e
What does it mean to be 'digitally literate'?
A pragmatic investigation.
Doug Belshaw
Ed.D. Thesis
University of Durham
Ed.D. Thesis
University of Durham
Introduction: what is 'literacy'?
"All human activity is subject to habitualization. Any action that is
repeated frequently becomes cast into a pattern, which can then be
reproduced with an economy of effort and which, ipso facto, is apprehended by the performer as that pattern." (Berger & Luckmann, 2002:42)
Human beings are tasked with making sense of the external world. We feel the need to decipher and communicate oft-repeated experiences and sensations, allowing other minds to share the same (or similar) conceptual space to our own. For example, research in Phenomenology tells us that two individuals may have two markedly different sensations when viewing a red pillar box. If, however, they agree on the category 'pillar box' to refer to approximately the shape they see before them, and that the colour sensation they are experiencing shall be called 'red', then meaningful discourse can ensue. All human communication must begin in this manner. We train toddlers and young children to be able to understand the world around them by allowing them to use the constructs we ourselves use. These constructs we largely inherited from our parents, and they from their forebears. There comes a need, however, in each generation to create and agree upon new ways of understanding the world. This can be as a result of natural changes in the environment, new (disruptive) technologies, or some other way - usually involving politics or economics - that alter human relationships.
Almost every living thing has found a way of communicating in real-time its understanding of the world through sounds and/or gestures. For information and meaning to be disseminated when the information-giver is not present, however, requires a different approach. Language must be coded into symbols that can be formed into (what humans know as) words and sentences. The person wishing to understand the information and meaning disseminated must be able to decode the symbols used. It is akin to giving someone a locked box: they must have the correct key in order to unlock it.
Literacy, then, for the purposes of this thesis, includes the ability to decode symbols used for the purpose of disseminating information and meaning. But literacy has traditionally been seen as being more than this, as the 'ability to read and write'. That is to say, the individual must have the means not only to decode but encode symbols for the for purpose of disseminating information and meaning. In the physical sphere when we are dealing with printed or written documents, this is straightforward; deciding who is 'literate' or 'illiterate' is relatively unproblematic.
Why 'relatively unproblematic'? -Doug Belshaw 02/10/2009 05:18
Why 'relatively unproblematic'? -Doug Belshaw 02/10/2009 05:18
Members of every culture and society have the world of everyday experience mediated by technologies, traditions and cultural norms or expectations (Petrina, 2007:168; Achterhuis, 2001:71). This shapes what counts as being 'literate' within that society. I, for example, cannot use a quill pen in the same way a medieval monk would in order to create a manuscript. He, likewise, would be baffled by QWERTY keyboard upon which I am currently typing. The medieval monk uses a technology relevant to his time period to produce culturally-relevant documents in a particular idiom. I, in the 21st-century, do likewise.
Defining literacy in relation to the tools used to encode and decode the symbols involved can therefore be difficult. Theorists must ensure that literacy is not defined so broadly so as to include almost any activity, but not so narrow that it is almost impossibly prescriptive. 'Literacy' must apply equally to instant, informal electronic communications and the creation of formal, written, laboriously-created documents that have been handed down through generations. That is to say a balance must be found so that technologies used in the past as well as those that shall be used in the future for reading and writing are included within definitions of 'literacy'.
Given that technology opens up new possibilities and opportunities for communication it can be difficult to decide what the product of encoding symbols should be known as. For example, is the following informational diagram a 'text'?
The diagram does, after all, require 'decoding' and interpreting. To the non-specialist who is without the tools to do so it is akin to a foreign language. The same, it could be argued, goes for paintings, maps and web pages. Many thinkers Example? -Doug Belshaw 02/10/2009 05:23 have sought to avoid this problem by being as inclusive as possible with the term 'text' giving, in effect, 'literacy' a metaphorical aspect. For example, Gee, Hull & Lankshear (1996:1-2, quoted in Lankshear & Knobel, 2008:5) boil 'literacy' down to reading something:
This metaphorical use of 'literacy' has the knock-on effect, however, of creating an unfortunate elision between the 'functional' aspect of literacy (skills of reading and writing) and the 'evaluative' aspect (what is culturally valued) becomes apparent.
(taken from Wikipedia article on Cell Respiration)
The diagram does, after all, require 'decoding' and interpreting. To the non-specialist who is without the tools to do so it is akin to a foreign language. The same, it could be argued, goes for paintings, maps and web pages. Many thinkers Example? -Doug Belshaw 02/10/2009 05:23 have sought to avoid this problem by being as inclusive as possible with the term 'text' giving, in effect, 'literacy' a metaphorical aspect. For example, Gee, Hull & Lankshear (1996:1-2, quoted in Lankshear & Knobel, 2008:5) boil 'literacy' down to reading something:
Whatever literacy is, it [has] something to do with reading. And reading is always reading something. Furthermore, if one has not understood [made meaning from] what one has read then one has not read it. So reading is always reading something with understanding. [T]his something that one reads with understanding is always a text of a certain type which is read in a certain way.
The text may be a comic book, a novel, a poem, a legal brief, a
technical manual, a textbook in physics, a newspaper article, an essay
in the social sciences or philosophy, a "self-help" book, a recipe, and
so forth, through many different types of text. Each of these different
types of text requires somewhat different background knowledge and
somewhat different skills.
This metaphorical use of 'literacy' has the knock-on effect, however, of creating an unfortunate elision between the 'functional' aspect of literacy (skills of reading and writing) and the 'evaluative' aspect (what is culturally valued) becomes apparent.
To avoid the elision, as well as being as inclusive as possible with the term 'text', those considering literacy have sought to define new forms of literacy. This is true especially in areas relating to new technologies where traditional definitions of literacy seem somewhat anachronistic. From 'computer literacy' to the more recent term 'digital literacy' thinkers have attempted to carve out a form of literacy that is bounded in some way yet with a descriptive power that makes the term useful.
This thesis shall focus on the emerging concept of 'digital literacy'. It shall be my contention that, as psychologist Steven Pinker puts it, "some categories really are social constructions: they exist only because people tacitly agree to act as if they exist." (Pinker, 2002:202) Borrowing tools from the Pragmatist tradition, definitions of literacy shall be weighed and analysed as to their utility. In addition, the question shall be asked as to whether 'literacy' as a concept can, in fact, be 'dissected' in the way that some theorists believe it can. As we shall see, although a consensus is growing around the term 'digital literacy', other competing ways of describing a similar conceptual space have emerged. This is partly due to a lack of clarity over the seemingly-straightforward term, 'literacy'.
When dealing with conceptual spaces, metaphor and new ways of communicating experience and sensation, it makes little sense to talk of 'reality' and, indeed, 'truth'. More phenomenological and philosophical depth will be provided in a subsequent chapter, but it would seem clear that descriptions and talk of 'digital literacy', 'digital competence', 'digital fluency' and so on are of a different order than 'sky', 'chair', and 'lamp'. There is a qualitative difference: the first seeks to be a lens in the way the second does not. It is the lens of 'digital literacy' that this thesis shall discuss, the aim being to seek to describe the changing landscape and terminology surrounding such conceptions.
To avoid the quagmire of correspondence theories of truth (i.e. 'statements are true in so far as they correspond to the external world') and problems relating to solipsism ('all that exists is in the mind of the individual'), this thesis will employ a pragmatic methodology. The Pragmatic way of approaching the world was first suggested in the 19th century by C.S. Peirce and developed by William James. Although there are disagreements within the Pragmatist movement, James perhaps has been the clearest exponent of classical Pragmatist philosophy. He argues that there is no 'end to enquiry' and that we "must bring out of each word its practical cash-value, set it at work within the stream of [our] experience." (James, 1995:21) 'Truth,' especially when it comes to intangible definitions and somewhat nebulous concepts, becomes a fluid and almost negotiable commodity.
When dealing with conceptual spaces, metaphor and new ways of communicating experience and sensation, it makes little sense to talk of 'reality' and, indeed, 'truth'. More phenomenological and philosophical depth will be provided in a subsequent chapter, but it would seem clear that descriptions and talk of 'digital literacy', 'digital competence', 'digital fluency' and so on are of a different order than 'sky', 'chair', and 'lamp'. There is a qualitative difference: the first seeks to be a lens in the way the second does not. It is the lens of 'digital literacy' that this thesis shall discuss, the aim being to seek to describe the changing landscape and terminology surrounding such conceptions.
To avoid the quagmire of correspondence theories of truth (i.e. 'statements are true in so far as they correspond to the external world') and problems relating to solipsism ('all that exists is in the mind of the individual'), this thesis will employ a pragmatic methodology. The Pragmatic way of approaching the world was first suggested in the 19th century by C.S. Peirce and developed by William James. Although there are disagreements within the Pragmatist movement, James perhaps has been the clearest exponent of classical Pragmatist philosophy. He argues that there is no 'end to enquiry' and that we "must bring out of each word its practical cash-value, set it at work within the stream of [our] experience." (James, 1995:21) 'Truth,' especially when it comes to intangible definitions and somewhat nebulous concepts, becomes a fluid and almost negotiable commodity.
This meshes with the phenomenological account presented earlier; if we are socially-constructing what we term 'reality', then changes in human relationships will alter our conceptual 'realities' and vice-versa. Pragmatists, without needing to hold onto a correspondence theory of truth do, however, reject the notion that the conceptual and practical realms are completely divorced. As James (1995:20) puts it,
With regard to this thesis, therefore, discussions that either make no difference or could make no difference in practice shall either be only mentioned in passing or disregarded entirely. Although this constitutes a non-empirical thesis, what comes in subsequent chapters is intended to be of use and be able to inform policy-makers. Add a sentence or two about comparison of various education systems and their underlying conceptions of 'literacy' -Doug Belshaw 02/10/2009 05:35
There can be no difference anywhere that doesn't make
a difference elsewhere - no difference in abstract truth that doesn't
express itself in a difference in concrete fact and in conduct
consequent upon that fact, imposed on somebody, somehow, somewhere and
somewhen.
With regard to this thesis, therefore, discussions that either make no difference or could make no difference in practice shall either be only mentioned in passing or disregarded entirely. Although this constitutes a non-empirical thesis, what comes in subsequent chapters is intended to be of use and be able to inform policy-makers. Add a sentence or two about comparison of various education systems and their underlying conceptions of 'literacy' -Doug Belshaw 02/10/2009 05:35
For digital literacy to be a useful term it must meet certain criteria. These criteria must be derived from the more traditional overarching term 'literacy' and from literate practices. Without being grounded and bounded by this it would be difficult to see how the word 'literacy' could form part of the definition.
First, a definition of digital literacy must have explanatory power and make a difference in practice. Although by its very nature it is likely to be metaphorical in nature, the term must be 'useful in the way of belief' (James, 1995).
First, a definition of digital literacy must have explanatory power and make a difference in practice. Although by its very nature it is likely to be metaphorical in nature, the term must be 'useful in the way of belief' (James, 1995).
Second, a definition of digital literacy must deal with the retrospective nature of literacy - either by including past (and future) instances of digitally-literate practice, or by explaining why the retrospective element is not required in the digital realm. A definition must deal successfully with the historical component and legacy of the 'literacy' element of the term.
Third, any definition of digital literacy needs to explain adequately its relation to other metaphorical terms in the 'literate practices' arena. Proponents of a definition must explain whether digital literacy is a derivative term, whether it stands in its own right, what it is predicated upon, and whether it includes other 'new literacies'.
Finally, anyone wishing to define 'digital literacy' is required to explain to what the 'digital' element pertains. For example, a broad definition of 'digital' would include calculators, whereas a more narrow definition may deal solely with devices that can (for example) access the internet.
These, then, are the four conditions by which definitions of digital literacy shall stand or fall under the Pragmatic method employed in this thesis. Those who propose definitions must deal adequately and convincingly with the following elements:
These, then, are the four conditions by which definitions of digital literacy shall stand or fall under the Pragmatic method employed in this thesis. Those who propose definitions must deal adequately and convincingly with the following elements:
- 'Cash value'
- Retrospective element
- Metaphorical element
- Digital element
Literature Review
Literacy is a characteristic acquired by individuals in varying degrees
from just above none to an indeterminate upper level. Some individuals
are more or less literate than others but it is really not possible to
speak of illiterate and literate persons as two distinct categories. (UNESCO, 1957 - quoted in Holme, 2004:7)
1. Literacy is a problematic term -Doug Belshaw 31/07/2009 09:53
The concept of 'literacy' is akin to the Wittgenstinian problem surrounding the concept of a 'game': the audience is aware of what the speaker means by the term, but pinning it down in a more formal sense is extremely difficult (Hannon, 2000:36). Simply conceiving of literacy as 'the ability to read and write' not only sets up a false dichotomy (between those who 'can' and those who 'can't'), but makes no allowance for reading and writing using various tools and for different purposes. Even the Oxford English Dictionary equivocates between two definitions of 'literate': "one who can read and write' and 'a liberally educated or learned person'." 2. Attempted solutions to problem -Doug Belshaw 31/07/2009 09:53
Some, such as Holme (2004:7) use the analogy of wave/particle duality in physics to explain how 'literacy' can have more than one nature yet still be a single concept. Is this satisfactory? Does it have explanatory power? Is it 'good in the way of belief' or just a cop-out? -Doug Belshaw 05/10/2009 05:04 Holme believes there to be two central questions to the literacy debate, namely: (1) How much does one have to know about reading and writing to be literate? and (2) What does it really mean to read and to write? As Holme comments, these are seemingly simple questions yet are very difficult to answer. The first of these is a question about the importance of reflection and intention in literate practices whilst the second (of more relevance here) concerns reading and writing as (potentially) metaphorical activities.
Some, such as Holme (2004:7) use the analogy of wave/particle duality in physics to explain how 'literacy' can have more than one nature yet still be a single concept. Is this satisfactory? Does it have explanatory power? Is it 'good in the way of belief' or just a cop-out? -Doug Belshaw 05/10/2009 05:04 Holme believes there to be two central questions to the literacy debate, namely: (1) How much does one have to know about reading and writing to be literate? and (2) What does it really mean to read and to write? As Holme comments, these are seemingly simple questions yet are very difficult to answer. The first of these is a question about the importance of reflection and intention in literate practices whilst the second (of more relevance here) concerns reading and writing as (potentially) metaphorical activities.
3. Relationship of literacy to knowledge -Doug Belshaw 31/07/2009 09:54
Although not stated explicitly, Holme has a view of literacy that is predicated upon literacy's relationship with knowledge, as alluded to in his first question about the role of reflection and intention in literate practices. This is manifest in his brief treatment of concepts of 'new literacies' such as 'computer literacy':
This link between literacy and knowledge is taken up by Gunther Kress in Literacy in the New Media Age (2003) in which he asserts, "Literacy remains the term which refers to (the knowledge of) the use of the resource in writing." (Kress, 2003:24). Kress believes that the communication of ideas and meaning-making are covered by the terms 'writing' and 'speech'. Knowing how to read and write, and then actually going about doing so to communicate meaning, is something above and beyond mere 'literacy' for Kress. The 'literacy' comes from knowledge and use of computers, for example, is simply putting that knowledge into action for the purposes of communication.
Despite Kress' erudition and attempted defence of equating literacy with knowledge, problems arise. The first is perhaps best summed up by Carneiro when he states,
Although not stated explicitly, Holme has a view of literacy that is predicated upon literacy's relationship with knowledge, as alluded to in his first question about the role of reflection and intention in literate practices. This is manifest in his brief treatment of concepts of 'new literacies' such as 'computer literacy':
For example, a core feature of literacy's meaning is 'a knowledge',
often of the basic skills, of 'reading and writing'. Now we use the
term to refer simply to basic knowledge as in 'computer literacy'.
Though even more confusingly, computer literacy is also bound up with
reading and writing skills. (Holme, 2004:1-2)
The simple fact that one uses a computer does not then, for Holme, constitute a new 'literacy.' Instead, reading and writing skills (usually developed elsewhere) constitute part of what it means to be defined as 'computer literate.' Knowledge from one domain informs literate practices in another.This link between literacy and knowledge is taken up by Gunther Kress in Literacy in the New Media Age (2003) in which he asserts, "Literacy remains the term which refers to (the knowledge of) the use of the resource in writing." (Kress, 2003:24). Kress believes that the communication of ideas and meaning-making are covered by the terms 'writing' and 'speech'. Knowing how to read and write, and then actually going about doing so to communicate meaning, is something above and beyond mere 'literacy' for Kress. The 'literacy' comes from knowledge and use of computers, for example, is simply putting that knowledge into action for the purposes of communication.
Despite Kress' erudition and attempted defence of equating literacy with knowledge, problems arise. The first is perhaps best summed up by Carneiro when he states,
New knowledge is undergoing constant metamorphosis. The most important
change concerns the transition from objective knowledge (codified and
scientifically organized) to subjective knowledge (a personal
construct, intensely social in its processes of production,
dissemination and application). (Carneiro, 2002:66)
Equating literacy with knowledge is relatively unproblematic if the latter is a static concept. However, if knowledge is 'undergoing constant metamorphosis' and is social in its aspect, then literacy must be likewise. Kress assumes literacy is a fairly static concept with only the methods of communication differing. However if, as Muller (2000:2) believes, knowledge is intrinsically social, then this places pressure on conceptions of literacy that are tied to a knowledge-based definition.
Need diagram here showing Kress' view as being hierarchical with one-way traffic from knowledge to communication. Carneiro & Muller's view, on the other hand, has two-way traffic from knowledge to communication and vice-versa -Doug Belshaw 02/10/2009 05:56
- Literacy's relationship with knowledge = complex. Evaluative sense suggests having valuable knowledge (of what is read and written about), the functional sense usually relates to the skills and meta-skills of reading and writing (knowing how to read and write). Two sides of the same coin, just you are not always sure if you are looking at the head or the tails... (Steve) -Doug Belshaw 31/07/2009 17:11
- Siemens (2006) - knowledge has ‘broken away from its moorings, its shackles’. -Doug Belshaw 31/07/2009 17:36
4. Literacy as process, not state -Doug Belshaw 31/07/2009 09:54
Given these problems, others writers have contended that literacy should be understood not as a 'state' which an individual has managed to reach, but instead should be conceived as being a 'process'. Rodríguez Illera (2004) believes that we should rethink literacy in terms of 'literate practices rather than seeing it solely as learning to read and write,' that we should see it as 'a process and not only as a state, and [emphasize] its multiple character and, above all, its social dimension.' (2004:58-59)
Viewing literacy as a social process gives rise in the literature to much discussion about social and cultural practices upon which literacy may be predicated. Going back to Scribner and Cole (1981), Rodríguez Illera quotes the authors as stating that, 'Literacy is not simply knowing how to read and write a given text but rather the application of this knowledge for specific purposes in specific contexts.' This would seem to allow for Kress' concern about literacy's relation to knowledge, whilst allowing for the social context that so many writers on literacy believe to be important. What problems does literacy as a social practice raise? Does it solve any problems? -Doug Belshaw 05/10/2009 05:08
Given these problems, others writers have contended that literacy should be understood not as a 'state' which an individual has managed to reach, but instead should be conceived as being a 'process'. Rodríguez Illera (2004) believes that we should rethink literacy in terms of 'literate practices rather than seeing it solely as learning to read and write,' that we should see it as 'a process and not only as a state, and [emphasize] its multiple character and, above all, its social dimension.' (2004:58-59)
Viewing literacy as a social process gives rise in the literature to much discussion about social and cultural practices upon which literacy may be predicated. Going back to Scribner and Cole (1981), Rodríguez Illera quotes the authors as stating that, 'Literacy is not simply knowing how to read and write a given text but rather the application of this knowledge for specific purposes in specific contexts.' This would seem to allow for Kress' concern about literacy's relation to knowledge, whilst allowing for the social context that so many writers on literacy believe to be important. What problems does literacy as a social practice raise? Does it solve any problems? -Doug Belshaw 05/10/2009 05:08
5. Literacy's relation to technology -Doug Belshaw 31/07/2009 09:54
The 'proof of the pudding' in terms of whether someone can be called 'literate' is the production of texts. An illiterate person, after all, would not have the tools to be able to create such texts. Allan Luke (in Tuman, 1992:vii) gives a concise overview of the three-step process by which texts are created:
That is to say communities:
The text is co-constructed within a community, it is 'written' using one of a number of technologies, and then it is displayed. With this social aspect of literacy come several issues and problems, not least the ethnocentric problem of being 'literate' according to the norms and practices of one community, yet not so according to those in another - even another community speaking the same language. Is it enough to assume that because communities share common tools or a common language that an individual from one would be understood everybody from another? Presumably, a situation could arise where an individual was more able able to communicate with a person from a different community than one from his or her own. Would so doing constitute a new literacy or simply the using of one already established and socially-negotiated?
The second problem is that it would seem at first glance rather problematic to identify literacy as depending upon the literacy practices of a community. We talk of individuals being 'literate', not communities. This would not constitute a problem if literacy was talked about in an individual sense. If we talked of 'his' or 'her' literacy rather than as a detached, third party and almost objective state then no problem would arise. However, if literacy is somehow separate from the individual then it would seem to make sense to talk about a community being 'literate' or otherwise. This could be seen as problematic.
Third, if literacy is a 'cultural expression' (Freire & Macedo, 1987:51-52) then it would be possible to be literate at one point in a culture, but not when the culture evolves and changes. A response may be that literacy changes at the same speed as culture, meaning that individuals are not left behind by the community. However, this would lead to the problematic conclusion that an individual not from a particular time period could never be truly 'literate' in the literacy artefacts of that time. For example, whilst the average person in the 21st century may have some difficulty understanding 14th century Chaucerian language, we would still want to allow that experts could be 'literate' in the language of that time period. The same goes for Egyptian hieroglyphics.
This first of these problems is a somewat philosophical one in terms of the problem of 'other minds' - does the other person think the same thing as the creator of the text when they read it? However, on a more practical level, Welch (1999) has argued that literacy is not just the ability to read and write, but,
With literacy technologies have traditionally caught up with, and bounded, literate practices. The lack of a surface to write on other than stone limited the transportability and circulation of 'texts' produced by Iron Age hunter-gatherers, for example. The spread of ideas during the Renaissance was limited by the speed at which the technologies bounding literacy practices - in this case manuscripts and moving at the 'speed of horse' - could travel, be copied, and be disseminated. Clumsy. Re-word. -Doug Belshaw 05/10/2009 05:31
The 'proof of the pudding' in terms of whether someone can be called 'literate' is the production of texts. An illiterate person, after all, would not have the tools to be able to create such texts. Allan Luke (in Tuman, 1992:vii) gives a concise overview of the three-step process by which texts are created:
Literacy is a social technology. That is, literate communities develop
varied social, linguistic and cognitive practices with texts. These
require the development and use of implements, ranging from plumes and
ball point pens to keyboards. The objects and products of such
practices and tools are recoverable texts arrayed on tablets, notebooks
or other visual displays.
That is to say communities:
- Decide what a 'text' consists of.
- Use implements to create such texts.
- Arrange for texts to be 'recoverable' by various means.
The text is co-constructed within a community, it is 'written' using one of a number of technologies, and then it is displayed. With this social aspect of literacy come several issues and problems, not least the ethnocentric problem of being 'literate' according to the norms and practices of one community, yet not so according to those in another - even another community speaking the same language. Is it enough to assume that because communities share common tools or a common language that an individual from one would be understood everybody from another? Presumably, a situation could arise where an individual was more able able to communicate with a person from a different community than one from his or her own. Would so doing constitute a new literacy or simply the using of one already established and socially-negotiated?
The second problem is that it would seem at first glance rather problematic to identify literacy as depending upon the literacy practices of a community. We talk of individuals being 'literate', not communities. This would not constitute a problem if literacy was talked about in an individual sense. If we talked of 'his' or 'her' literacy rather than as a detached, third party and almost objective state then no problem would arise. However, if literacy is somehow separate from the individual then it would seem to make sense to talk about a community being 'literate' or otherwise. This could be seen as problematic.
Third, if literacy is a 'cultural expression' (Freire & Macedo, 1987:51-52) then it would be possible to be literate at one point in a culture, but not when the culture evolves and changes. A response may be that literacy changes at the same speed as culture, meaning that individuals are not left behind by the community. However, this would lead to the problematic conclusion that an individual not from a particular time period could never be truly 'literate' in the literacy artefacts of that time. For example, whilst the average person in the 21st century may have some difficulty understanding 14th century Chaucerian language, we would still want to allow that experts could be 'literate' in the language of that time period. The same goes for Egyptian hieroglyphics.
This first of these problems is a somewat philosophical one in terms of the problem of 'other minds' - does the other person think the same thing as the creator of the text when they read it? However, on a more practical level, Welch (1999) has argued that literacy is not just the ability to read and write, but,
an activity of the minds... capable of recognizing and engaging
substantive issues along with the ways that minds, sensibilities, and
emotions are constructed by and within communities whose members
communicate through specific technologies.' (Welch, quoted in Gurak, 2001:9)
This interaction, and indeed the ability to do so, is for Welch what makes an individual 'literate'. Note that this definition is predicated upon technology - whether that be pen and paper or digital technologies such as email. Literacy involves the ability to read and write: merely speaking about and showing an understanding of what one has read does not completely fit the criteria.With literacy technologies have traditionally caught up with, and bounded, literate practices. The lack of a surface to write on other than stone limited the transportability and circulation of 'texts' produced by Iron Age hunter-gatherers, for example. The spread of ideas during the Renaissance was limited by the speed at which the technologies bounding literacy practices - in this case manuscripts and moving at the 'speed of horse' - could travel, be copied, and be disseminated. Clumsy. Re-word. -Doug Belshaw 05/10/2009 05:31
As soon as texts could be transmitted (rather than carried) technology no longer remained a limiter to the dissemination of texts and the spread of ideas, but became a catalyst. Thus, as Standage points out in The Victorian Internet moving texts over large distances quickly and easily became a qualitative shift in communication. Since the 19th century, new and better ways of disseminating texts have been discovered, leading to a rapidly-evolving semiotic environment. In such an environment the medium becomes at least part of the message, as McLuhan famously argued.
If literacy involves not only the creation of texts but their communication, then each method of communication could be said to involve a separate literacy. Others would argue that literacy is one step removed from this and that a concept such as 'digital literacy' would, for example, cover the elements that are similar in transmitting texts via mobile phone and computers, for example.
6. Literate practices and communities -Doug Belshaw 31/07/2009 09:55
The second problem mentioned above, that of seeing as problematic literacy being dependent upon the literacy practices of a community, is dealt with more easily by thinking of communities of literacy practices. Although Carr (2003) is talking of more generic skillsets in the following, it can easily be applied to literacy and literacy practices:
Likewise, there are going to be some particular literacy practices - perhaps centering around professions or interests - that are specific to smaller communities, but this does not preclude there being a wider 'literacy' that all recognise as being relevant in a generic sense to all of these sub-communities. To be literate, therefore, can mean to build upon the literacy practices of one or more communities, without leading to the absurd conclusion of identifying the communities themselves as 'literate'. The literacy practices of a community are a necessary but not sufficient condition for an individual to be counted as 'literate'. The individual must bring something to the table, must do something with those literacy practices, to be considered literate.
There is a problem with requiring literacy to be predicated upon such practices of a community, however. If social forms, structures and methods of communications are relatively stable, then literate practices are likewise obvious and can be predicated upon. When, however, society itself is in flux, then such practices become more difficult to pin down. As Martin (2008) notes,
Individuals during such 'liquid' phases of modernity therefore become somewhat alienated from one another, as the structures upon which literacy practices are normally built are not stable and long-lived enough to do so. Definitions of what it means to be 'literate' in such a community become, therefore, somewhat problematic.
The second problem mentioned above, that of seeing as problematic literacy being dependent upon the literacy practices of a community, is dealt with more easily by thinking of communities of literacy practices. Although Carr (2003) is talking of more generic skillsets in the following, it can easily be applied to literacy and literacy practices:
...there are going to be skills and activities (such as literacy and numeracy) that all
need to acquire because no modern person can adequately function
without them, as well as skills (of auto-repair and secretarial work)
that some but not all individuals will require for particular vocations. (Carr, 2003:18)
Likewise, there are going to be some particular literacy practices - perhaps centering around professions or interests - that are specific to smaller communities, but this does not preclude there being a wider 'literacy' that all recognise as being relevant in a generic sense to all of these sub-communities. To be literate, therefore, can mean to build upon the literacy practices of one or more communities, without leading to the absurd conclusion of identifying the communities themselves as 'literate'. The literacy practices of a community are a necessary but not sufficient condition for an individual to be counted as 'literate'. The individual must bring something to the table, must do something with those literacy practices, to be considered literate.
There is a problem with requiring literacy to be predicated upon such practices of a community, however. If social forms, structures and methods of communications are relatively stable, then literate practices are likewise obvious and can be predicated upon. When, however, society itself is in flux, then such practices become more difficult to pin down. As Martin (2008) notes,
Society is being transformed by the passage from the "solid" to the "liquid" phases of modernity,
in which all social forms melt faster than new ones can be cast. They
are not given enough time to solidify and cannot serve as the frame of
reference for human actions and long-term life-strategies because their
allegedly short life expectation undermines efforts to develop a
strategy that would require the consistent fulfillment of a
"life-project." (Bauman, 205, p.303)
Individuals during such 'liquid' phases of modernity therefore become somewhat alienated from one another, as the structures upon which literacy practices are normally built are not stable and long-lived enough to do so. Definitions of what it means to be 'literate' in such a community become, therefore, somewhat problematic.
7. Historical component of literacy -Doug Belshaw 31/07/2009 09:55
The third and final problem identified above was that literacy is a 'cultural expression' and is therefore historically situated. It would seem that this problem can be solved rather straightforwardly with a couple of thought experiments. First, imagine that an individual living in the 21st century is taken as they are and dropped in the middle of a village in a country whose language they do not know how to speak or read. That individual would not be able to read anything that the village community had written down, nor write themselves in a manner which the villagers would understand. The individual would not be 'literate' in that community. The second thought experiment is similar, but involves a time frame. Imagine an English monk from the 13th century somehow being transported to modern day England. Although some words in Old English and Latin are similar to their modern-day equivalents, still the monk would struggle to communicate. Not only that, but he would be limited to being able to use - at least at first - those technologies available to him in the 13th century. As a result he would not be fully 'literate' in a 21st century sense of the term. Given these two examples, it seems relatively clear that literacy does depend upon culture and has an historical aspect. In fact, it must include the latter for community and cultural cohesion: generations have to be able to communicate with one another effectively. Literacy evolves rather than is created anew.
Some may argue against this stating that an individual is still literate when apart from a community and in isolation. This may be the case, but his or her literacy skills are predicated upon those learned when within a community. The critic may rebutt this argument by thinking up a thought experiment of their own where an autodidact stranded on a desert island teaches himself to read and write by discovering a library. Again, this may be possible but, as Lemke points out, we employ community-constructed social practices even when nobody else is around:
The three problems relating to literacy being predicated and depending upon the literacy practices of a community, therefore, can be seen as solvable. In fact, to try and define someone as 'literate' without reference to something produced for another to read would be extremely difficult. Need more satisfactory close to this section than how it reads currently. -Doug Belshaw 05/10/2009 05:55
The third and final problem identified above was that literacy is a 'cultural expression' and is therefore historically situated. It would seem that this problem can be solved rather straightforwardly with a couple of thought experiments. First, imagine that an individual living in the 21st century is taken as they are and dropped in the middle of a village in a country whose language they do not know how to speak or read. That individual would not be able to read anything that the village community had written down, nor write themselves in a manner which the villagers would understand. The individual would not be 'literate' in that community. The second thought experiment is similar, but involves a time frame. Imagine an English monk from the 13th century somehow being transported to modern day England. Although some words in Old English and Latin are similar to their modern-day equivalents, still the monk would struggle to communicate. Not only that, but he would be limited to being able to use - at least at first - those technologies available to him in the 13th century. As a result he would not be fully 'literate' in a 21st century sense of the term. Given these two examples, it seems relatively clear that literacy does depend upon culture and has an historical aspect. In fact, it must include the latter for community and cultural cohesion: generations have to be able to communicate with one another effectively. Literacy evolves rather than is created anew.
Some may argue against this stating that an individual is still literate when apart from a community and in isolation. This may be the case, but his or her literacy skills are predicated upon those learned when within a community. The critic may rebutt this argument by thinking up a thought experiment of their own where an autodidact stranded on a desert island teaches himself to read and write by discovering a library. Again, this may be possible but, as Lemke points out, we employ community-constructed social practices even when nobody else is around:
Even if we are alone, reading a book, the activity of reading - knowing
which end to start at, whether to read a page left-to-right or
right-to-left, top-down or bottom-up, and how to turn the pages, not to
mention making sense of a language, a writing system, an authorial
style, a genre forma (e.g. a dictionary vs. a novel) - depends on
conducting the activity in a way that is culturally meaningful to us.
Even if we are lost in the woods, with no material tools, trying to
find our way or just make sense of the plants or stars, we are still
engaged in making meanings with cultural tools such as language (names
of flowers or constellations) or learned genres of visual images
(flower drawings or star maps). We extend forms of activity that we
have learned by previous social participation to our present lonely
situation. (Lemke, 2002:36-37)
The three problems relating to literacy being predicated and depending upon the literacy practices of a community, therefore, can be seen as solvable. In fact, to try and define someone as 'literate' without reference to something produced for another to read would be extremely difficult. Need more satisfactory close to this section than how it reads currently. -Doug Belshaw 05/10/2009 05:55
8. Unitary vs. Pluralist concepts of literacy -Doug Belshaw 31/07/2009 09:55
Hannon (2000) points out a distinction between 'unitary' and 'pluralist' views of literacy. The unitary view, he states, is predicated upon the idea that literacy is a 'skill' and that there is an 'it' to which we can refer - a single referent,
Hannon (2000) points out a distinction between 'unitary' and 'pluralist' views of literacy. The unitary view, he states, is predicated upon the idea that literacy is a 'skill' and that there is an 'it' to which we can refer - a single referent,
According to this view the actual uses which particular readers and
writers have for that competence is something which can be separated
from the competence itself. (Hannon, 2000:31)
In contrast, the pluralist view believes there to be different literacies. Hannon quotes Lankshear (1987) who links social literacy practices with a pluralist view of literacy:We should recognise, rather, that there are many specific literacies, each comprising an identifiable set of socially constructed
practices based upon print and organised around beliefs about how the
skills of reading and writing may or, perhaps, should be used. (Lankshear, 1987, quoted in Hannon, 2000:32)
Pluralists believe not only that we should speak of 'literacies' rather than 'literacy', but reject the notion that literacy practices are neutral with regard to power, social identity and political ideology. By privileging certain literacy practices - intentionally or unintentionally - hegemonic power is either increased or decreased (Gee, 1996, quoted in Hannon, 2000:34). The pluralist conception of literacy is, to a great extent, similar to the postmodernist movement in the late 20th century. Whilst adherents are clear as to what they are against - in this case a 'unitary' conception of literacy - it is not always clear what they stand for. What constitutes a 'literacy'? What do 'literacies' have in common? Hannon attempts to bring some clarity by appealing to the notion of 'family resemblence', much as Wittgenstein (mentioned above) did for the concept of 'game' (Hannon, 2000:36). 9. Hannon's 'third way' between Unitary & Pluralist conceptions of literacy -Doug Belshaw 31/07/2009 09:56
Hannon, however, does not pigeon-hole himself as either a 'unitary' or 'pluralist' thinker with respect to literacy. After suggesting that whether theorists prefer unitary or pluralist conceptions of literacy depends upon whether they focus on literacy as a skill (psychology) or as a social practice (sociology), he questions why we need to choose between these two conceptions. 'A full conception of literacy in education requires awareness of both,' he states (Hannon, 2000:38).
Although Hannon does not give a name to this 'third way' of dealing with literacy, it is difficult to argue against his rationale. 'Literacy' becomes 'literacies' and yet the latter can still, in some way, be separated from and identified from its cultural production. Indeed, without such a position, the concept of 'literacies' could collapse into solipsism as there would be no agreed way of talking about such practices and cultural constructs.
Those working more recently than Hannon have indeed given a generic name to the types of literacies mentioned above. Known simply as 'new literacies', their study is now a distinct and separate strand of literacy research. They seek, as Durrant & Green put it, to describe a more '3D' model of literacies including 'cultural, critical and operational dimensions' (quoted in Beavis, 2002:51). Seeking to describe and, to some extent, promote the new opportunities that digital, collaborative technologies afford society, 'new literacies theorists' focus on new ways individuals can express themselves. They debate and try to explain how using these new technologies and methods of expression fit within, or complement, existing literacies. Critique of 'new literacies'? -Doug Belshaw 05/10/2009 06:03
Hannon, however, does not pigeon-hole himself as either a 'unitary' or 'pluralist' thinker with respect to literacy. After suggesting that whether theorists prefer unitary or pluralist conceptions of literacy depends upon whether they focus on literacy as a skill (psychology) or as a social practice (sociology), he questions why we need to choose between these two conceptions. 'A full conception of literacy in education requires awareness of both,' he states (Hannon, 2000:38).
Although Hannon does not give a name to this 'third way' of dealing with literacy, it is difficult to argue against his rationale. 'Literacy' becomes 'literacies' and yet the latter can still, in some way, be separated from and identified from its cultural production. Indeed, without such a position, the concept of 'literacies' could collapse into solipsism as there would be no agreed way of talking about such practices and cultural constructs.
Those working more recently than Hannon have indeed given a generic name to the types of literacies mentioned above. Known simply as 'new literacies', their study is now a distinct and separate strand of literacy research. They seek, as Durrant & Green put it, to describe a more '3D' model of literacies including 'cultural, critical and operational dimensions' (quoted in Beavis, 2002:51). Seeking to describe and, to some extent, promote the new opportunities that digital, collaborative technologies afford society, 'new literacies theorists' focus on new ways individuals can express themselves. They debate and try to explain how using these new technologies and methods of expression fit within, or complement, existing literacies. Critique of 'new literacies'? -Doug Belshaw 05/10/2009 06:03
10. The history of 'new literacies' -Doug Belshaw 01/08/2009 10:39
The field of 'new literacies' has a relatively long history. Its beginnings can be traced back to the end of the 1960s when a feeling that standard definitions of 'literacy' missed out something important from the increasingly visual nature of the media produced by society. In 1969 John Debes offered a tentative definition for a concept he called 'visual literacy':
Visual Literacy refers to a group of vision-competencies a human being can develop by seeing and at the same time having and integrating other sensory experiences. The development of these competencies is fundamental to normal human learning. When developed, they enable a visually literate person to discriminate and interpret the visible actions, objects, symbols, natural or man-made, that he encounters in his environment. Through the creative use of these competencies, he is able to communicate with others. Through the appreciative use of these competencies, he is able to comprehend and enjoy the masterworks of visual communication. (Debes, quoted in Avgerinou & Ericson, 1997:281)
In print, language is the primary element, while visual factors, such as the physical setting or design format and illustration, are secondary or supportive. In the modern media, just the reverse is true. The visual dominates; the verbal augments. Print is not dead yet, nor will it ever be, but nevertheless, our language-dominated culture has moved perceptively toward the iconic. Most of what we know and learn, what we buy and believe, what we recognize and desire, is determined by the domination of the human psyche by the photograph. And it will be more so in the future. (quoted in Barry, 1997:1)
Those who espoused this doctrine were careful to stress the importance of both being able to both decode and encode, creating and communicating via images. Considine (1986) championed visual literacy as being 'the ability to comprehend and create images in a variety of media in order to communicate effectively,' leading to those who are 'visually literate' being 'able to produce and interpret visual messages' (quoted in Tyner, 1998:105). More recently, with the explosion of what I shall term 'micro-literacies,' the concept of 'visual literacy' has been re-conceived of as 'media grammar literacy' (Frechette, quoted in Buckingham & Willett, 2006:168-9). That is to say it stresses the medium as being at least as important as the message.
In essence, the notion of 'visual literacy' is an important corrective to the idea that it is only textual symbols that can encode and decode information and meaning. As Lowe (1993:24) puts it, 'visual materials in general are typically not considered to pose any reading challenges to the viewer.' This is considered in more depth by Paxson (2004:vi), Sigafoos & Green (2007:29), Bazeli & Heintz (1997:4) and Kovalchik & Dawson (2004:602). As Raney (quoted in Owen-Jackson, 2002:141) explains, coupling 'visual' with 'literacy' not only prompts a debate about the metaphorical use of language but, by using 'literacy' suggests 'entitlement or necessity, and the need to seek out deficiencies and remedy them.'
Hijacking the term 'literacy' for such ends has, however, worried some who believe that it conflates 'literacy' with 'competence' (Adams & Hamm, in Potter, 2004:29). Whilst some in the early 1980s believed that 'visual literacy' may 'still have some life left in it' (Sless, in Avgerinou & Ericson, 1997:282), others considered the concept 'phonologically, syntactically, and semantically untenable' (Cassidy & Knowlton, in Avgerinou & Ericson, 1997:282), as 'not a coherent area of study but, at best, an ingenious orchestration of ideas' (Suhor & Little, in Avgerinou & Ericson, 1997:282). Each writer on the term has written from his or her viewpoint, leading to a situation akin to the apocryphal story of the six blind men tasked with describing an elephant, each doing so differently when given a different part to feel (Burbank & Pett, quoted in Avgerinou & Ericson, 1997:283). The feeling from the literature seems to be that whilst there may be something important captured in part by the term 'visual literacy', it all too easily collapses into solipsism and therefore loses descriptive and explanatory power.
The concept of 'visual literacy' continued until the late 1990s, eventually being enveloped by 'umbrella terms' combining two or more 'literacies.' Parallel to visual literacy from the 1970s onwards came the development of the term 'technological literacy.' It began to gain currency as a growing awareness took hold of the potential dangers to the environment of technological development as well as economic fears in the western world about the competition posted by technologically more adept nations (Martin, 2008:158). 'Technological literacy' (or 'technology literacy') was a marriage of skills-based concerns with a more 'academic' approach, leading to a US government-funded publication entitled Technology for All Americans. This defined 'technological literacy' as combining 'the ability to use... the key systems of the time,' 'insuring that all technological activities are efficient and appropriate,' and 'synthesiz[ing]... information into new insights.' (quoted in Martin, 2008:158) This literacy was one defined and prompted by economic necessities and political concerns.
Although stimulated by competition with non-western countries, a growing awareness in the 1980s that computers and related technologies were producing a 'postmodern consciousness of multiple perspectives' with young people 'culturally positioned by the pervasiveness of computer-based and media technologies' (Smith, et al., 1988, quoted in Johnson-Eilda, 1998:211-2) reinforced the need for the formalization of some type of literacy relating to the use of computers and other digital devices. Technological literacy seemed to be an answer. Gurak (2001:13) dubbed this a 'perfomative' notion of literacy, 'the ability to do something is what counts.' Literacy was reduced to being 'technology literate' meaning 'knowing how to use a particular piece of technology.' The 'critical' element of literacy, which Gurak is at pains to stress, including the ability to make meta-level decisions judgements about technology usage, were entirely absent from these 1970s and 80s definitions. Technological or technology literacy is too broad a concept as 'nearly all modes of communication are technologies - so there is no functional distinction between print-based literacy and digital literacy.' (Eyman, no date:7) Discussions about, and advocates of, 'technological literacy' had mostly petered out by the late 1980s/early 1990s.
Growing out of the perceived need for a 'technological literacy' came, with the dawn of the personal computer, calls for definitions of a 'computer literacy.' Before the Apple II, 'microcomputers' were sold in kit form for hobbyists to assemble themselves. With the Apple II in 1977, followed by IBM's first 'Personal Computer' (PC) in 1981, computers became available to the masses. Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) were developed from the early 1980s onwards, with the first iteration of Apple's 'Finder' coming in 1984 followed by Microsoft's 'Windows' in 1985. There is a symbiotic link between the hardware and software available at any given time and the supposed skills, competencies and 'literacies' that accompany their usage. As computers and their interfaces developed so did conceptions of the 'literacy' that accompany their usage.
The term 'computer literacy' was an attempt to give a vocational aspect to the use of computers and to state how useful computers could be in almost every area of learning (Buckingham, 2008:76). Definitions of computer literacy from the 1980s include 'the skills and knowledge needed by a citizen to survive and thrive in a society that is dependent on technology' (Hunter, 1984 quoted in Oliver & Towers, 2000), 'appropriate familiarity with technology to enable a person to live and cope in the modern world' (Scher, 1984 quoted in Oliver & Towers, 2000), and 'an understanding of computer characteristics, capabilities and applications, as well as an ability to implement this knowledge in the skilful and productive use of computer applications' (Simonson, et al., 1987 quoted in Oliver & Towers, 2000). As Andrew Molnar, who allegedly coined the term, points out 'computer literacy,' like 'technological literacy' is an extremely broad church, meaning that almost anything could count as an instance of the term:
We started computer literacy in '72 [...] We coined that phrase. It's sort of ironic. Nobody knows what computer literacy is. Nobody can define it. And the reason we selected [it] was because nobody could define it, and [...] it was a broad enough term that you could get all of these programs together under one roof" ("Interview with Andrew Molnar," OH 234. Center for the History of Information Processing, Charles Babbage Institute, University of Minnesota, quoted at http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Digital+literacy).
Later in the decade an attempt was made to equate computer literacy with programming ability:
It is reasonable to suggest that a peson who has written a computer program should be called literate in computing. This is an extremely elementary definition. Literacy is not fluency. (Nevison, 1976 quoted in Martin (2003:12)
In the 1980s applications available from the command line removed the need for users to be able to program the application in the first place. Views on what constituted 'computer literacy' changed as a result. The skills and attributes of a user who is said to be 'computer literate,' became no more tangible, however, and simply focused on the ability to use computer applications rather than the ability to program (Van Leeuwen, et al., in Cunningham, 2006:1580). On reflection, it is tempting to call the abilities that fell within the sphere of 'computer literacy' as competencies - as a collection of skills that can be measured using, for example, the European Computer Driving License (ECDL). By including the word 'literacy,' however, those unsure about the 'brave new world' of computers could be reassured that the digital frontier is not that different after all from the physical world with which they are familiar (Bigum, in Snyder (ed.) 2002:133). Literacy once again was used to try to convey and shape meaning from a rather nebulous and loosely-defined set of skills.
Martin (2003, quoted in Martin 2008:156-7) has identified conceptions of 'computer literacy' as passing through three phases. First came the Mastery phase which lasted up until the mid-1980s. In this phase the computer was perceived as 'arcane and powerful' and the emphasis was on programming and gaining control over it. This was followed by the Application phase from the mid-1980s up to the late 1990s. The coming of simple graphical interfaces such as Windows 3.1 allowed computers to be used by the masses. Computers began to be used as tools for education, work and leisure. This is the time when many certification schemes based on 'IT competence' began - including the ECDL. From the late 1990s onwards came the Reflective phase with the 'awareness of the need for more critical, evaluative and reflective approaches.' (Martin 2008:156-7) It is during this latter phase that the explosion of 'new literacies' occurred.
Martin (2003, quoted in Martin 2008:156-7) has identified conceptions of 'computer literacy' as passing through three phases. First came the Mastery phase which lasted up until the mid-1980s. In this phase the computer was perceived as 'arcane and powerful' and the emphasis was on programming and gaining control over it. This was followed by the Application phase from the mid-1980s up to the late 1990s. The coming of simple graphical interfaces such as Windows 3.1 allowed computers to be used by the masses. Computers began to be used as tools for education, work and leisure. This is the time when many certification schemes based on 'IT competence' began - including the ECDL. From the late 1990s onwards came the Reflective phase with the 'awareness of the need for more critical, evaluative and reflective approaches.' (Martin 2008:156-7) It is during this latter phase that the explosion of 'new literacies' occurred.
The main problem with computer literacy was the elision between 'literacy' as meaning (culturally-valued) knowledge and 'literacy'as being bound up with the skills of reading and writing (Wiley, 1996 quoted in Holme, 2004:1-2). Procedural knowledge about how to use a computer was conflated with the ability to use a computer in creative and communicative activities. The assumption that using a computer to achieve specified ends constituted a literacy began to be questioned towards the end of the 1990s. A US National Council Report from 1999 questioned whether today's 'computer literacy' would be enough in a world of rapid change:
Generally, 'computer literacy' has acquired a 'skills' connotation, implying competency with a few of today's computer applications, such as word processing and e-mail. Literacy is too modest a goal in the presence of rapid change, because it lacks the necessary 'staying power'. As the technology changes by leaps and bounds, existing skills become antiquated and there is no migration path to new skills. A better solution is for the individual to plan to adapt to changes in the technology. (quoted in Martin, 2003:16)
Literacy is seen as fixed entity under this conception, as a state rather than a process.
It became apparent that 'definitions of computer literacy are often mutually contradictory' (Talja, 2005 in Johnson, 2008:33), that 'computer literacy' might not 'convey enough intellectual power to be likened to textual literacy,' (diSessa, 2000:109), and with authors as early as 1993 talking of 'the largely discredited term 'computer literacy'' (Bigum & Green, 1993:6). Theorists scrambled to define new and different terms. An explosion and proliferation of terms ranging from the obvious ('digital literacy') to the awkward ('electracy') occurred. At times, this seems to be as much to do with authors making their name known as provide a serious and lasting contribution to the literacy debate.
It became apparent that 'definitions of computer literacy are often mutually contradictory' (Talja, 2005 in Johnson, 2008:33), that 'computer literacy' might not 'convey enough intellectual power to be likened to textual literacy,' (diSessa, 2000:109), and with authors as early as 1993 talking of 'the largely discredited term 'computer literacy'' (Bigum & Green, 1993:6). Theorists scrambled to define new and different terms. An explosion and proliferation of terms ranging from the obvious ('digital literacy') to the awkward ('electracy') occurred. At times, this seems to be as much to do with authors making their name known as provide a serious and lasting contribution to the literacy debate.
As the term 'computer literacy' began to lose credibility and the use of computers for communication became more mainstream the term 'ICT literacy' (standing for 'Information Communications Technology') became more commonplace. Whereas with 'computer literacy' and the dawn of GUIs the 'encoding' element of literacy had been lost, this began to be restored with 'ICT literacy.' The following definition from the US-based Educational Testing Service's ICT Literacy Panel is typical:
ICT literacy is using digital technology, communications tools, and/or networks to access, manage, integrate, evaluate, and create information in order to function in a knowledge society. (ETS ICT Literacy Panel, 2002:2)
The skills outlined in this definition are more than merely procedural, they are conceptual. This leads to the question as to whether ICT literacy is an absolute term, 'a measure of a person's total functional skills in ICT' or 'a relative measure' - there being ICT literacies, with individuals on separate scales (Oliver & Towers, 2000). Those who believe it to be an absolute term have suggested a three-stage process to become ICT literate. First comes the simple use of ICT (spreadsheets, word processing, etc.), followed by engagement with online communities, sending emails and browsing the internet. Finally comes engagement in elearning 'using whatever systems are available' (Cook & Smith, 2004). This definition of literacy is rather 'tools-based' and is analagous to specifying papyrus rolls, fountain pens or even sitting in a library on the classical definition. A particular literacy is seen as being reliant upon particular tools rather than involving a meta-level definition.
The problem is that, as with its predecessor term, 'ICT literacy' means different things to different groups of people. The European Commission, for example conceives of ICT literacy as 'learning to operate... technology' without it including any 'higher-order skills such as knowing and understanding what it means to live in a digitalized and networked society.' (Coutinho, 2007). This is direct opposition to the ETS definition above - demonstrating the fragmented and ambiguous nature of the term. Town (2003:53) sees 'ICT literacy' In the United Kingdom as
As Town goes on to note, this is not the case in non English-speaking countries. Example? -Doug Belshaw 06/10/2009 05:31
a particularly unfortunate elision' as it 'appears to imply inclusion of information literacy, but in fact is only a synonym for IT (or computer) literacy. Its use tends to obscure the fact that information literacy is a well developed concept separate from IT (information technology) literacy.
As Town goes on to note, this is not the case in non English-speaking countries. Example? -Doug Belshaw 06/10/2009 05:31
Before moving onto a discussion of 'digital literacy' it is important to mention one more major influential 'literacy' coined in the last 30 years that has been alluded to above: 'information literacy.' This is a term that was coined in the 1970s but which has undergone a number of transformations to keep it current and relevant. Unlike 'technological literacy,' 'computer literacy,' and 'ICT literacy' is it is not technology-related (and therefore likely to become outdated), nor is it a corrective to an existing 'literacy' (as with 'visual literacy'). Because it is not dependent upon any one technology or set of technologies, 'information literacy' has been eagerly taken onboard by librarians (Martin 2008:160) and governments (Fieldhouse & Nicholas, 2008:50) alike. Indeed more recently it has been defined as a 'habit of mind' rather than a set of skills:
[I]nformation literacy is a way of thinking rather than a set of skills... It is a matrix of critical and reflective capacities, as well as disciplined creative thought, that impels the student to range widely through the information environment... When sustained through a supportive learning environment at course, program or institutional level, information literacy can become a dispositional habit... a "habit of mind" that seeks ongoing improvement and self-discipline in inquiry, research and integration of knowledge from varied sources. (Center for Intellectual Property in the Digital Environment, 2005:viii-ix)
Although evident in the literature since the 1970s, the concept of 'information literacy' gained real traction in the 1990s with the advent of mass usage of the internet. Suddenly information was a few effortless keystrokes and mouse clicks away rather than residing in great tomes in a physical place. Accessing this information and using it correctly constituted, for proponents of the concept, a new 'literacy'. This was a time when politicians used the term 'Information Superhighway' to loosely describe the opportunities afforded by the internet.
'Information literacy' as a term was boosted greatly by a definition and six-stage model for developing the concept agreed upon by the American Libraries Association in 1989. The committee tasked with investigating information literacy proposed that an 'information literate person' would 'recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information' (quoted in Fieldhouse & Nicholas, 2008:52). Achieving the state of being 'information literate' involves passing through six stages, outlined in Bawden (2008:21-22):
- Recognizing a need for information
- Identifying what information is needed
- Finding the information
- Evaluating the information
- Organizing the information
- Using the information
Boekhorst (quoted in Virkus, 2003) believes that, indeed, all definitions of information literacy presented over the years can be summarized in three concepts. First there is the ICT concept: using ICT to 'retrieve and disseminate information.' Second is the information resources concept: the ability to find resources independently 'without the aid of intermediaries.' Finally comes the information process concept: 'recognizing information need, retrieving, evaluating, using and disseminating of information to acquire or extend knowledge.' As such information literacy has at times been seen as including computer-related literacies, sometimes as part of such literacies, and sometimes as being tangential to them.
From these statements in the late 1980s/early 1990s information literacy developed to include an ethical dimension ('knowing when and why you need information, where to find it, and how to evaluate, use and communicate it in an ethical manner' - SCONUL (1999) quoted in Fieldhouse & Nicholas, 2008:52) and an economic dimenstion ('Information literacy will be essential for all future employees' - Langlois (1997) quoted in Martin, 2003:7). Information literacy has been seen as a 'liberal art' with an element of critical reflection (Shapiro & Hughes (1996) in Spitzer, et al., 1998:24), critical evaluation (Open University Library website, in Virkus, 2003), and as involving problem-solving and decision-making dimensions (Bruce, 1997).
The problem with such a definitions and models is that they continue to view literacy as a state which can be achieved rather than an ongoing process and group of practices. However much 'information literacy' may be praised for being an inclusive term (Doyle, 1994), be evident in the policy documents produced by western governments (Fieldhouse & Nicholas, 2008:50) and seen as 'essential' to the success of learners, it has 'no agreed definition' (Muir & Oppenheim in Virkus, 2003). It is, in the words of Stephen Foster 'a phrase in a quest for meaning' (Snavely & Cooper, 1997:10). How, he wonders, would we recognize, and seek to remedy, 'information illiteracy'?
However much theorists propose it as an 'overaching literacy of life in the 21st century' (Bruce, 2002) and bodies such as the US Association of Colleges and Research Libraries come up with 'performance indicators' for the concept (Martin, 2008:159), 'information literacy' suffers from a lack of descriptive power. It is too ambitious in scope, too wide-ranging in application and not precise enough in detail to be useful in an actionable way. Even a move from talking about being 'information literate' to 'information savvy' (Fieldhouse & Nicholas, 2008:47) runs into difficulties for the same reasons. Definitions of the concept are too 'objective' and independent of the learner - even when described as 'seven key characteristics' (Bruce, cited in Bawden, 2008:22-23)
11. Literacies as umbrella terms -Doug Belshaw 31/07/2009 09:56
Most new literacies theorists seek to demarcate a new form of literacy, explain it in detail, and then explain how its status as an over-arching literacy containing many sub-literacies. Potter (2004:33), for example, states, 'Reading literacy, visual literacy and computer literacy are not synonyms for media literacy; instead, they are merely components.' It is perhaps most transparently and obviously stated in this definition of transliteracy:
Our current thinking (although still not entirely resolved) is that because it offers a wider analysis of reading, writing and interacting across a range of platforms, tools, media and cultures, transliteracy does not replace, but rather contains, “media literacy” and also “digital literacy.” (Thomas, et al. 2007)
In this way theorists not only deal with the third condition outlined in an earlier chapter - that of the status of a particular literacy in relation to other metaphorical concepts - but they can claim the credit of, at least partially solving the 'literacy problem.'
Potter's use of the word 'merely' above ('visual literacy and computer literacy... are merely components') betrays here what is only latent in other examples of writers using umbrella terms. That is to say, each comes at the issue from a particular point of view and with a particular bias and background. Each assumes that the particular literacy for their field of interest or specialization is the 'umbrella literacy.' There is also an unfortunate element of inventing a term in the hope that it may become popular and so that an individual becomes synonymous with it. Perhaps the best example of this is the clumsy concept of 'Electracy,' as defined by Erstad:
‘Electracy’ is a term that combines different forms of literacy related to the use of new technologies; for example ‘media or multimedia literacy’, ‘computer literacy’, ‘information literacy’and ‘visual literacy’. It could be described as literacy for a post-typographic world (Reinking et al., 1998)... Electracy is something young people develop by growing up in a digital culture, and their education is supposed to include their efforts to create knowledge and learning. (Erstad, 2003:11)
Whilst at first glance this sounds insightful and promising it is an empty term, signifying nothing. How are these literacies combined? How do youn people 'develop' Electracy by 'growing up a in digital culture? Surely all education is about 'knowledge and learning'? Whilst Erstad attempts to use Tyner's (1998) distinction between 'tool literacies' and 'literacies of representations,' Electracy as a term is not explained adequately enough to belong to either group.
As explained earlier, information literacy is a term so broad and ambiguously applicable that it too can be applied as an umbrella term. Fieldhouse and Nicholas (in Lankshear & Knobel, 2008) use a slightly different strategy in order to promote their tangential concept of being 'information savvy.' Instead of the latter being an umbrella term in its own right, they present it as being the other half of the jigsaw puzzle to 'digital literacy' in order for individuals to be 'information literate.' Although plausible, they neither settle on one definition of digital literacy nor rescue the concept of being 'information savvy' from being an interesting colloquialism.
In order to 'reconcil[e] the claims of myriad concepts of digital literacy, a veritable legion of digital literacies' (Lankshear & Knobel, 2008:4) some wishing to employ an umbrella term have instead turned to the notion of 'competency' or 'competencies.' For example, Spitzer (1998:25) quotes the following 1995 definition of 'information competence' from the Work Group on Information Competence, Commission on Learning Resources and Instructional Technology:
Information competence is the fusing or the integration of library literacy, computer literacy, media literacy, technological literacy, ethics, critical thinking, and communication skills.
No explanation, however, is given as to what 'information competence' would look like in practice nor is guidance given as to how one would go about achieving it (if it is a 'state') or entering into it (if it is a 'process'). Similarly prone to failure is Savolainen's (2002, quoted in Virkus, 2003) suggestion of 'information-related competencies' as an umbrella term, covering 'information literacy, media competence and library skills.' His justification for suggesting such a term is:
No explanation is given, however, as to how or why using the term 'information-related competencies' is useful in any way, apart from being a shorthand for a number arbitrary micro literacies deemed important by the author.
[b]ecause new labels describing specific kinds of literacies are continually introduced, reflecting the developments of ICTs, the attempts to develop an exact classification of information-related literacies seem to be futile. (Savolainen, 2002 - quoted in Virkus, 2003).
No explanation is given, however, as to how or why using the term 'information-related competencies' is useful in any way, apart from being a shorthand for a number arbitrary micro literacies deemed important by the author.
Instead of attempting to come up with an umbrella ('macro') term in which to retro-fit micro literacies, it seems to make more sense for theorists to use 'new literacies' as a shorthand - as indeed many already are (see, for example, Beavis, 1998; Kress, 2003; Lankshear, 2006). Separating out the multitude of literacies seems, as Tyner states, somewhat artificial as they overlap to such a great extent. Whilst they can be separated, this should only be done for positive purposes:
The need to set one literacy apart from another can only be explained by a need to use the concepts for other reasons, that is, to strengthen the professional status of its constituencies, or to take issue with the approaches used by proponents. (Tyner, 1998:104)
Instead of overarching an 'umbrella' macro literacy, our focus should perhaps instead be upon a particular literacy as an 'integrating (but not overarching) concept that focuses upon the digital without limiting itself to computer skills and which comes with little historical baggage' (Martin, 2006 quoted in Bawden, 2008:26). Here Martin presumably has in mind the concept of 'digital literacy' but it is not the name of the term that is the issue. Instead, it is its explanatory power and utility in terms of conceptual understanding and applicability that is key.
Interestingly, Martin (2008:156-7) lists the following as 'literacies of the digital,' hinting that his earlier (2006) thinking has evolved towards considering literacies as an overlapping matrix:
- Computer, IT or ICT Literacy
- Technological Literacy
- Information Literacy
- Media Literacy
- Visual Literacy
- Communication Literacy
- Digital Literacy
Although he does not use the term 'matrix,' it seems clear that Martin has something like this in mind. If so, then the above list contains are only a few of a potential Pandora's box of 'literacies.' With no-one as the gatekeeper as to what constitutes a 'literacy of the digital' a recursive problem occurs. There is nothing to stop a macro literacy, integrative literacy or a matrix of literacies from themselves being seen as part of a bigger picture. New literacies, as Reilly (1996:218) states, seem to be created as soon as a 'new texts' are invented or conceived.
Something that is assumed in everything discussed so far is that every person is equipped equally to achieve or to participate in a particular form of literacy. Howeer, as Koltko-Riviera points out, some research suggests that 'some personality types are more digitally competent than others.' Koltko-Riviera points to the research of one 'Dr. Schaab:'
[Dr. Schaab's] results are at least compatible with the notion that digital competence (i.e., competence in working within a highly computerized environment) is not equally distributed across personality types; rather, some personality types are simply more digitally competent than others. Such a finding, if replicated, would have profound consequences for human factors theory, research, and practice. (Koltko-Riviera, 2004:249)
If literacy is indeed dependent upon personality types then this would have two important consequences. First, it would bring into question the value of defining a concept that is dispositional, and perhaps even genetic. If a particular literacy is not achievable, or at least not in its entirity, by an entire population, then it is a questions of 'nature' rather than 'nurture' and therefore (to a great extent) outside the educational sphere. Second, it brings into question the ability of researchers to adequately describe and explain literacies. It is the problem of bias and background outlined above, amplified to take into account genetic and dispositional factors. It may be the case that it is in fact almost impossible for a theorist to give an account of literacies other than those applicable to his or her self. Without further evidence and research, however, this is remains an open problem.
On the other hand, Holme (2004:3) stresses the nurture side of the literacies equation, giving the example of an illiterate Madagascan tribe being given simple representations of objects to decipher. Being unable to do so, Holme concludes:
It is worth noting that Norway, pioneers in the field of (what others would call) 'digital literacy' having embedded the concept in their school curriculum, do not use 'literacy' in relation to anything other than:
Kress (2003) is a theorist who objects to the plethora and seeming daily-invention of 'new literacies', arguing for the English-speaking world to come more into alignment with Norwegian conceptions of 'literacy'. It is worth quoting Kress at length to understand the full force of his argument:
In English-speaking contexts, we have this word 'literacy'. As it is being used in ever-extended meanings, we might decide to stretch its use still further to cover any resource involved in the making of any 'message', whether through word or image or otherwise.
For me, two reasons speak against that. One is that we need to be aware that other languages do not have such a word. They name the field differently: alphabetismus in German; alphabetisme, in French as in other romance languages. In languages which do not use a version of the alphabet, Chinese or Japanese for instance, quite different wordings exist: in Japanese, for instance 'the recognition of letters' (mon-mou); in Chinese there are a range of phrases, for instance 'know-character-ability', 'normal raise/bring up', 'to have received education'.
Of course, we could attempt to insist that as the English language already rules the world, the English word literacy should do also, or that other languages should at least produce translations of this word... A vast range of meanings is gathered up in the word; in anglophone contexts in can be anything from 'making reliable links between the letters of a written text and the sounds of speech' to 'being able to make readings of texts of the elite, which conform to the readings of the elite culture'. The more that is gathered up in teh meaning of the term, the less meaning it has. Something that has come to mean everything, is likely not to mean very much at all. (Kress, 2003:22)
Whilst Kress makes a couple of valid points here, it is not clear why we cannot use modifiers to demarcate a particular area of literacy - for example 'visual literacy' to demarcate decoding visual symbols (as with the case of the Madagascans mentioned earlier). Kress evolves a definition of literacy ('the term to use when we make messages using letters as the mans of recording that message') that does not solve the problem of the status of 'new literacies' but rather compounds them:
Despite this, Buckingham believes that the concepts and processes grasped at under the banner of 'new literacies' do have a part to play - but perhaps without using the term 'literacy'. Buckingham believes that new literacies convey something more than 'mechanical skills or narrow forms of functional competence' making them closer to the German conception of 'Bildung'. This 'more rounded, humanistic conception' (Buckingham, 2008:75) is, according to Søby, a preferred term in Norwegian public debates and conversations surrounding these issues.
On the other hand, Holme (2004:3) stresses the nurture side of the literacies equation, giving the example of an illiterate Madagascan tribe being given simple representations of objects to decipher. Being unable to do so, Holme concludes:
How we perceive a picture is a product of our being literate in the
visual conventions that operate at a given time. Pictorial
representations depend upon the use of conventions that we have
absorbed from birth and in which we are made literate by the fact of
growing up in a visually-oriented culture.
One conclusion to draw from the above would be that an individual's literacy skills contains both an element of nature and element of nurture. It is the latter, procedural 'habits' that can be taught and that constitutes any useful and working definition of a literacy for educators. Whilst defining the element of digital literacy that comes 'naturally' may be interesting, it is the 'nurture' side of the equation that has explanatory and life-changing power.It is worth noting that Norway, pioneers in the field of (what others would call) 'digital literacy' having embedded the concept in their school curriculum, do not use 'literacy' in relation to anything other than:
(1) the technical capability of combining letters into words and words into sentences; and
(2) the ability to understand and extract meaning from that which is being read.
Whilst Norwegians use metaphorical language to describe, for example, footballers 'reading' a game or motorists 'reading' a traffic situation, literacy is always used 'to describe the ability to understand and extract meaning, independently of technical competencies in football or driving.' (Audunson & Nordlie, 2003:319) Literacy, in other words, relates to reading.(2) the ability to understand and extract meaning from that which is being read.
(Audunson & Nordlie, 2003:319)
Kress (2003) is a theorist who objects to the plethora and seeming daily-invention of 'new literacies', arguing for the English-speaking world to come more into alignment with Norwegian conceptions of 'literacy'. It is worth quoting Kress at length to understand the full force of his argument:
In English-speaking contexts, we have this word 'literacy'. As it is being used in ever-extended meanings, we might decide to stretch its use still further to cover any resource involved in the making of any 'message', whether through word or image or otherwise.
For me, two reasons speak against that. One is that we need to be aware that other languages do not have such a word. They name the field differently: alphabetismus in German; alphabetisme, in French as in other romance languages. In languages which do not use a version of the alphabet, Chinese or Japanese for instance, quite different wordings exist: in Japanese, for instance 'the recognition of letters' (mon-mou); in Chinese there are a range of phrases, for instance 'know-character-ability', 'normal raise/bring up', 'to have received education'.
Of course, we could attempt to insist that as the English language already rules the world, the English word literacy should do also, or that other languages should at least produce translations of this word... A vast range of meanings is gathered up in the word; in anglophone contexts in can be anything from 'making reliable links between the letters of a written text and the sounds of speech' to 'being able to make readings of texts of the elite, which conform to the readings of the elite culture'. The more that is gathered up in teh meaning of the term, the less meaning it has. Something that has come to mean everything, is likely not to mean very much at all. (Kress, 2003:22)
My approach leaves us with the problem of finding new terms of the use of different resources: not therefore 'visual literacy' for the use of image; not 'gestural literacy' for the use of gesture; and also not 'musical literacy' or 'soundtrack literacy' for the use of sound other than in speech; and so on. (Kress, 2003:23)
Buckingham (2008:75) lends his support to Kress, bemoaning the way that has come 'to be used merely as a vague synonym for "competence," or even "skill."' Buckingham muses that one reason why 'literacy' is such a popular way of describing what is actually a competence or skill is that it confers social status. This makes 'an implicit claim for [new media]'s validity as objects of study.' (Buckingham, 2008:75) However, the 'analogy between writing and visual or audiovisual media' breaks down, he believes, when examined closely. Despite this, Buckingham believes that the concepts and processes grasped at under the banner of 'new literacies' do have a part to play - but perhaps without using the term 'literacy'. Buckingham believes that new literacies convey something more than 'mechanical skills or narrow forms of functional competence' making them closer to the German conception of 'Bildung'. This 'more rounded, humanistic conception' (Buckingham, 2008:75) is, according to Søby, a preferred term in Norwegian public debates and conversations surrounding these issues.
Nevertheless, despite the attempts by Kress and Buckingham to bind literacy to activities involving reading words, it is the changing nature of language itself that results in theorists searching for new terms, As Genishi and Glupczynski (2006:658) note, 'literacies, rather than literacy, are not static or decontextualized'. Literacies are multi-modal and use 'diverse symbol systems across countless cultural contexts.' Thus language is used in ever-changing ways, using new symbols and contexts to convey meaning.
As a result, theorists appear to be left with two options. They can either - with Kress, and to a lesser extent Buckingham - attempt to demarcate 'literacy' in a traditional way. This would leave 'new literacies' as involving competencies and skills rather than actual literacies. The second approach would be consider print-based literacy as but one of a multitude of literacies. Under this conception of 'literacy' as long as it is adequately described, any form of 'literacy' would be worth defining and explaining.
It is here that Ong's idea of 'secondary orality' may prove useful. Literacy is performative, that is to say it involves a combination of written and spoken communication. (Gurak, 2001:13-14) Oral discourse, notes Ong, is 'additive rather than subordinative' and is 'situational'. New literacies, then, take this third way - this combination of the written and spoken - to demarcate a particular way of communicating. As with oral traditions, new literacies build on what has gone before, adding new parts of speech and new rhythms to discourse.
Need to read Ong first-hand! -Doug Belshaw 13/10/2009 06:15
Discussion of digital literacy -Doug Belshaw 03/08/2009 10:04
After 'visual literacy,' 'technological literacy,' 'computer literacy,' and 'information literacy' proved ulimately unsuccessful many sought to find a term more in keeping with digital communications and the Internet age. Although the concept of 'digital literacy' was not invented by him, the beginning of real discussion of the term was the publication of Paul Gilster's 1997 book Digital Literacy. Despite the promising title, the book has been criticized for giving multiple definitions of 'digital literacy,' with Gilster's idiosyncratic writing style cited as a reason why it didn't have an immediate impact (Bawden, 2008:21).
Nevertheless, Gilster's work did begin to have an impact in the early years of the 21st century with others citing his 'generic expression of the idea' as a 'strength' (Bawden, 2008:18). Gilster makes no less than eleven attempts at a definition of the concept ranging from digital literacy as 'the ability to access networked computer resources and use them,' (Gilster, 2007:1) to it being 'partly about awareness of other people and our expanded ability to contact them to discuss issues and get help' (Gilster, 1997:31). The idea most cited by other authors, however, is Gilster assertion that digital literacy is about 'mastering ideas, not keystrokes' (quoted in Lankshear & Knobel, 2008:2). This explicitly addresses the meta-level nature of literacy so conspicuously missing from earlier computer-related conceptions of literacy.
The 'impressionistic and wide-ranging' nature (Bawden, 2008:19) of Gilster's account means that, to a great extent, those following him and using the term could quote his work in support of theirs. Bawden (2001, in Bawden, 2008:20) attempts to derive a list of the elements Gilster believes to be present in the term from the latter's work. He comes up with the following:
- "knowledge assembly," building a "reliable information hoard" from diverse sources
- retrieval skills, plus "critical thinking" for making informed judgements about retried information, with wariness about the validity and completeness of internet sources
- reading and understanding non-sequential and dynamic material
- awareness of the value of traditional tools in conjunction with networked media
- awareness of "people networks" as sources of advice and help
- using filters and agents to manage incoming information
- being comfortable with publishing and communicating information, as well as accessing it
If literacy is something that can be tested, it would be difficult to think of a way in which a test could be put together to ascertain how 'aware' or 'comfortable' individuals are in various situations. Whilst individuals could be asked directly, humans are prone to error, influence and politics. A more objective test would be required - something very difficult to put together.Later theorists, therefore, have attempted to come up with a neater and more precise definition. It is to those that we now turn.
As with other new literacies, there are almost as many definitions of 'digital literacy' as there are proponents of the concept. After inspecting and reflecting upon these definitions in the literature, it appears that they share what I shall term the '8 'C' elements or aspects of digital literacy,' namely:
- Cultural
- Communicative
- Cognitive
- Civic
- Constructive
- Creative
- Confidence
- Critical
Note, however, that the 8C's are an abstraction from the literature on digital literacy. They are not, at the moment at least, a recommendation as to what digital literacy does in fact or should contain. What follows, then, is a brief examination of each of the 8 C's in the literature with discussion as to whether each should constitute part of a digital literacy. They are presented in no particular order of importance. Although what follows suggests some order and cohesion in the literature, all that the definitions have in common, in essence, is that digital literacy 'captures the notion that the literacy practices referred to are enacted in digital spaces' (Eyman, no date:7). As Eshet-Alkalai (2004, quoted in Bawden, 2008:24) notes, 'indistinct use of the term causes ambiguity, and leads to misunderstanding, misconceptions, and poor communication.' There is, she notes:
...particular inconsistency between those who regard digital literacy as primarily concerned with technical skills and those who see it as focused on cognitive and socio-emotional aspects of working in a digital environment. (Eshet-Alkalai, 2004, quoted in Bawden, 2008:24)
Martin (2008:165) claims to have performed a similar abstraction to the 8C's, coming up with five 'key elements':
- Digital literacy involves being able to carry out successful digital actions embedded within work, learning, leisure, and other aspects of everyday life;
- Digital literacy, for the individual, will therefore vary according to his/her particular life situation and also be an ongoing lifelong process developing as the individual's life situation evolves;
- Digital literacy is broader than ICT literacy and will include elements drawn from several related "digital literacies";
- Digital literacy involves acquiring and using knowledge, techniques, attitudes and personal qualities and will include the ability to plan, execute and evaluate digital actions in the solution of life tasks;
- It also include the ability to be aware of oneself as a digitally literate person, and to reflect on one's own digital literacy development.
Perhaps more explicit in Martin's overview than in the 8 C's is the importance of 'context' [Element 1]. This, however, is implicit in the 'cultural' element, giving more weight to the importance of community and relevant practices upon the individual. Martin also discusses literacies in their plurality, something dealt with in more depth under the 8 C's model below. Missing from Martin's overview is an explicit acknowledgement of the importance of the creative act in digital literacy. His mention of 'digital actions' does not seem to convey the same level of experimentation as with 8 C's model. In addition, and following on from the earlier mention of the 'cultural' element Martin makes no reference to power relations and the element of 'citizenship' in his overview. This is particularly explicit in influential European Union policy documents and pronouncements. Need examples! -Doug Belshaw 27/10/2009 11:14
Another conceptual overview for the concept of 'digital literacy' is provided by Eshet-Alkalai and Amichai-Hamburger (2004:421). This is couched in a 'skills' framework:
- Photo-visual skills (''reading' instructions from graphical displays')
- Reproduction skills ('utilizing digital reproduction to create new, meaningful materials from preexisting ones')
- Branching skills ('constructing knowledge from non-linear, hypertextual navigation')
- Information skills ('evaluating the quality and validity of information')
- Socio-emotional skills ('understanding the "rules" that prevail in cyberspace and applying this understanding in online cyberspace communication')
Whilst this conceptual overview touches on most of the 8 C's outlined above, it remains unsatisfactory. Whilst 'reproduction skills' are included, creating 'new, meaningful materials from preexisting ones' it ignores the creative act of individuals creating something from scratch. A rejoinder to this may be that every literacy practice is derivative from at least one other pre-existing literacy practice. If this is the case, then all creative acts are derivative. Problems then arise with completely original works. Do they involve a 'literacy' or not?
Again, something that is not considered in enough depth by Eshet-Alkalai and Amichai-Hamburger is the 'civic' concept. Whilst the authors mention understanding [and applying] the "rules" that prevail in cyberspace, citizenship is a concept that goes above and beyond the mere obeying of rules. It is not only understanding one's rights and behaving appropriately, but recognizing and acting upon one's responsibilities within a given domain.
Tornero (2004) believes digital literacy to be very similar to UNESCO's definition of 'media education':
[Media Education] enables people to gain understanding of the communication media used in their society and the way they operate and to acquire skills in using these media to communicate with others.
...
[It] is linked with communication in general and is part of the basic entitlement of every citizen, in every country in the world, to freedom of expression and the right to information and is instrumental in building and sustaining democracy.
As a result, Tornero comes up with four dimensions involved in the 'process' of digital literacy:
- Operational: The ability to use computers and communication technologies.
- Semiotic: The ability to use all the languages that converge in the new multimedia universe.
- Cultural: A new intellectual environment for the Information Society.
- Civic: A new repertoire of rights and duties relating to the new technological context.
Whilst this certainly remedies the lack of community and civic elements in the two models outlined above, it again fails to make explicit the creative element of digital literacy. One could argue that the ability to use computers and communication technologies is a 'competence,' not an area of literacy. This is why the 'creative' element is important in digital literacy. Nor does Tornero deal adequately with the 'critical' nature of digital literacy. That is to say he does not consider, for example, an individual deciding to use one tool over another as a matter of literacy. Whilst it could be argued that this is not, in fact, a matter for literacy, such critical reflection ismentioned only in passing by Tornero.
Claire Bélisle (in Martin, 2008:156) identifies three conceptions in the evolution of our concept of 'literacy'. First is the model favoured by UNESCO, the functional model. This conceives of literacy as the 'mastery of simple cognitive and practical skills.' Most theorists in the literature - and especially those who espouse 'new literacies' - would see this as a definition of competence, not literacy. Thus, 'digital competence' could involve a basic understanding of how the internet works (e.g. hyperlinks) and having the practical skills to be able to navigate it.
The second model in the evolution of literacy cited by Bélisle is the socio-cultural practice model. This model takes as its basis that 'the concept of literacy is only meaningful in terms of its social context and that to be literate is to have access to cultural, economic and political structures of society' (quoted in Martin, 2008:156). This seems to make sense: that individuals have to be literate for something. A rejoinder might be that we could conceive of someone who was 'literate' marooned in the middle of nowhere. However, as Lemke reminds us:
Even if we are lost in the woods, with no material tools, trying to find our way or just make sense of the plants or stars, we are still engaged in making meanings with cultural tools such as language (names of flowers or constellations) or learned genres of visual images (flower drawings or star maps). We extend forms of activity that we have learned by previous social participation to our present lonely situation. (Lemke, 2002:36-7)
Within the digital sphere, the socio-cultural practice model makes sense. It deals specifically with the disenfranchisement felt by those not literate within a given domain. The model can also explain how hegemonic power can be grasped or maintained by those with access to literacy tools. A good example of the latter would be the Catholic church in Europe in the medieval period. The model is also a useful call-to-arms for those concerned about liberty and equality in society - in other words, social justice. It provides an arena for discourse about the importance of literacy in living a productive and rewarding life.
There are, however, problems with the socio-cultural practice model of literacy. It deals with literacy as an ideology more than as a practical skill. As a result, the constructive, creative and critical elements of the 8 C's are only alluded to whilst the cultural, communicative and civic aspects are focused upon. The cognitive element is not addressed, nor is the link between literacy and confidence. The socio-cultural practice model of literacy does not, therefore, have sufficient explanatory power to be used as the bedrock for new literacies.
The final stage in the evolution of literacy, according to Bélisle, is the intellectual empowerment model. This deals with the link between new tools and new ways of thinking:
Literacy not only provides means and skills to deal with written texts and numbers within specific cultural and ideological contexts, but it brings a profound enrichment and eventually entails a transformation of human thinking capacities. This intellectual empowerment happens whenever mankind endows itself with new cognitive tools, such as writing, or with new technical instruments, such as those that digital technology has made possible. (Bélisle, 2006: 54-55, quoted in Martin, 2008:156)
This 'meta-level' view of literacy certainly deals with the cognitive element of the 8C's as well as, to some extent, the critical and communicative aspects. The cultural and creative elements are inferred, but no specific mention is given to the civic, constructive and confidence aspects of literacy.
If these conceptions of literacy have indeed 'evolved' from one another then they are additive; they build upon one another. If this is the case, then the functional, socio-cultural practice, and intellectual empowerment models of literacy together deal with the earlier-derived 8C's. Putting them together, we would get a definition of literacy similar to the following:
Literacy involves the mastery of simple cognitive and practical skills. To be 'literate' is only meaningful within a social context and involves having access to the cultural, economic and political structures of society. In addition to providing the means and skills to deal with written texts, literacy brings about a transformation in human thinking capacities. This intellectual empowerment happens as a result of new cognitive tools (e.g. writing) or technical instruments (e.g. digital technologies).
This definition would seem to satisfy the 8C's outlined earlier, dealing with the cultural, communicative, cognitive, civic, constructive, creative, confidence, and critical aspects of literacy.
Now that a working definition of literacy has been arrived at based on the literature, we need to test it against the four conditions outlined earlier that would make for a valid definition of digital literacy. This is because digital literacy is necessarily predicated upon a bedrock definition of 'literacy'. To recap:
- 'Cash value' - it must be useful and must be able to make a difference in practice.
- Retrospective nature - it must include past (and future) instances of 'digitally-literate practice.'
- Metaphorical nature - its position to other metaphorical terms in the literate practices arena must be explained adequately.
- Digital element - advocates must be able to explain to what the 'digital' part of 'digital literacy' pertains.
The definition of literacy has the potential to deal adequately with the 'digital' part of 'digital literacy' in that it acknowledges that changes can take place as a result of new 'cognitive tools' and 'technical instruments'. Likewise, the definition can deal with both past and future instances of literate practices, as it mentions the 'transformation in human thinking capacities' that literacy brings about. Given that literacy is altered by the aforementioned cognitive tools and technical instruments, changes in the latter produce changes in the former. The metaphorical aspect of literacy is dealt with through its explanation that 'the concept of literacy is only meaningful in terms of its social context'. The 'cash value' of the definition could be seen to be a call to action due to literacy involving gaining 'access to cultural economic and political structures of society' .
Buckingham, 2008:73-4 - Buckingham sets out his stall:
I argue for a particular definition of "digital literacy" that goes well beyond some of the approaches that are currently adopted in the field of information technology in education. Indeed, implicit in my argument is a view that new digital media can no longer be regarded as a matter of "information" or of "technology." This is particularly the case if we are seeking to develop more effective connections between children's experiences of technology outside school and their experiences in the classroom.
Buckingham, 2008:74 - Regarding computers, etc. in terms of 'hardware' and 'software' is misguided:
In most children's leisure-time experiences, computers are much more than devices for information retrieval: they convey images and fantasies, provide opportunities for imaginative self-expression and play, and serve as amedium through which intimate personal relationships are conducted. These media cannot be adequately understood if we persist in regarding them simply as a matter of machines and techniques or as "hardware" and "software." The internet, computer games, digital video, mobile phone and other contemporary technologies provide new ways of mediating and representing the world and of communicating. Outside school, children are engaging with these media, not as technologies, but as cultural forms. If educators wish to use these media in schools, they cannot afford to neglect these experiences: on the contrary, they need to provide students with means of understanding them. This is the function of what I am calling digital literacy.
- Rosado, E. & Bélisle, C. (2006) 'Analysing Digital Literacy Frameworks. A European Framework for Digital Literacy, LIRE, Université Lyon 2, Lyon (available athttp://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/13/77/79/PDF/Analysing-Edu-Frameworks.pdf)
Digital knowledge refers to a new condition of knowledge that can be processed and transformed by technological tools. The first, most visible aspect is instantaneous access to outstanding sources of information. But a more important change is under way with the provision of tools capable of content categorizing, semantic marking, allowing knowledge foraging and mining by machines. What this implies is still debatable, but already standardization and tokenization of knowledge are developing rapidly. Knowledge processes, such are searching texts for words, summarizing texts and pictures, customizing information, translating within specific contexts, clustering large quantities of information, searching for labelled contents, are being taken over by technological tools. Important quantities of knowledge can be handled, taking into consideration not only the way knowledge is produced and its epistemological context (for example scientific or religious knowledge) but also the way it is structured and represented. Knowledge can be managed through the descriptors of its semantic content as well as its form. This implies a machine interpretable description of the knowledge units that correspond to the information needed to apply specific processes to it.
Fieldhouse & Martin, 2008:50 - Erstad (2006) - digital literacy for school-age learners in Norway:
...skills, knowledge and attitudes in using digital media to be able to master the challenges in the learning society.
Gurak, 2001:7 - Cyberliteracy involves understanding the consequences of technology:
Our culture does not inspire us to look beyond... simplistic answers to understand the broader social issues that these questions raise. Nor are we inspired to protest or change the technology. Yet to be cyberliterate means to recognize that technologies have consequences, and that we can decide how we allow the Internet to be part of our lives.
Gurak, 2001:13 - Popular definitions of literacy are 'performative':
...popular understandings of literacy often hearken back to those more biased, simplistic definitions, valuing reading and print over any other form of communication. This view of literacy is what might be labeled as "performative": that is, the ability to do something is what counts. We hear about literacy in this way almost every day when we watch the television news or read the paper and learn that people need to become more "computer literate" or "technology literate," which, translated, usually means that these people need to learn how to use a computer and keyboard. Indeed, this view of literacy is so common that it leaves little room for what I am suggesting: a critical technological literacy, one that includes performance, but also relies heavily on people's ability to understand, criticize, and make judgments about a technology's interactions with, and effects on, culture.
Gurak, 2001:21 - Welch (1999) drawing on Street (1984) - literacy in age of 'electric rhetoric' must make room for differing kinds of knowledge and recognition must be made that literacy is always connected to issues of power:
[Literacy] constitutes intersubjective activity in encoding and decoding screen and alphabetic texts within specific cultural practices and recognizes the inevitable deployment of power and the control that larger entities have over these media... While literacy now and historically is conditioned by communication technology, it is not determined by it; changes in consciousness bring about social constructions in which some writing and speaking activities are privileged and others are devalued.
Buckingham, 2008:77 - Conceptions of digital literacy never stray too far away from idea of accessing information:
[M]ost discussions of digital literacy remain primarily preoccupied withinformation - and therefore tend to neglect some of the broader cultural uses of the internet (not least by young people)... Much of the discussion appears to assume that information can be assessed simply in terms of its factual accuracy... There is little recognition here of the symbolic or persuasive aspects of digital media, of the emotional dimensions of our uses and interpretations of these media, or indeed of aspects of digital media that exceed mere "information."
- Ann Kovalchick & Kara Dawson - Educational Technology: An Encyclopedia), 2004, p.602)
Visual literacy involves the ability to interpret (read) and to produce or use (write) culturally significant images, objects and visual actions.
Søby, 2008:122-3 - Ong, Orality and Literacy (1982) - technologies transform consciousness:
According to Ong, writing becomes interiorized. That makes it difficult to see writing as a technology. There is a close connection between the philosophy of the Enlightenment and printing techniques. For example, in seeing a book's print as "natural" - something that has lost its technical character - pedagogy has forgotten how technology and culture are interwoven. (Søby, 1998)
Søby, 2008:124 - Snow (1959) warned against separating technology and culture as it "would lead to technology developing into a form of rationality with a basis in science without cultural knowledge and that cultural analyses in the fields of the humanities and social science lacked technical knowledge." (Søby)
Rodríguez Illera, 2004:49-50 - Convoluted definition of literacy, but does get a handle on something:
On the one hand, literacy is seen as a competence (as opposed to performance), that is, as a cognitive capacity capable of generating numerous specific forms. Educational conceptions of this competence are particularly valuable when they contrast the simple analysis or evaluation of the performance, but they are even more so when they include a social/cultural component within the very heart of the idea of competence - in other words, treating literacy as a communicative competence and not solely as one that is simply linguistic or cognitive, that is as a social competence that takes into consideration the cultural and interpersonal context in which it is produced.
Rantala & Suoranta, 2008:96-7 - 'Ideological' model of literacy is opposed to the 'autonomous' model:
On the other hand, the ideological model "rejects the notion of an essential literacy lying behind actual social practices involving texts. What literacy isconsists in the forms textual engagement takes within specific material contexts of human practice" (Lankshear, 1999, no page; our emphasis). Literacy is thus seen as ben inextricably and contextually linked to cultural, political and hegemonic power structures. In this sense it has been argued that because people's relationships with media in the digital age are necessarily tied to social and cultural contexts, it is important to get beyond individual, skills-based literacy learning and approach literacy as a sociocultural phenomenon... Accordingly, reading and writing are not only based on individual skills; literacy is an active relationship or a way or orienting to the social and cultural world. Furthermore, reading and writing do not happen in social isolation but, in some fundamental respect, are inherent attribute of social practices.
Martin, 2008:167 - Digital literacy's relation to identity:
Digital literacy is conceived as an attribute of the person in a socio-cultural context; it is an element of that person's identity.
Lankshear & Knobel, 2008:282 - Remix and culture go hand-in-hand:
We could say that knowledge is remix, that politics is remix, and so on. Always and everywhere this is how culture have been made - by remixing; taking what others have created, remixing it, and sharing it with other people again. This is what cultures are.
Lankshear & Knobel, 2008:7 - Reason for literacies (plural) from literacy-as-sociocultural-practices model:
From a sociocultural perspective, these different ways of reading and writing and the "enculturations" that lead to becoming proficient in them are literacies. Engaging in these situated practices where we make meanings by relating texts to larger ways of doing and being is engaging in literacy - or, more accurately,literacies, since we are all apprentices to more than one.
Kress, 2003:18 - Technology is just technology unless it is given meaning:
Technologies become significant when social and cultural conditions allow them to become significant. The new information and communication technologies have both made possible and been a part of the more profound force of (economic and cultural) globalisation.
Holme, 2004:31 - Problem of treating literacy as set of competencies = an affective problem - when literacy reduced to set of skills, it is separated from individual's emotional engagement with culture. Becomes 'remote, automatist and demotivating.' Street (2001:293) - failure of many literacy campaigns to understand 'the cultural and conceptual nature of literacy'.
Holme, 2004:145-6 - Street (1984) - technologies arise from socio-economic need, but also arise from cultural process of experimentation. 'Social practices and their supporting technologies are clearly bound up, one with the other.' (Holme gives example of Reformation - cheaper reading materials + dissatisfaction with corrupt practices of Catholic church)
- Suzanne Stokes, 'Visual Literacy in Teaching and Learning: A Literature Perspective' (Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education, 2001):
A culture's predominant mode of literacy depends on the technology and mass media it embraces (Sinatra, 1986). In education's continuing mission of meeting the needs of learners, an apparent shift from the long-standing process of reading, writing, counting, and text memorization skills that may have been appropriate for the medieval clerk, are giving way to skills of analysis and innovation that are considered desirable in today’s modern cultures (West, 1997). Proficiency with words and numbers is insufficient and must be supplemented with additional basic skills as new and emerging technologies permeate activities of daily living. Viewing change with fear and skepticism often accompanies shifts such as these that can revolutionize society. Even Socrates portrayed the new technology of the written word as dangerous and destructive, artificial and rigid, and unresponsive and insensitive. As more visual elements are incorporated to achieve an optimal balance between verbal and visual cues in education, interdependence between the two modes of thought will be fostered. Kellner (1998) proposes that multiple literacies are necessary to meet the challenges of today's society, literacies that include print literacy, visual literacy, aural literacy, media literacy, computer literacy, cultural literacy, social literacy, and ecoliteracy
Sugimoto & Levin, 2000:133 - Literacy recently has been seen as set of social & cultural practices rather than being neutral:
Recently, literacy has been viewed as a complex set of social and cultural practices rather than as a neutral technology of reading and writing. According to Street (1995), the 'literacy practices' concept 'refers to both behavior and the social and cultural conceptualizations that give meaning to the uses of reading and/or writing' (p.2).
Sugimoto & Levin, 2000:133 - Impact of culture on technologies:
...new technologies are created in specific cultural and social contexts. The uses and conceptualizations of these technologies reflect, intentionally or unintentionally, the culture they were created in. And when they come to another sociocultural context, the technologies often bring with them these cultural and social ideologies and value systems
Sloane & Johnstone, 2000:160 - Definition of 'culture' from publicity for Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, 1978, p.19, quoted in Street, 1995, p.59:
the lived experience, the consciousness of a whole society; that particular order, pattern, configuration of valued experience, expressed now in imaginative art of the highest order, now in the most popular and proverbial forms, in gesture and language, in myth and ideology, in modes of communication and in forms of social relationship and organisation.
Snyder, 2002:5-6 - Literacy is about deciphering and situating texts:
Literacy practices in the age of the new information and communication technologies are highly complex phenomena: they are not just about deciphering texts; they are also about understanding how culturally significant information is coded.
Bigum & Green, 1993:24-25 - What is needed in the future (i.e. from 1993 onwards) in terms of synthesizing literacy and technology practices:
What is needed now is a cultural-critical perspective on both literacy and technology, and a holistic view of the nexus between literacy pedagogy and the new technologies which brings together the operational, the cultural and thecritical dimensions of both literacy and what we might call 'computency'
Erstad, 2008:177 - Kind of a definition of digital literacy:
One of the key challenges in [developments of everyday practices] is the issue ofdigital literacy. This relates to the extent to which citizens have the necessary competence to take advantage of the possibilities given by new technologies in different settings. In a fundamental way it raises discussions about what it means to be able to "read" and "write" as part of our cultural developments today...
Erstad, 2008:180-1 - Wertsch (1998:43) - impact on social & psychological processes of technology:
One could focus on the emergence and influence of a new mediational sociocultural history where forces of industrialization and technological development come into play. An important instance of the latter sort is what has happened to social and psychological processes with the appearance of modern computers. Regardless of the particular case or the genetic domain involved, the general point is that the introduction of a new mediational means creates a kind of imbalance in the systemic organization of mediated action, an imbalance that sets off changes in other elements such as the agent and changes in mediated action in general.
Erstad, 2008:189 - Diakopoulos (2005:no page) - talks about Barthes and his discussion of a text being a 'tissue of citations' born of a multitude of sources in culture (Barthes, 1978)
- Thomas, et al. (2007) Authors try to compare online interactions with those of cavemen:
Transliteracy is an inclusive concept which bridges and connects past, present and, hopefully, future modalities. The chitchat of a blog is not dissimilar to campfire stories after a day’s hunting, and the auction fever of eBay is not unlike the haggling that went on in an Iron Age marketplace. The literacies (digital, numerate, oral) may be different, but the transliteracies (social, economic, political) often transect them in similar ways, depending on cultural context.
Thomas, et al. (2007) 'Cultural production' is usually analyzed from one of two perspectives: the how ('practical issues of media and digital literacy, particularly access to and use of the tools and skills of production') or the why ('social, economic and cultural determinants'). A transliterativeapproach would consider both.
Kress, 1998:53 - Common and serious error to treat technology as a 'causal phenomenon in human, social and cultural affairs'. Technologies only flourish because something is both known and possible- e.g. gunpowder's use in China before 'discovery' in West.
[c.f. Shirky?]
----------------------
Digital literacy originally conceived of in same terms as 'technological literacy' (Rosado & Belisle, 2006) -Doug Belshaw 01/08/2009 15:08
Martin (2008:165) - elements of digital literacy
p.165 - Key elements of 'digital literacy' synthesized by author:
i. Digital literacy involves being able to carry out successful digital actions embedded within work, learning, leisure, and other aspects of everyday life;
ii. Digital literacy, for the individual, will therefore vary according to his/her particular life situation and also be an ongoing lifelong process developing as the individual's life situation evolves;
iii. Digital literacy is broader than ICT literacy and will include elements drawn from several related "digital literacies";
iv. Digital literacy involves acquiring and using knowledge, techniques, attitudes and personal qualities and will include the ability to plan, execute and evaluate digital actions in the solution of life tasks;
v. It also include the ability to be aware of oneself as a digitally literate person, and to reflect on one's own digital literacy development.
Difficulties arise because of 'literacy lenses'?
"Knowledge and learning are almost always viewed in forms associated with current literacies; they appear to us through the lens of a literacy."
- (This is a reason for people who don't have ICT literacy not seeing need for it)
A.A. diSessa, Changing Minds: computers, learning, and literacy (London, 2000), p.6 -Doug Belshaw 01/08/2009 15:19
Bawden, D. 'Origins and Concepts of Digital Literacy' (in Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M.Digital Literacies: Concepts, Policies and Practices, 2008)
p.29-30 - Four general agreed components of digital literacy from the authors quoted by Bawden:
- Underpinnings (literacy per se & Computer/ICT literacy)
- Background knowledge (the world of information & nature of information resources)
- Central competencies (reading & understanding digital & non-digital formats, creating & communication digital information, evaluation of information, knowledge assembly, information literacy, media literacy)
- Attitudes & perspectives (independent learning, moral/social literacy)
Digital 'grammar'? (Buckingham, 2008:77-78) -Doug Belshaw 03/08/2009 12:48
Pragmatic Methodology
Mention Paolo Freire & 'conscientization' as well as Sugata Mitra - emergent literacies ('hole in the wall' computers) -Doug Belshaw 31/07/2009 10:11 Digital 'Flow'
Worldwide manifestations
Conclusion
Bibliography
- Audunson, R. & Nordlie, R. (2003) 'Information Literacy: the case or non-case in Norway? (Library Review, 52(7), 2003)
- Avgerinou, M. & Ericson, J. (1997) 'A review of the concept of Visual Literacy' (British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol.28, No.4, 1997, p.281)
- Barry, A.M. (1997) Visual Intelligence
- Bawden, D. (2008) 'Origins and Concepts of Digital Literacy' (in Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M.Digital Literacies: Concepts, Policies and Practices)
- Bazeli, M.J. & Heintz, J.L. (1997) Technology Across the Curriculum
- Beavis, C. (1998) 'Computer games, culture and curriculum' (in I. Snyder, Page to Screen, 1998)
- Beavis, C. (2002) 'Reading, Writing and Role-playing Computer Games' (in I. Snyder, Silcon Literacies: communication, innovation and education in the electronic age)
- Berger, P.L. & Luckmann, T. (2002) 'The Social Construction of Reality' (in Calhoun, C., et al., Contemporary Sociological Theory)
- Bigum, C. & Green, B. (1993) 'Technologizing literacy: or, interrupting the dream of reason' (in Luke, A. & Gilbert, P. (eds.) Literacy in Contexts: Australian Perspectives and Issues)
- Bruce, C.S. (1997) Seven Faces of Information Literacy
- Buckingham, D. & Willett, R. (2006) Digital Generations: Children, Young People, and New Media
- Carneiro, R. (2002) 'The New Frontiers of Education' (in UNESCO, Learning Throughout Life: challenges for the twenty-first century)
- Center for Intellectual Property in the Digital Environment (2005), Colleges, Code, And Copyright: The Impact of Digital Networks and Technological Controls on Copyright and the Dissemination of Information in Higher Education, Association of College & Research Libraries
- Cook, J. & Smith, M. (2004) 'Beyond formal learning: Informal community eLearning,' Computers & Education 43, pp.35–47
- Coutinho, C.P. 'Cooperative Learning in Higher Education using Weblogs: a study with undergraduate students of Education in Portugal' (in World Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cybernetic and Informatics, 11(1), 2007, pp. 60-64)
- Cunningham, M. (2006) - Exploiting the Knowledge Economy: Issues, Applications and Case Studies
- Doyle, C.S. (1994) Information literacy in an information society: A Concept for the Information Age
- Erstad, O. (2003) 'Electracy as empowerment: Student activities in learning environments using technology' (Young, 11:11, 2003)
- Eshet-Alkalai, Y. & Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (2004) 'Experiments in Digital Literacy' (CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7:4, August 2004)
- Eyman, D. (no date) Digital Literac(ies), Digital Discourses, and Communities of Practice: Literacy Practices in Virtual Environments (Cultural Practices of Literacy Study, Working Paper #12, http://cpls.educ.ubc.ca/content/projects_eyman.html)
- Fieldhouse, M. & Nicholas, D. (2008) 'Digital Literacy as Information Savvy: the road to information literacy' (in Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. Digital Literacies: Concepts, Policies and Practices)
- Genishi, C. & Glupczynski, T. (2006) 'Language and Literacy Research: Multiple Methods and Perspectives' (in J.L. Green, et al. (eds.), Handbook of Complementary Methods in Education Research, Washington D.C., 2006)
- Gilster, P. (1997) Digital Literacy
- Gurak, L.J. (2001) Cyberliteracy: navigating the Internet with awareness
- Hannon, P. (2000) Reflecting on Literacy in Education
- Holme, R. (2004) Literacy: an introduction
- James, W. (1995) Pragmatism
- Johnson, G.M. (2008) 'Functional Internet Literacy: required cognitive skills with implications for instruction' (in Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. Digital Literacies: Concepts, Policies and Practices)
- Johnson-Eilda, J. (1998) 'Living on the surface: learning in the age of global communication networks' (in I. Snyder (ed.), Page to Screen: taking literacy into the electronic era)
- Kovalchick, A. & Dawson, K. (2004) Educational Technology: An Encyclopedia
- Kress, G. (2003) Literacy in the New Media Age
- Lankshear, C. (2006) - New Literacies: Everyday Practices and Classroom Learning
- Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2008) Digital Literacies: Concepts, Policies and Practices
- Lemke, J.L. (2002) 'Becoming the Village: Education Across Lives' (in G. Wells & G. Claxton (eds.) Learning for Life in the 21st Century)
- Lowe, R. (1993) Successful Instructional Diagrams
- Martin, A. (2003) 'Towards e-literacy' (in A. Martin & H. Rader (eds.), Information and IT literacy: enabling learning in the 21st century)
- Martin, A. (2008) 'Digital Literacy and the "Digital Society"' (in Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M., Digital Literacies: Concepts, Policies and Practices)
- Muller, J. (2000) Reclaiming Knowledge: social theory, curriculum and education policy
- Oliver, R. & Towers, S. (2000) 'Benchmarking ICT literacy in tertiary learning settings' (in Sims, R., O’Reilly, M. & Sawkins, S. (eds.). Learning to choose: Choosing to learn. Proceedings of the 17th Annual ASCILITE Conference, pp. 381-390, Lismore, NSW: Southern Cross University Press)
- Owen-Jackson, G. (2002) Teaching Design and Technology in Secondary Schools
- Paxson, P. (2004) Media Literacy: Thinking Critically about Visual Culture
- Pinker, S. (2002) The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature
- Potter, W.J. (2004) - Theory of Media Literacy
- Reilly, B. (1996) 'New Technologies, New Literacies, New Patterns' (in C. Fisher, D.C. Dwyer & K. Yocam (eds.), Education and Technology: reflections on computing in classrooms)
- Rodríguez Illera, J.L., (2004) 'Digital Literacies' (Interactive Educational Multimedia, number 9 (November 2004), pp. 48-62)
- Sigafoos, J. & Green, V. (2007) Technology and Teaching
- Snavely, L & Cooper, N.A. (1997) The Information Literacy Debate' (Journal of Academic Librarianship 23, Jan. 1997)
- Snyder, I. (ed.) (2002) Silicon Literacies: Communication, Innovation and Education in the Electronic Age
- Spitzer, K.L., et al. (1998) Information Literacy: essential skills for the information age
- Standage, T. (1998) - The Victorian Internet
- Thomas, et al. (2007) 'Transliteracy: Crossing divides' (First Monday, 12:12. December 2007)
- Tornero, J.M.P. (2004) 'Digital Literacy and Media Education: an Emerging Need (available online at http://www.elearningeuropa.info/directory/index.php?page=doc&doc_id=4935&doclng=6, accessed 4 August 2009)
- Town, J.S. (2003) 'Information Literacy: definition, measurement, impact' (in A. Martin & H. Rader (eds.), Information and IT literacy: enabling learning in the 21st century)
- Tuman, M. (1992) Word Perfect: literacy in the computer age