{"id":1298,"date":"2011-07-19T02:54:43","date_gmt":"2011-07-19T02:54:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/duenos.net\/?p=1298"},"modified":"2011-07-19T02:54:43","modified_gmt":"2011-07-19T02:54:43","slug":"1298","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/jeffginger.com\/blog\/1298\/","title":{"rendered":"Digital Literacy"},"content":{"rendered":"

Ordinarily when I say digital literacy, I am careful to premise it with the descriptors critical<\/i> and creative<\/i>, terms that, upon first impression, might seem a little ambiguous. After all, each word has at least two meanings. In this case the use of the word critical could give the impression that this is an essential or important incarnation of digital literacy, and I would argue it very well may be, but my main intention is to invoke the analytic meaning of the word: to interrogate, deconstruct and discern value. Likewise creative is often read in the sense of creativity, the process of hatching worthy and original ideas, which actually would lend itself to the critical component, which requires some measure of divergent thinking. Instead I don\u2019t require that creative include uniqueness or discovery, just conscientious construction of objects and ideas, with the possibility that they may also be innovative or even deviant. Such distinctions provoke a preamble, this section jumps into digital literacy as it is seen in recent literature and lands squarely in the definition that inspires[G1]<\/a> my proposal[G2]<\/a> .<\/p>\n

\n

Defining Literacy[G3]<\/a><\/h3>\n<\/div>\n

Literacy finds many different definitions in varying contexts, but one of the most globally conscious, as well as universally adopted, is that is put forth by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO 2004):
\nLiteracy is the ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate and compute,[1]<\/b><\/a> using printed and written materials associated with varying contexts. Literacy involves a continuum of learning in enabling individuals to achieve their goals, to develop their knowledge and potential and to participate fully in their community and wider society.
\nIn presenting this definition UNESCO (2004, 2005) thoughtfully positions literacy as a set of social practices rather than a singular skill, and elevates it to the level of a human right (the right to education[G4]<\/a> , UNESCO 2005). It suggests that meaningful acquisition and application of literacy provides the basis for positive social transformation, justice, and personal and collective freedom. Although this characterization establishes desired outcomes that match those of the ideological component of Cyberpower the UN report purposely restricts their focus [G5]<\/a> to text and written materials. It is at this juncture where digital literacy comes into play.
\nIn the vernacular, literacy often is taken to be equivalent to competency, proficiency or functionality, and is often affixed to other words to create compound meanings[G6]<\/a> , such as information literacy, (new) media literacy[G7]<\/a> , and stranger and debatable pairings, such as emotional literacy.[2]<\/a> Digital literacy is another one of these duos, and like the others it has a surrounding body of literature and discourse. However, I think it stands apart[G8]<\/a> because it is well-positioned to appropriately frame research on libraries, information technology and empowerment, as will be explained.
\nMany definitions of digital literacy have turned up over the course of the past two decades, but they can generally be sorted into two major categories: (1) conceptual (abstract) definitions, often advocacy-laden, and (2) \u201cstandardized sets of operations intended to provide national and international normalizations\u201d (Lankshear and Knobel 2006:21), or, more simply, comparable described[G9]<\/a> skills. In a sense this is just theory and application, but the examples are so numerous and vague that they become difficult to track, especially when someone is seeking to determine which theory leads to which application. Even still, digital literacy research is largely international,[3]<\/a> which makes direct comparison and universal classification difficult, and the majority of it seems to be focused on youth enrolled in K-12 education,[4]<\/a> which delivers an incomplete view of the issue. Reviewed here is not a comprehensive or catch-all literature review of all \u2018digitally\u2019 associated literacies [G10]<\/a> but instead a simpler concrete and outcome-oriented alignment of commonalities found in several apprehensions and models of digital literacy that I think are important[G11]<\/a> . In other words, this framework provides the basis for my research approach.<\/p>\n

\n

In the Abstract<\/h3>\n<\/div>\n

Conceptual definitions of digital literacy include a call for an alteration of the media and mode limitation seen in the aforementioned UN articulation: reading and writing with physical text. Some interpret this as broadly as the ability to comprehend information however it is presented physically, no matter how complex[5]<\/a> (adapted from Lanham 1995[G12]<\/a> ), while others provide a new concentration as a stipulation: the ability to understand, evaluate and organize information represented through ICTs (among the first to propose this was Gilster[6]<\/a> 1998, there have been many others since). The field of New Literacy Studies is so bold as to suggest that digital literacy[7]<\/a> is a facet of entirely \u2018new literacies\u2019 and that though these literacies include practices mediated by post-typographic forms of text[G13]<\/a> they also inherently involve social behaviors and patterns, such as being \u2018participatory,\u2019 \u2018collaborative,\u2019 or more \u2018distributed\u2019 (Lankshear and Knobel 2008, Jenkins et al. 2006, Mills 2010, Hague and[G14]<\/a> Payton 2010). Such practices may dramatically transform the production of knowledge (Warschauer 2010); this implies that new sets of cultural or social relations may be necessarily represented through information sharing and expression with ICTs. Stated differently, it could be said that these new social practices are value-laden, and these values can get intertwined with the process and medium of ICTs.
\nThe power digital literacy, to some extent, actually lies in its flexibility and lack of strong structure. In the 80\u2019s scholars grappled with the idea of computer literacy, and later, in the 90\u2019s they incorporated a broader view of information literacy (Bruce 1994, 1997). Bawden (2008) explains that the roots of digital literacy are interrelated to a host of other terms: library literacy (Bawden 2001), network literacy (McClure 1994), informany (Neelameghan 1995), mediacy (Inoue, Naito, and Koshizuka 1997), and e-literacy (Martin 2003, 2005). Though the objective is not to create one master form of digital literacy, Lankshear and Knobel (2008) suggest that a view of digital literacies (plural) is appropriate, and can account for the underpinnings of traditional text literacy, computer literacy, background knowledge, central competencies like knowledge assembly, and attitudes or perspectives, like independent learning.
\nAs a result, digital literacy is notably situated in related sociocultural debates (Koutsogiannis 2007, Williams 2003), topics like textual design [G15]<\/a> and multimodality (Kress 2003[G16]<\/a> , Kress & Van Leeuwen 2001), the trajectory of education in the global information age (Cope & Kalantzis 2000[G17]<\/a> , Luke & Carrington 2003), what forms or adoption processes the social practices of literacy take (Lankshear and Knobel 2008),[8]<\/a> and in envisioning new media as potential sites or environments of learning (Gee 2004). This discourse may be, in many cases, a reproduction of previously-encountered literacy debates (Collins & Blot 2003), and a great deal of the extant reports on digital literacy could stand to benefit from integrating a broader range of disciplinary perspectives.[9]<\/a> Conversations too far removed from practice may give insufficient attention to cultural tradition, the role of identities[G18]<\/a> and local economic[G19]<\/a> factors, to the point where we may fall into the trap of reinforcing digital capitalism, in a variation on a broader theme of the digital divide (Pieterse 2005, Koutsogiannis 2007). Despite all of this, the rhetoric does illustrate the sheer assemblage of ideologies on the topic, as well as the powerful interdisciplinary constituency of scholarship.<\/p>\n

\n

In Application<\/h3>\n<\/div>\n

The fragmented theory from the numerous academic disciplines surrounding digital literacy are inherited in its application in research; many measures of digital literacy exist in recent publications. Similar to education and other intersections of humanities topics and social science, digital literacy seems to be most often measured in two ways: (1) in terms of flexible (qualitatively described) examples and typologies[G20]<\/a> of best practices as well as (2) specifically measured aptitudes and behaviors, usually seen in the performance of tasks .
\nA complete review of studies employing these types of measures is beyond the scope of this paper. Instead, reviewed here are two exemplars that give an idea of the ways conceptions of digital literacy might be applied.[G21]<\/a>
\nFirst is the model for participatory culture discussed by Jenkins\u2019 et al. (2006). In their report the authors argue for the existence of an emerging culture tied to digital literacy, described as having \u201crelatively low barriers to artistic expression and civic engagement, strong support for creating and sharing one\u2019s creations, and some type of informal mentorship whereby what is known by the most experienced is passed along to novices\u201d (Jenkins et al. 2006:3) The authors suggest that the recipe for participatory culture includes many social practices connected to engagement with ICTs, such as affiliations in online communities, digital expressions and circulations, and distributed problem-solving. They see this social action as related fundamentally to other challenges, such as digital inclusion and participation, transparency of information, and the question of ethics in the proliferation of new media. Out of this they draw a set of skills and cultural competencies and give examples that include teaching scenarios and encouragement for best practices. For instance, they describe transmedia navigation, \u201cthe ability to deal with the flow of stories and information across multiple modalities\u201d (Jenkins et al. 2006:46) by presenting the case of Pok\u00e9mon, a fictitious set of creatures for which there is no single core source of information. Children learn about Pok\u00e9mon by following stories of their experiences and characteristics in a variety of mediums with different affordances and systems of representation, including card games, television, videogames and websites. Though Pok\u00e9mon appear in many contexts, children still have a grasp of who and what they are. The application of digital literacy seen here is helpful in that it constructs useful and flexible categories and instances of social practice, but without chaining them to specific information technologies.
\nSecond, Eshet-Alkalai and Hamburger (2004) and Eshet-Alkalai and Chajut (2009) introduce a compelling model in their operationalization of digital literacy as testable skills[G22]<\/a> : photovisual literacy, reproduction literacy, branching literacy, information literacy, socioemotional literacy, and real-time thinking skills. Their series of studies (2004, 2009) featured a sample comprised of a diverse group of participants controlled for age, education and socioeconomic variables. They demonstrated the testing of digital literacy skills through verifiable and reliable tests over time, but with sufficiently complicated tasks. For instance, participants were challenged to use a word processor to modify the meaning of text by rearranging its parts. The work involved included an understanding of connotation, grammar, and composition as well as knowledge of the interface and comfort with hardware manipulation. In comparison to other simpler measures of digital literacy, such as knowing how to send an email,[10]<\/a> the authors more effectively capture digital literacy in its context: while they might pay more attention to technical aptitudes and cognitive abilities with regards to certain variables, they acknowledge the complexity and embeddedness of technology use. Knowing how to send an email has as much to do with knowing what or how to write and grasping the cultural norms of the people using your domain of the internet as it does using a mouse or navigating Gmail.
\nWhat makes these examples powerful is their emphasis on surrounding context and application-oriented research. They are also in need of one another. Jenkins et al. don\u2019t present metrics that work well with operationalized (hypothesis testing) research and evaluation and Eshet-Alkalai, Hamburger and Chajut remain constrained to cognitive models that don\u2019t take enough of the wisdom of cultural literacy studies [G23]<\/a> into account. Research on digital literacy more generally falls in with the same trap[G24]<\/a> : how to balance giving sufficient attention to informing theory and at the same time establishing and testing comparable and valid models or measures.<\/p>\n

\n

Establishing the Terms: Critical and Creative Literacy<\/h2>\n<\/div>\n

A valuable digital literacy framework lies in a combination of insights from the field of research reviewed above. Digital literacy is best understood as a fuzzily bounded <\/b>[G25]<\/a> <\/b>and dynamic set of social practices that foster critical social awareness, as well as measurable knowledge of and command over relevant digital tools<\/b>. This is what is meant by the qualified critical<\/i> and creative<\/i> digital literacy[G26]<\/a> , and I think this combination, is the most likely to affect the arrangements and production of Cyberpower.<\/p>\n

Critical<\/b> social awareness [G27]<\/a> is the component that keeps this model outcome-oriented[G28]<\/a> . It is not unlike the objectives of critical pedagogy (Finn 1999): educators must work vigorously to decipher and dismantle the oppressive structure that has come to characterize modern stratified education and push for authentic dialogue between teachers and learners[G29]<\/a> . This need for a critical mindset goes beyond teaching young students in schools, extending to people of many ages and cultures,[11]<\/a> and also beyond the domain of skill acquisition\u2014to aiding learners in becoming aware of their right (and capability) to transform reality (Freire 1998). In order to empower[G30]<\/a> literacy should be an avenue for individuals to better understand how their identity and agency rely on and produce cultural forms. Contemporary introductory sociology classes refer to what is essentially the same concept when they teach students about C. Wright Mills\u2019 (1959) Sociological Imagination<\/i>: critical consciousness of the relationship(s) between experiences, of individuals and communities, to social structures and processes.<\/p>\n

In other words, people become consummately digitally literate by approaching ICT tools critically,[12]<\/a> and this process deals with a moving target. What has been liberating literacy in the past\u2014simply knowing how to read\u2014has become domesticating literacy\u2014a requirement to be plugged in to the system, but not command power within it\u2014now (Finn 1999), and there is no reason to think this trend will not continue. I would posit leveraging the web is the new facet of this issue. People ought to engage in making sense of information access, communication and production tools in terms of their relevant fundamentals:<\/p>\n