experience Survey. New York: City University of New
York. https://cuny.edu/about/administration/offices/ira/ir/surveys/stu
dent/SES_2014_Report_Final.pdf.
–––. 2016c. Undergraduate Enrollment by Degree/Non-Degree Status, Full-time/
Part-Time Attendance, and College, Fall 2015. New York: City University of
New York. https://www.cuny.edu/irdatabook/rpts2_AY_current/ENRL_
0002_DSTAT_FTPT.rpt.pdf.
–––. 2016d. Total Enrollment by Residency and Colleges: Percentages, Fall 2015.
New York: City University of New York. https://www.cuny.edu/irdatabook/
rpts2_AY_current/ENRL_0045_RES_TOT_PCT.rpt.pdf.
–––. 2016e. Total Enrollment by Undergraduate and Graduate Level, Full-time/
Part-time Attendance, and College, Fall 2015. New York: City University of New
York. https://www.cuny.edu/irdatabook/rpts2_AY_current/ENRL_0001_
UGGR_FTPT.rpt.pdf.
Dahlstrom, Eden, D. Christopher Brooks, Susan Grajek, and Jamie Reeves.
2015. ECAR Study of Students and Information Technology, 2015.
Louisville, CO: ECAR. http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ss15/
ers1510ss.pdf.
Dahlstrom, Eden, and Jacqueline Bichsel. 2014. ECAR Study of Undergraduate
Students and Information Technology, 2014. Louisville, CO: ECAR. https://
net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ss14/ERS1406.pdf.
Davis, Donn. 2014. “Why Colleges Should Stop Splurging on Buildings and Start
Investing in Software.” Washington Post, October 13. https://www.washing
tonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2014/10/13/why-colleges-should-
stop-splurging-on-buildings-and-start-investing-in-software/.
Davis, Jenny. 2015. “A Short History of Affordances.” Cyborgology, July 13.
http://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2015/07/13/a-short-history-of-
affordances/.
De Certeau, Michel. 1984. The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley: University of

California Press.
diFilipo, Stephen. 2013. “The Policy of BYOD: Considerations for Higher
Education.” EDUCAUSE Review, March/April. https://er.educause.edu/
articles/2013/4/the-policy-of-byod-considerations-for-higher-education.
Dugan, John P., John L. Garland, Barbara Jacoby, and Anna Gasiorski. 2008.
“Understanding Commuter Student Self-Efficacy for Leadership: A Within-
Group Analysis.” NASPA Journal 45(2): 282–310.
Faraj, Samer, and Bijan Azad. 2012. “The Materiality of Technology: An
Affordance Perspective.” In Materiality and Organizing: Social Interaction in
a Technological World, ed. Paul M. Leonardi, Bonnie A. Nardi, and Jannis
Kallinikos, 237–258. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gibson, James J. 2014. “A Theory of Affordances (1979).” In The People, Place,
and Space Reader, edited by Jen Jack Gieseking, William Mangold, Cindi Katz,
Setha Low, and Susan Saegert, 56–60. New York: Routledge.
Hargittai, Eszter, and Amanda Hinnant. 2008. “Digital Inequality: Differences
in Young Adults’ Use of the Internet.” Communication Research 35(5):
602–621. http://www.eszter.com/research/pubs/A25.Hargittai.Hinnant-
DigitalInequality.pdf
Henderson, Michael, Neil Selwyn, and Rachel Aston. 2015. “What Works and
Why? Student Perceptions of ‘Useful’ Digital Technology in University
Teaching and Learning.” Studies in Higher Education 2015: 1–13.
doi:10.1080/03075079.2015.1007946.
Hsieh, Yuli Patrick. 2012. “Online Social Networking Skills: The Social
Affordances Approach to Digital Inequality.” First Monday 17: 4. http://first
monday.org/article/view/3893/3192
Ingold, Tim. 1993. “The Temporality of the Landscape.” World Archaeology
25(2): 152–174.
Florida, Richard. 2016. “The Reality of America’s College Towns.” CityLab,
September 8. http://www.citylab.com/housing/2016/09/americas-big
gest-college-towns/498755/.
Jacoby, Barbara, and John Garland. 2004. “Strategies for Enhancing Commuter
Student Success.” Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and
Practice 6(1): 61–79. doi:10.2190/567C-5TME-Q8F4-8FRG.
Johnson, Jenna. 2013. “Today’s Typical College Students Often Juggle Work,
Children, and Bills with Coursework.” Washington Post, September 14.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/todays-typical-college-
students-often-juggle-work-children-and-bills-with-coursework/2013/09/
14/4158c8c0-1718-11e3-804b-d3a1a3a18f2c_story.html.
Johnson, Larry, Samantha Adams Becker, Michele Cummins, Victoria Estrada,
Alex Freeman, and Courtney Hall. 2016. NMC Horizon Report: 2016 Higher
Education Edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium. http://www.
nmc.org/publication/nmc-horizon-report-2016-higher-education-edition/.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
vallan perille. Minä seisoin tielläsi ja sinä syöksit minut kumoon. Nyt
on lähinnä tielläsi Gösta Erkinpoika, ja hänenkin sinä kumoat — jos
vain enää ehdit siihen, mutta siit' en ole varma…
Hän ratsasti taaksepäin pari askelta ja antoi lähinnä oleville

sotamiehille merkin. — Seiso takanani, Gunnar! huudahti
harpunsoittaja, asettui pojan eteen ja veti miekkansa, kun
ratsumiehet tempasivat omansa. Neljä paljastettua kalpaa välkkyi
kuutamossa, yksi alempana, kolme ylempänä… yksi hyökkääjistä
keikahti satulasta… epätoivon kirkaus kuului pojan suusta… ryhmä,
jossa iskuja ja pistoja oli vaihdellut, hajautui, ja tiellä, askelen päässä
kaatuneesta soturista, makasi harpunsoittaja, verissä päin ja rinta
lävistettynä, kumnoonajetun poikansa päällä, vielä kuolemassa
suojellen häntä ruumiillansa.
*****
Tuskin oli tämä tapahtunut, kun talonpoikaispukuinen, vahvasti

asestettu mies, ajoi paikalle selkähevosella etelästä päin. Hän tiesi,
keitä kohtasi, sillä hän ratsasti suoraan Tuure herraa kohden,
mainitsi hänen nimensä, viittasi edelläajajaa, joka tahtoi häneltä tien
sulkea, väistymään, ja sanoi pontevalla äänenpainolla, osottaen
oikealle päin: poiketkaa tästä syrjäpolulle ja heti! Muuten hukka perii
teidät. Neljännespenikulmaa tästä on Slatten väki sulkenut tien, ja
toinen, hevosilla ajava joukko on siinä paikassa kintereillänne!
— Kuka sinä olet?
— Metsäläinen, jonka Slatte tänään ajoi luotansa, ja kerran se

mies, joka riistää Smoolannin Slatten kynsistä. Taidatpa jo tietää
kuka olen nimeltäni ja mikä kyvyltäni. Minulla on vyössäni sinulta
kirje.
— Niilo Dacke!
— Sama mies. Seuraa minua!
Dacke ratsasti metsäpolulle. Herra Tuure Jönsinpoika miehineen

seurasi hänen jälkiään.
XXI.
LAURI MAISTERI SLATTEN LUONA.
Gudmund mestari ja hänen tyttärensä eivät tulleetkaan Veksjöhön.

Se tiedettiin kirjeistä, joita sieltä oli tullut. Näyttipä siis luultavalta, että
he olivat joutuneet Slatten haltuun. Stigamon isäntä luuli nähneensä
heidän kulkevan siitä sivutse kolmannen matkalaisen seurassa. Sen
koommin heistä ei ollut kuulunut ei näkynyt mitään.
Margareeta rouva oli hädissään heidän kohtalostaan, ja vielä

suurempi hätä hänelle tuli, kun Lauri lausui velvollisuutensa vaativan
häntä lähtemään heitä etsimään.
Arvelu, että Slatte oli heidät vienyt, varttui pian huhuksi, joka
varmaan vakuutti näin käyneen. Mutta mistä saataisiin opas
osottamaan tietä rosvo-Odenin pesälle? Lauri muisti, että Fabbe,
kesäkiertolainen, tarkemmin kuin kukaan tiesi erämaat ja
kulmakunnat penikulmain laajalta Jönköpingin ympäristöillä, muistipa
hänen kehuneen kerran käyneensä Slattenkin tykönä. Lauri lähti
Talavidiin ja kuulosti sepänsälliä. Birgit ilmotti, ettei häntä ollut viime
viikoilla näkynyt, mutta arvatenkin hän oli pian takaisin odotettavissa.
Kesti jonkun aikaa, ennenkuin hän tuli; mutta tuli hän sentään, jopa
ajaen Slatten älykkään Stig hevosen selässä. Ja kun Lauri äänellä
semmoisella, ikäänkuin hän osottaisi Fabbelle erityistä armoa, lausui
tahtovansa häntä oppaaksensa matkalle tuon kuuluisan
rosvopäällikön luo, sanoi Fabbe siihen suostuvansa, mutta lisäsi,
etteivät kaikki Slattelassa käytyään kiitelleet kauppojansa.
Kauniina toukokuun aamuna nousivat he hevosten selkään

Gudmund mestarin pihalla. — Ohoh! kuinka kaunista tääll' on tehty,
sanoi Fabbe ja katseli ihmettelevin silmin ympärilleen. Vanha lehmus
on korjattu tuosta pois romustamasta ja kesän virkistävää
päivänpolttoa vähentämästä. Poissa on se vanha tulitupa, joka seisoi
siinä kerskuen jykevimmillä seinähirsillä mitä milloinkaan olen
nähnyt. Kai ne vain pakanain noitaluvut saivatkin muinaisaikana
hirttä niin vankaksi kasvamaan. Poissa on myös kopeilemasta se
rauta-aitaretkale ja sijalla seisoo yksinkertainen, aistikas lauta-aita.
Älkää millään mokomin maalauttako sitä, herra maisteri! Koirat
viihtyvät yhtä hyvin maalaamattoman aidan laidalla, eivätkä ihmiset
tahraa maaliin vaatteitaan. Neitsyt Maaria, Vidrik Valandinpoika ja
luultavasti myöskin kodon tonttuäijät ovat menneet matkoihinsa.
Täytyikö teidän kiistää ne luvuilla menemään, vai muuttivatko
ilmankin? Vai menivät lukematta! Ja pajatko nyt tyhjinä? Olipa jo
aikakin, kun vasarat tääll' ovat jyristelleet pari sataa vuotta… Niin,
senpä sanoitte oikein, että sälleistä enimmäkseen oli tullut kelvotonta
väkeä, uudestakastajia j.n.e. Ei semmoinen joukko sopinut olemaan
teidän kattonne alla. Kiitos, hyvä rouva Margareeta, hyvästä
eväskontista, joka mukaan saadaan! Kyllä sen kanssa juttuun
tullaan… Kiitos, että teidän siunauksistanne pirahtaa piskanen
mullekin kelvottomalle! Älkää olko levoton! Kyllä Lauri maisteri, jos
Jumala suo, palaa eheänä ja terveenä ja toimitetuin asioin, joskin
vähän matkasta rasittuneena.
*****
Maisterin matkasta Slattelaan kerrottakoon vain että hän lyhenteli

sitä niillä näillä ajatuksilla ja pitensi sitä lintuja ammuskelemalla.
Niihin kysymyksiin, joilla hän Fabbelta tiedusteli Slattea ja hänen
olokohtiaan, sai hän tyydyttämättömiä vastauksia. Rosvopäällikön
uskonnosta Fabbe ei tiennyt sen hituistakaan, mutta otaksui hänen
aina sunnuntaisin käyvän kirkkoa. Juttu, että kaarneet mielellään
laskeusivat istumaan hänen olkapäilleen ja raakkuivat hänen
korviinsa, oli arvattavasti totta; ne tahtoivat kai tällä tavalla kiittää
häntä kaikesta hyvästä mitä hän niille hirsipuihin ripustaa. Mitäkö
ihmisiä hän hirttää? Keitä konnina pitää, vaikka ne tuomarien,
lautamiesten ja muitten kunniallisten mielestä näyttävätkin siksi
kunniallisilta että ovat rauhaan jätettävät. Kuinkako suuria lunnaita
tuo vaatinee Gudmund mestarista ja Margitista, jos ovat hänellä
vankeina? Siitä ei voi arvata mitään, saadaan nähdä. Kuinkako
vanha hän on? Hän näyttää ikivanhalta, mutta ei vielä
saamattomalta. Josko hänen käytöksensä on tavallisen talonpojan ja
häntä on semmoisena kohdeltava? Hänellä on talonpojan, mutta
harvinaisen talonpojan käytös, ja hän tyytyy kyllä antamaan ja
saamaan talonpoikain kesken käypää kohteliaisuutta — siis
kohtalaisen karkeaa ja suoraa.
Lauri ajatteli itsekseen: jos minä voin hänen mieleensä vaikuttaa…

jos saan hänet taivutetuksi puolelleni… jos saan käytettäviini hänen
valtansa vaikuttaa kansaan, mitä kykenenkään vasta toimittamaan
kirkon ja pyhän opin hyväksi! Silloin pyhyydenraastaja Gösta
Erkinpoika vaviskoon!
Lauri oli taitava ampumaan sekä jousella että pyssyllä.

Kolmantena matkapäivänä ajoi hän lammikon reunaa, jonka
ruovostossa nokikana kutsueli puolisoaan, ja kohta nähtiin ne uivan
riki-rinnoin. — Nuo kaksi ovat kylläkin onnelliset, sanoi Fabbe. Lauri
astui satulasta maahan, heitti ohjakset sepänsällille ja koppasi
kaarensa. — Maisteri Lauri, lupaatteko minulle opastajaisten verosta
säästää nuo aviopuolisot?
— Huuti! Sanotko sinä elukoita aviopuolisoiksi?
— No, olkoot sitte aviottomia puolisoja. Säästäkää ne! Ne

tarvitsevat toisensa metsän yksinäisyydessä. Mutta jos teidän
välttämättä täytyy ampua, niin tappakaa molemmat ja älkää jättäkö
toista eloon toisen jälkeen.
— Huuti, mies! Älä hassutuksias jaarittele! Ei mikään Lauria

pahemmin kiukuttanut kuin puhe armeliaisuudesta eläimiä kohtaan.
Hän näki siinä kiellettävän oppia luonnon kirouksesta sekä sala-
iskulla tähdättävän ijäisiä helvetinrangaistuksia — ja häntä itseään.
Yhäti karvasteli hänen mielessään kuritus, jonka hän pienenä
poikana oli saanut isänsä kädestä eläinten hätyyttämisestä.
— Maisteri Lauri, minulla on jotain teille sanomista. Slatte on

rauhotetuiksi julistanut kaikki vahingottomat eläimet näillä tienoin.
Hän pitää siitä ankarasti kiinni. Varokaa! Hän saa tietää mitä teette.
Ettekö kuule? Ettekö näe? Tarkotan tuota ääntä krak, krak kuusen
latvasta. Tarkotan kaarnetta, joka istuu siellä ja tähystää teitä
silmillään. Se on Slatten kaarneita. Slatte saa tietää mitä teette.
Lauri nosti ruoskaa, mutta hillitsi itsensä. Hän hiipi lammikon

rantaan. Nuoli singahti ja tappoi naaraksen.
Matka jatkui. Seutu kääriytyi sumuverhoon, josta sadetta herana

tihkuili. Oikealta puolen polkua kuului aina ehtoopuoleen yötä
surullinen — Fabben mielestä sydäntävihlova — vaikertelu ikäänkuin
nokikanan "niak". Olikohan leskeksi jäänyt lintu lähtenyt lammikolta
ja ruvennut heidän suuntaansa lentämään?
Samaa sumua kesti vielä, kun ratsumiehet, saaden siitä kiittää

Stigiä, mitään vaarallisempia seikkoja kokematta, pääsivät hyvin
asuttuun Slattelan laaksoon. Oli yö, eikä maisteri nähnyt ympärillään
juuri mitään. Olisi ollut täysin hiljaa, ellei joku koiran ulvahdus silloin
tällöin kuulunut sumun läpi. Kun Fabbe ilmotti: nyt ollaan perillä,
kuului huuhkajan ulisevaa huutoa.
Joku mies astui esiin pimeästä ja otti hevoset huostaansa. Fabbe

käveli Laurin edellä tuvan ovelle ja avasi sen. Takalta oven vieressä
huohotti pesävalkea, puolittain hiiltyneenä, vaisusti valaisten pöytää
jolle oli pantu ruokaa ja juomaa, kaappisänkyjä eli laskupenkkejä,
joille turkkia oli vuoteiksi levitetty, savipermantoa ja alastomia
hirsiseiniä.
— Tässä tulee meidän yötä viettää, sanoi Fabbe. Tämä on yksi

vierashuoneista.
— Näyttää siltä, kuin meitä olisi odotettu, muistutti Lauri; vai onko
täällä aina vierasten vara valmiina?
— Meitä on kyllä varrottu. Kaarne ehti ennen meitä perille.
— Älä joutavia lörpöttele, sen taikauskoinen elävä!… Aijotko

syödä?
Minua ei maita ruoka.
— Eikä minua. Olen liian väsynyt syödäkseni. Fabbe heittäysi

pitkäkseen toiselle penkkivuoteelle ja oli ääneti. Lauri käveli hetkisen
aikaa edes takaisin permannolla, avasi tuvan oven ja astui ulos. Aina
vain samaa heratihrua. Sen näki hän tulenhohteesta, joka valahti
vastaan oven aukosta ja heikosti punerrutti sumua. Muuten olisi ollut
edessä pilkko-pimeä. Aivan tuvanoven ääressä pohjoispuolella
kasvoi mänty, ja sen ala-oksalla roikkui jotakin, jota silmä ei helposti
selittänyt. Sieltä häämötti esiin miehen muoto, nuori mies
rantalakissa ja keihäs kädessä, sama joka otti vastaan heidän
hevosensa.
— Slatte, lausui hän Laurille, ilmotuttaa, että sinä huomenna

auringon nousun aikaan olet seisova hänen edessään.
— Onko täällä Gudmund Gudmundinpoika, aseseppä

Jönköpingistä, ja hänen tyttärensä Margit? kysyi Lauri.
— Jos sinulla on kysyttäviä, jätä ne huomiseksi, vastasi mies.
Mies meni tupaan ja otti Fabbea, joka näytti olevan

nukkumaisillaan, käsivarresta. — Tule sinä minun perässäni. Fabbe
haukotteli, poistutti itseään ja kömpi verkalleen pystyyn.
Lauri viritti päretikun palamaan ja valaisi ovesta tuota roikkuvaa

esinettä. Hän astui askelen takaperin. Hän oli nähnyt nahkakaapuun
käärityn kamalan haamun, nurin silmin, väärin suin, nuora kaulassa.
— Kuka tuo on? pääsi sana hänen suustaan.
— Sen minä tiedän, sanoi Fabbe. Se on eräs pahantekijä, joka

tuomittiin hirteen kun oli hävyttömästi omaa isäänsä rääkännyt.
— Mitä perkelettä! ärjäsi maisteri. Tietäkööt huutia! Pyydetäänkö

täällä vierasta majailemaan hirsipuun alla?
— Maassa maan tavalla, tuumi Fabbe. Jos sattuisitte nukkumaan,
ennenkuin tulen takaisin, niin hyvää yötä!
Lauri kävi taaskin permannon useampaan kertaan edes takaisin.

Hän koetti itsekseen lukea parannussaarnaa, jota aikoi pitää
Slattelle. Ei käynyt luku. Hän mietti, millä sanoin hän tarjoisi Slattelle
liittoa eräitä hankkeita varten. Ei sekään onnistunut. Hän oikaisihe
penkille ja yritti nukkua. Kului aikaa, ennenkuin unta tuli. Fabbe ei
ollut silloin vielä palannut eikä häntä myöskään näkynyt aamulla, kun
Lauri heräsi levottomasta unestaan. Aamuauringon ensi säteet
loistivat tupaan. Hän havaitsi pyhinliinan ja vesi-astian takan ääressä
ja oli paraiksi ehtinyt pestä itsensä, kun kaksi aseellista miestä,
melkein yhtä hartiakasta ja pitkää kuin hän itse, astui sisään. Toinen
ilmotti Slatten odottavan.
*****
Keskellä Slattelan saarta seisoi rinnakkain kaksi melkoisen pitkää

hirsirakennusta, joiden matalain seinien päältä korkea pystykatto
rohkeasti kohosi. Pihassa näiden edustalla näkyi ryhmittäin paljo
miehiä, mitkä jalkaväkeä, mitkä hevosen selässä. Pelkkiä rosvoja,
arveli Lauri, kummeksien hiljaisuutta joka sentään vallitsi.
Tyystemmin hän ei kuitenkaan joutanut tätä väkeä tarkastella, sillä
nuo kaksi saattajaa veivät hänet kiireesti toisen talon päätyovelle,
jonka yläpuolella hän näki naulattuna kotkan, siivet levällään. Toinen
saatturi avasi oven, ja Lauri astui sisään, muut molemmat takanaan.
Hän seisoi pitkässä salissa ja näki päädyn puolella vastapäätänsä

korotetulla laattialla liikkumattoman mieshahmon, jota valaisi
kattoikkunasta lankeava aamuvalo. Hahmo istui, keihäs pystyssä
vieressään, pöydän takana, jonka vahvat jalantolpat olivat kuvain
muotoon vuollut. Toisella kuvalla oli metallikiiltoinen
auringonsädekehä, toisella salamista tehty valokehä päänsä
ympärillä ja sotatappara kädessä. Olivatko nuo olevinaan pyhimyksiä
vai epäjumalia? Kumpina tahansa ne yhtä suuresti iljettivät Lauri
Gudmundinpoikaa. Pöydällä oli sotakirves ja sen vieressä jotain,
joka näytti kahleilta. Yläistuimen nojassa seisoi miehenmittaa
korkeampi harppu.
Oliko hahmo, joka istui yläistuimen tolppain välissä, puukuva

hänkin. Yhtä liikkumaton se oli kuin ne. Halvannäköisen rautakypärin
alla, vanhanaikuista patalakin muotoa, nähtiin isot, karkeat kasvot,
joita vaot ja rypyt ristiin rastiin uurtelivat, joiden kehänä oli harmaa,
juovittain lumivalkoinen parta ja tukka, valuen alas punaisen takin
turkinkaulukselle. Hänen silmänsäkin näyttivät alussa
liikkumattomilta, jäykästi tähystäessään tuuheiden kulmakarvain alta
muukalaista.
Lauri herra aikoi alentua kohteliaasti nyökäyttämään päätään,

mutta nyökkyystä syntyikin ehdottomasti — ehkäpä ukon silmäin
vaikutuksesta — keveä selänkumarrus, jota seurasi tervehdys:
"Jumalan rauha!"
Tervehdykseen ei vastattu, ellei se ollut vastausta, että ukko

ummisti toisen silmänsä ja katseli Lauria toisella, johon molempain
silmäin tuimuus oli yhdistynyt.
Ilkeää äänettömyyttä. Ei viittaustakaan vieraalle istumaan. Lauri

tunsi, että tässä oli alkanut hänen ja vanhuksen välillä näkymättömin
käsivarsin painiskelit, kumpi ensin saisi päältäpainin ratkaisevan
edun. Lauri oikaisi vartalonsa ja kohotti korkealle otsansa, hyvin
tietäen olevansa mies, joka oli vallinnut, pelottanut ja kukistanut
täysinäisiä kirkkoja ja yliopistonoppisaleja.
— Oletko sinä Slatte? kysyä jyristä hän tuomariäänellä.
Ei sanaakaan vastaukseksi, mutta toinen ovenvartioista kuiskasi:

Slatte.
Päivänpaiste-ruudun yli lattialla vilahti varjoja. Siitä kattoikkunasta,

joka tämän ruudunkuvan loi, räpytteli siipiä ja kurottihe esiin pari
linnunkaulaa. Kohta laskeusi kaksi kaarnetta alas pöydälle Slatten
eteen. Ne raksuttivat ja hän silitti niiden mustaa, purppuransiniseen
ja viheriään vivahtavaa sulkaverhoa. Ne lensivät istumaan
tuolintolppain päihin ja iskivät nekin silmänsä Lauriin. Varsin
kummallista! Toinen, katseltuaan häntä, päästi äänen, joka melkein
kuului kuin koiranhaukunnalta.
— Minä olen Laurentius Gudm…
— Minä tiedän kuka olet.
Puukuvasta, kun se vihdoinkin puhui, kuului selkeä, vahva, jopa

sointuisakin, vaikkei lempeä ääni.
— Laurentius Gudmundi, ja olen tullut tärkeiden asiain takia, joista

saamme kahdenkesken päättää. (Lauri osotti viittauksella, että
ovenvartiain läsnäoloa ei kaivattu), sittenkin ensin olen kysynyt
sinulta, oleskeleeko isäni Gudmund Gudmundinpoika, aseseppä
Jönköpingistä, ja hänen tyttärensä täällä luonasi, vai tiedätkö, missä
he nykyään ovat olentaa.
Lauri astui, tämän sanottuaan, muutaman askelen eteenpäin.
— Seisahda, käski Slatte.
Laurin otsa punastui vihasta. Äkisti ärjähti hän:

— Kuule sinä! Oletko niin älyä vailla vai onko se tahallista
epäkohteliaisuutta, ettet pyydä kunniavierasta istumaan? Minun
täytyy näin kysyä, vaikka olen tullut rauhanairuena enkä tahdo
kiistaa, vaan sopua itseni ja sinun välillä.
— Kunniavieras!
Omituinen ivaava kaiku yläistuimelta oli toistanut tämän sanan.

Lauri kävi taas kolme neljä askelta eteenpäin otsa pystyssä ja lausui,
pannen painoa sanoihinsa: Sinä kuulet mitä etupäässä tahdon
tietää: onko isäni ja sisareni täällä?
— Takaisin sille paikalle, johon käskin sinun seisahtaa! Minä en

koskaan käske samaa asiaa toistamiseen.
— Huuti, äijä! Luuletkos minun olevan sinun renkisi, hävytön

moukka? Vai luuletko kenties minun pelkäävän, sentähden, että
sinulla on ympärilläsi aseellisia pahantekijöitä? Silloin et tunne
minua. Ole siivolla ja puhukaamme järkevästi asioista! Se on meille
kummallekin parasta.
Slatte nousi seisaalle istuimeltaan ja astui alas salin lattialle. Hän

oli jättiläinen — puolta päätänsä pitempi jättiläistä Lauria. Hän meni
tämän luo. Kummankin kädet nousivat ja iskivät toisiinsa, sormet
sormien lomahan. Näytti siltä kuin olisivat keskenään päättäneet
eräällä tutulla tempulla koetella toistensa voimia. Lauri, joka pystyi
taittamaan poikki rautaa, teki pienen ponnistuksen, painaakseen alas
ukon käsiä. Ei onnistunut. Hän pusersi kovemmin. Ei onnistunut
vieläkään. Hän ponnisti kaikki käsivoimansa. Ei sittenkään. Hänen
täytyi supistaa tehtävänsä puolustukseen, ja minuutin tai pari voimat
molemmin puolin pysyivät tasapainossa. Miehet ovella katselivat
kohtausta, mielenjännitykseltä melkein hengittämättä. Vähitellen
maisterin kädet raukeina herposivat, ja tuskissaan purren
hampaitaan hän painui itsekin, ensin hiukan erältään, sitte äkkipikaa
kerrassaan, polvilleen.
— Noidanjuonta! karjasi hän. — Sinä olet itse perkele.
Slatte piti häntä kiinni siinä asennossa ja viittasi ovenvartioille. He

tulivat tuoden kahleet, kytkivät niihin tuon polvilleen painetun kädet ja
jalat oikaisivat hänen lattialle pitkäkseen, työnsivät kapulan suuhun,
viilsivät veitsellä auki hänen vaatteensa pitkin selkää ja paljastivat
sen. Slatte vihelsi ja kävi takaisin istuimelleen.
Sivuovesta tuli mies, vitsakimppu käsissään.
— Lauri Gudmundinpoika, sanoi Slatte; — minä olen tarkoin

tutkinut töitäsi, siitä asti kun ulkomailta palasit. Minä tunnen sinun
paremmin, paljo paremmin kuin luuletkaan. Sinä olet kauvan ollut
syytteenalaisena, juttusi on kauvan ollut esillä. Olen kuulustellut
puolueettomia todistajia ja arvoisan isäsi takia toivonut, että ainakin
joku niistä olisi kyennyt esiintuomaan lievittäviä asianhaaroja
toisellaisia, kuin mitä voidaan mainita minkä pahantekijän tahansa
puolusteeksi. Sillä kaikki pahantekijät ovat tyhmiä, silloinkin kun ovat
viekkaita kuin ketut, ja heillä on orjistunut tahto silloinkin kun heidän
tahtonsa on jättiläisvoimainen. Sinä olet tyly ihminen, ja tylyytesi on
etupäässä kohdannut isääsi. Sinua riivaa ylpeyden ja vallanhimon
pääperkele ja sinä vihaat rauhamielistäkin, kun et saa häntä
kukistaa. Olen sentähden tuominnut sinun hirtettäväksi. Mutta isäsi
tähden pääset nyt menemään tämä tuomio taskussasi, saatuasi
neljäkolmatta paria raippoja: kaksitoista isänrääkkäyksestä, joka on
likeltä lähennyt isänmurhaa; kuusi katalasta eläinten rääkkäyksestä,
kuusi siitä että olet hävitellyt muistomerkkejä, joita isät ovat
jälkeisilleen jättäneet hoidettaviksi ja opiksi. Säälien sukuasi olen
käskenyt rankaisua salassa pidettäväksi. Saat hiljaisuudessa niellä
häpeäsi, ellet halua itse julki jutella tästä ateriastasi.
Tuomio pantiin toimeen. Toinen ovenvartioistä laski lyömät. Sitten

sanoi Slatte: Kiinnittäkää sen hirtetyn isänrääkkääjän nahkakaapu
tuon olkapäille, köyttäkää hänet kiinni hänen hevosensa selkään ja
viekää hänet välissänne sellaiseen paikkaan, josta hän osaa mennä
valtatielle!
Näin päättyi maisteri Lauri Gudmundinpojan Slattelan retki.

XXII.
ITÄMAILLE.
(Skyttetorpissa, sittekun harpunsoittaja Svanten ruumis on laskettu

sinne hautakappeliin. Gunnar Svantenpoika istuu lavitsalla Margitin
jalkain juuressa ja kallistaa päänsä hänen polvelleen. Margit miettii:)
Mitä kaivannee mun rintain, miks syömmeni sykkii niin?

Itämaillepa armahintain näkemään minä rientäisin.
Ja jos käy kuten käyvän soisin Itämailta en palaa pois.
Ma Saaronin lilja öisin, min armaani taittaa vois.
Ja jos käy kuten käyvän soisin, hän kantaa mun rinnallaan.
Ja silloin olla voisin hänen silmänlohtunaan.
Surun teitä mun vie hän ja riemun luo Latsarin Kaanahan.
Valovuorelle Taborin vie mun ja merelle Galilean.
Meri käy, sen on hyrskynä pinta, soi pauhina aallokon,
mut Davidin pojan rinta kukan valkean turvana on.
Mesimarjana soisin olla, ihanaiseni poimia vaan,
mesi vuotava nautinnolla hänen armailla huulillaan.
Jyvä kypsyvä syötäväksi vain armonnälkäisten,
jost' alttaripöydältä läksi elo uus yhä uskollen.
Hänen ilmestystään kerran ylähältä ma varron vaan:
voi! konsa ma taivaan Herran kanss' yhtenä olla saan.
Ikiruumiini, sieluni liittää mun on toivoni ihanimpaan.
Hänt' tahdon ma kielin kiittää jolt' autuustoivoni saan.
XXIII.
NUORTA LEMPEÄ.
Dagny Slattentytär, Margit ja Gunnar pyrkivät eteenpäin ruuhessa

leppien ja riippakoivujen alatse, joiden varjossa puro polveili järvelle
päin heidän uimapaikalleen siellä. Kaikessa viattomuudessa ja ajan
tavan mukaan uiskentelivat he yhdessä, uivatpa joka päivä, oli sää
mikä tahansa. Gunnar ui kahdesti kolmasti päivässä huvikseen,
mutta vielä enemmin harjotellakseen uimataitoansa, jossa hän vielä
alussa kesää oli niin takapajulla, että täytyi hävetä Dagnyn rinnalla,
joka oli aimo kaukouimari. Vielä ei hän ollut pitkälle arvannut lähteä
syvälle vedelle, mutta oli tänään päättänyt koettaa.
Heleä sinitaivas, jolla ui suvihattaroita, kuvastui yhtä sinisenä

järvessä. Kaksi maailmanpuoliskoa, ylempi ja alempi, sulatettuina
näköpiirin reunasta emaljiraidalla yhdeksi eeteripalloksi, jonka
kehästä ylt'ympäriltä ulkoni esiin niemiä ja kärkiä, ilmaa päällänsä ja
allansa, puunlatvoja ylöspäin ja alaspäin.
Ruusupensaita kasvoi taajassa tuolla puolen nurmikkoa, jolle

päivänkukkia oli sirotettu. Nurmelle nuori väki riisui vaatteensa.
Ympäristön lintumaailma näkyi jo hyvin tuntevan heidät. Ei mitään
varotushuutoa kuulunut kaakottelevain heinäsorsain parvesta, jotka
poikasineen uida pulikoivat ja sukeltelivat ulpukkain keskellä
ruovikon reunassa nuolen kantamissa, kun lintujen kuuluville ehti
tyttöjen ja Gunnarin pakina ja nauru ja airojen loiske. Suovarpunen,
kiikkuen kaislan korrella veden päällä, lauloi lorunsa loppuun,
ennenkuin lähti lentoon laskeakseen alas pajupensaaseen rannalla.
Kasvot, niskat ja kädet ruskettuneina, muuten hehkivalkoisina,

kahlasi nuorta immen ihanuutta ja pojan soreutta laitoon
rantaveteen, joka päivänpaisteessa kimalteli kellervällä
hiekkapohjalla. Margit seisahtui, kun vellova vetonen valeli hänen
vyötäisiään ja suortuviaan. Dagnyn ja Gunnarin olkapäät peittyivät
välkkyvään vihmatyrskyyn, kun he, ripeillä kättenvedoilla halkeillen
veden kiiltokalvoa, uivat yhä ulommaksi.
— Mitä? Uskallatkos tulla näin kauvas, Gunnar! Se on oikein,

reipas poikani! Vielä vähän edemmäs! Mutta pysy likellä minua. Jos
väsyt, pane kätes minun hartioilleni.
He pitkittivät. Dagny näki pojan pystykkäästä asennosta, tyynestä

hengityksestä ja vilppaasta katseesta, että uintia vielä voitaisiin
jatkaa vähän matkaa.
Mutta Margit, joka jäi seisomaan hietapohjalle, katseli uintia

enenevällä levottomuudella ja häntä suututti Dagnyn kehotus, joka
selvänä kajahti hänelle ääntäjohtavaa vesikalvoa myöten. Hän huusi:
Gunnar, käänny!… Käänny takaisin!… Etkös kuule?… Käänny
takaisin! Jollet kohta käänny, niin, totta Maarian, minä annan sinulle
selkään… niin, selkään, kuules!
— Ohoh, kuules vaan Margitia! Katso taakses Gunnar! Kas vaan

kun se siellä seisoo ja räpyttelee käsivarsillaan, niinkuin kana
siivillänsä, kun sen kasvatti, ankanpoika, on karannut siltä
vesilätäkköön eikä eukko tohdi mennä perään! Oikein naurettavaa!
Mutta käännytäänpäs takaisin, ettei tuo suutu!
Kun heitä alkoi pohjata, sanoi Margit nyreästi: — Dagny, sinä teet
rumasti siinä, että houkuttelet lasta niin kauvas syvälle ja niin kauvas
minun luotani.
— Lasta! Onko neljäntoista-vuotias poika lapsi?
— Ei hän ole vielä kahtakaantoista täyttänyt
— Sen tiedän, mutt'en välitä, milloin hän on syntynyt Olen nähnyt

neljäntoista-vuotisia poikia, jotk'eivät ole niin suuria ja edistyneitä
kuin hän. En minä häntä houkutellut; hän tuli itse. Ja kaiketi hänen
pitää oppia uimaan.
— Kyllä sitä matalassakin vedessä oppii. Samahan se on, onko

jalkain alla vettä kyynärän verran vai sadan.
— Mutta hänen pitää myös oppia jotain jota ei opita matalalla

uidessa.
Hänen pitää oppia uskaltamaan ja koettelemaan voimaansa vaaran
tilassa.
— Sinäkös osaat viisastella! Sen minä vain tiedän, että jos tähän
tapaan jatketaan, ei minulla ole mitään iloa uimisista. Onko se kilttiä
sinulta jättää minut yksin tänne? Olihan meidän niin hauska
ensipäivinä, kun ilakoimme ja loiskimme täällä yhdessä kolmisin.
Voiko kauniimpaa permantoa ajatella kuin tämä hietapohja? Niin
pehmoinen, vieno ja puhdas, ja katsos päivän valokiemuroita, jotka
siinä vilotteievat!
— Hauskaa oli, sanoi Gunnar, mutta nyt tekee kuitenkin mieleni
uimaan ulommas. Minä tahdon uida yhtä hyvin kuin Dagny ja
paremminkin.
Tänään uimatoverit eivät kirmailleet päälleen pukiessa, niinkuin

muulloin tekivät, kun lähtivät juoksemaan siepaten vaatteita toisiltaan
tai tekivät milloin mitäkin kujeita. Gunnar kun näki tyttöjen olevan
pahalla tuulella ja kina mielessä, heitti verhot ylleen ja kiirehti pois
polkua myöten pitkin puron pengertä ja heilimöivän ruispellon
reunaa, jossa sinikaunot koreilivat ja Gorm tuli häntä vastaan,
häntäänsä hieputellen.
Lähtiessään rannalta, tytöt eivät kävelleet käsikädessä eikä pitäen

toistaan vyötäisistä.
— Dagny, kun näin sinut ensikerran, näytit mielestäni jäykältä,

ylpeältä poikanulikalta, joka tahtoo muka miehenä uljastella.
— Vai niin! Hyvänpä vaikutuksen teinkin minä mieleesi. Ja kun

minä sinut ensikerran näin, näytit sinä minusta tyttömäiseltä, ja
koska luonnossani on joku määrä poikaa, pelästyin sitä
mahdollisuutta, että ehkä vielä rakastuisin sinuun. Olinkin jo
rakastumaisillani, mutta onneksi siitä ei sen enempää tullut.
— Seuraavana yönä uneksin sinusta, Dagny. Olimme

seisovinamme järven rannalla. Sinulla oli tuo punalakki päässäsi ja
lyhyt hame ylläsi; kasvosi, käsivartesi ja sääresi olivat ruskeat kuin
intiaanin. Sinä vedit kaksi piirtoa hietaan ja kysyit, jaksaisinko minä
hypätä yli välimaan. En jaksanut, mutta sinä otit kädestäni ja me
lentää harppasimme siitä yli kauvas toiselle puolen. Mitä se uni
merkinnee, en tiedä, mutta sitten olin rakastua sinuun. Voi kuinka

Textbook Digital Technology As Affordance and Barrier in Higher Education 1St Edition Maura A Smale Ebook All Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Textbook Digital Technology As Affordance and Barrier in Higher Education 1St Edition Maura A Smale Ebook All Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digital Technology as Affordance and

Barrier in Higher Education 1st Edition

Disruptive Technology Enhanced Learning: The Use and

Digital Storytelling in Higher Education: International

English as a Medium of Instruction in Higher Education

Employability via Higher Education Sustainability as

Race Politics and Education in Brazil Affirmative

Sustainability in Higher Education 1st Edition Davim

Until You Off Limits 1 1st Edition Catharina Maura

Fixing Higher Education A Business Manager s Take on

ISBN 978-3-319-48907-0 ISBN 978-3-319-48908-7 (eBook)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016957751

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017

Cover illustration: Cover pattern © Harvey Loake

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

We are indebted to the 743 students and 140 faculty we interviewed or

anonymous peer reviewers who provided us with thoughtful feedback for

1 Situating College Students and Technology 1

2 College Students and Fixed Technology 23

3 College Students and Mobile Technology 41

4 College Students, Technology, and Time 57

5 Recommendations for Technology in Higher Education 73

Appendix: Research Methodology 89

Fig. 2.1 Off-campus internet access for CUNY undergraduates, 2010

Table 1.1 CUNY students’ commute time to campus (CUNY OIRA

Situating College Students and Technology

Abstract All US college students use digital technologies in their aca-

Keywords Undergraduates Commuter students Nontraditional

Chandni1 is an 18-year-old sophomore at New York City College of

© The Author(s) 2017 1

time, commuting to her classes at City Tech in Brooklyn 4 days a week.

As we see in Chandni’s story, access to and use of digital technology is an

DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY IN HIGHER EDUCATION

technology to provide a more customized experience for students—“a

do acknowledge some of the constraints of digital technology in higher

THE TROPE OF THE DIGITAL NATIVE

found that undergraduates expressed a desire to increase both their basic

THE PROBLEM OF POSITIVITY IN DISCUSSIONS

the beneﬁts of digital technology for education, including “assumptions

Media attention to digital technology in higher education is especially

NONTRADITIONAL AND COMMUTER STUDENTS IN THE USA

In 2011–2012, fully 74% of US undergraduates “had at least one non-

About 85% of US students commute to college (Dugan et al. 2008,

INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT: THE CITY UNIVERSITY

Student demographics at CUNY reﬂect the university’s mission to provide

Undergraduates at CUNY mirror the extraordinary diversity of New

to a baccalaureate college, as well as a range of pre-professional associate

Table 1.1 CUNY students’ commute time to campus

RESEARCH METHODS AND DATA ANALYSIS

We have found it useful to differentiate between digital technology that

meaningful spaces in the same place, creating the possibility of conﬂict

interviews with faculty members at each college to explore their expecta-

ORGANIZATION OF THIS BOOK

Digital technology—mobile or ﬁxed—can be used by students to create

De Certeau, Michel. 1984. The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley: University of

Hän ratsasti taaksepäin pari askelta ja antoi lähinnä oleville

Tuskin oli tämä tapahtunut, kun talonpoikaispukuinen, vahvasti

— Kuka sinä olet?

— Metsäläinen, jonka Slatte tänään ajoi luotansa, ja kerran se

— Sama mies. Seuraa minua!

Dacke ratsasti metsäpolulle. Herra Tuure Jönsinpoika miehineen

LAURI MAISTERI SLATTEN LUONA.