Digital Literacy Week 4

Week 4 Critical Digital Literacies

On Canvas this week, begin by writing a rich description of your own emerging definition of ‘critical’ and ‘critical digital literacies’. How does this upset, contradict, or draw on our readings for this week? Which readings and ideas have most resonance for you in constructing an idea of the ‘critical’? Write, Post, and Respond.

Critical has negative connotation in colloquial dialogue that it does not seem as burdened with in academia. In fact the most relevant works of literature and art are those that are criticized the most. The criticism in critical digital literacies is the act of improvement. Due to the shared space that digital tools provide for text and other repesentations the opportunity for criticism has expanded. Those involved in work in such spaces must build a capacity to both give and receive correspondence that offers different viewpoints. If we accept that there ultimately are some absolute truths and agreed upon standards of quality then the affordance of a shared space over time to share representations of thought increases the scope and depth of the representations if the participants in the dialogue work selflessly toward objective improvement.

Information is coded and transformed in physically different ways in the human mind, on micro-processors, on paper, and/or on the screen. However, how closely any of these information representations accurately portray the reality of a situation or physical object which is independent of the form of representation that determines its’ relevancy. It is the ability to coordinate the resources of thought toward improved accuracy of the objectified subject that is fundamental to any representation gaining credibility. Furthermore, it is only when the space in which the representations are manifest are provided with a set of rules and/or procedures that lead to what the participants agree is improved quality of thought that the interaction is productive.

Informational codes provide an opportunity to share thoughts. The forms of the representations whether they are letters, music, pictures, videos, graphs, or diagrams as well as the rules of their manipulation, coordination, and meaning making have become what I understand as literacy. Digital formats seem to provide spaces to share the representations of thought. These shared representations lend themselves to criticism by those that have access. Collectively this becomes a critical digital literacy.

It is crucial that we build in students the interpersonal skill of collaboration in order to utilize the shared ‘thinking’ space that digital literacy provides. The real power of critical digital literacy is in the meaning that can be constructed and shared by those involved. Technological capability does not have a purpose unless provided by people. It is a new set of rules that must be followed for people to think together in a shared digital space toward a common goal.

The policy BRIEF presented by Phillips and Manderino only captures the technological centric view of integrating digital literacies into schools. While they do consider teacher and leader capacity in an overall plan they do not provide nearly enough emphasis on the need to develop new working capabilities. The real potential of technology will not be reached unless we incorporate the fostering of productive collaboration skills into the experience of students. This is most effectively done in small groups coordinated around specific projects rather that an open public format.

Digital Literacy Week 3

Canvas Reflection-3

Pull together the threads from our three reading areas this week- ‘Communities of Practice’, ‘Affinity Spaces’ and ‘Repertoires’ and write a reflection on how you see them relating to one another in a digital age. Post your reflection on our shared Canvas Week 3 discussion board, and Respond to one of your classmates.

As I reflect upon how my life has changed with the advent of digital tools there has definitely been a change in the people I converse with, the symbols and signs used to orient and guide the interaction, and the level of proficiency needed in each of the “spaces” I find myself in. I work on a regular basis with educators across the country to develop science curricula. I am connected with a group of people that have similar interests and practice the craft of teaching on a regular basis. This seems to qualify as a an ‘affinity space”.  It is additionally interesting that the curricula that is discussed is closer to an environment that can be described as an “affinity space” than a traditional classroom.

1.     Common endeavour, not race, gender or disability,is primary. In these science units students are placed into a learning space by having a common experience that challenges them to represent a description and/or explanation of what is occurring on an atomic scale.

2.     Newbies and masters and everyone else share common space. Groups are organized to present their understanding in groups comprised of members with varying understanding and experise.

3.     Some portals are generators. The observations of the common experience reign supreme. Students use each other to gain access to the conversation that brings the class to an agreed upon understanding of the observed experience thus each student is a portal. They provide each other access to the conversation. Students are encouraged to represent their understanding as a starting point for conversation so as they generate the representations of their thinking therefore they determine the conversation thus becoming generators.

4.     Internal grammar is transformed by external grammar. The teacher continuously guides the conversations in each group by bringing a perspective that impacts the actual representations that the group is developing.

5.     Encourages intensive and extensive knowledge. Although there may be differences in the representations when they are shared the students are encouraged to modify their own representations based upon new insights gained by sharing with others.

6.     Encourages individual and distributed knowledge. Students work together and converse within their group to increase the understanding of all in the group.

7.     Encourages dispersed knowledge.  Students are encouraged to use any and all resources that will help bring clarity to their model of the observed phenomenon.

8.     Users and honors tacit knowledge. It is the act of articulation of description and/or explanation that is valued. Group members support each other in developing this articulation or the teacher helps during the presentation. Talking through the understanding so that the students can develop theior own articulation is valued over simply repeating information that is dogmatic.

9.     Many different forms and routes to participation. Since multiple representations are used more students are able to gain and describe their understanding

10.  Lots of different routes to status. The class functions as a learning community. So, many skills are valued as the class collectively makes meaning of the observed experience.

11.  Leadership is porous and leaders are resources. The teacher is encouraged to stand aside and allow the class to develop their own understanding of the common observed experience. Data is king! The teacher is simply seen as another resource that supports an argument for an acceptable descriptive or explanatory model. Anyone with a contribution toward progress becomes the leader at that time.

While this is a f2f parallel to the ‘affinity space’ that is proposed by Gee it is none the less in accord with his thinking about how we should design student interaction.

Digital Literacy Week 2

For this week’s Canvas Discussion, dive more deeply into the boyd reading, and make a connection between her thinking and the Lankshear and Knobel piece. How do these authors reveal the situated and social nature of literacy? What might be some of the tensions around “public” and “connective” practices, and what might be tensions for teachers trying to implement connective learning in classrooms (back to Jacobs)? Write, Post, and Respond on Canvas.

I see Lankashear and Knobel’s thinking juxtaposed to that of Boyd.  Lankashear and Knobel see literacy proficiency as greatly impacted and to a large extent an outgrowth of a person’s social situation, while Boyd implies that when someone engages in social media it then has an impact on their social situation. It seems to me that both are true. Communication is a process of revealing ourselves. The social context of our development will certainly determine what we ‘say’ and how we ‘say’ it. Likewise, what we ‘say’ and how we ‘say’ it will impact the view others will have of who we are.

     Digital tools amplify how many and how quickly others ‘hear’ what we have to say. Boyd refers to the audience as ‘publics’. Publics refers to the various groups that may ‘hear’ comments, identify and judge lists of friends, and read profiles, “…profiles, friends, and comments – differentiate social network sites from other types of computer-mediated communication. Furthermore, what makes these three practices significant for consideration is that they take place in public: Friends publicly articulated, profiles are publicly viewed, and comments are publicly visible.”(Boyd) Whereas prior to digitally enhanced social networks the scope of our public life was limited to those in our proximity largely due to the cost of dispensing information broadly. In addition, while word of mouth has always been cheap and accessible information quickly morphs when it is processed by the human brain rendering it suspect and unreliable which has always tempered the power of gossip. The other factor that is often overlooked is the leisure time that is now not only available for a ‘public’ to listen due to technological affordances but the format and time when it is consumed is easily managed. So, due to digital technology what someone has to say is quickly available to a vast number of people, the audience has the information delivered to them in a format that allows them to consume it at their convenience. This results in an increased connection socially of people that would not otherwise have the connection due to restraints of time and spacial availability.

     In large part due to the increased emhasis on social Profile creation is now carefully managed. “Building an intricate profile is an initiation rite. In the early days of their infatuation, teens spend innumerable hours tracking down codes, trading tips, and setting up a slick profile. Through this process, they are socialized into MySpace – they learn both technological and social codes”(Boyd) It is here that Lankashear and Knobel would argue based upon the work of Freier that the cultural situation of the user would determine the level and and nature of the technological and social codes. “Within Freier’s approach to promoting literacy, then, the process of learning literally to read and write words was an integral part of learning to understand how the world operates socially and culturally in ways that produce unequal opportunities and outcomes for different groups of people.”(Lankshear and Knobel) Whether the social situation determines the literacy or the literacy determines the social situation it does seem to be that users of digital social networks have greater control of the public persona that they display than they do in f2f interactions. “The process of performance, interpretation, and adjustment is what Erving Goffman calls impression management” (Boyd) The personal profile presented on digital social networks is often more purposeful and intentional than the personal profile communicated f2f.

     The tensions are different in digital social networks than in the f2f interaction. “At the same time as tools for communication, information sharing, and text production were increasing and the social world was becoming more diverse, the official discourse of education progressively narrowed the curriculum to focus measurable and testable sets of skills and a common core.”(Jacobs) Those that find themselves oppressed by social circumstance has been provided with a greater voice than ever in the age of digital social networks but the same barriers that limit open dialogue in f2f discussions impact dialogue on digital social networks. The possibility exists to transform public education to include all in the conversation but that has not occurred. There is a tension that exists between those that wish to truly engage those that have been excluded from education by embracing diversity and those that wish to vet and sanction the socially acceptable knowledge and skills. The latter seems consistent with a society built when information was collected, vetted and distributed by a group of similarly educated people from similar social circumstance. The common core seems to be consistent with controlled information distribution. Teachers deal with this tension in that a participatory ethos pushes them to engage students with a literacy experience that is relevant to their lives yet their performance reviews are based upon skills and knowledge that are not.

     As the digital tools available increase connectedness, amplify voice, and provide greater access to information the structure of education must adapt. Students must engage in f2f and digital social networks that empower them to become problem solvers, effective communicators, collaborators, responsible citizens, and independent life-long learners. Learning environments must become focused around supporting and monitoring students, teachers, and administrators examining their impact on the world physically, socially, and economically. Man has greater potential than ever to control mankind’s destiny but it is only through open and honest dialogue that this potential will be realized in a positive manner, whether that dialogue is f2f, via digital social network or both.

Digital Literacy Week 1

1. Write a reflection (approx. one page) that engages with this week’s readings and their core ideas, particularly the Lankshear and Knobel piece. Post a short reflection on our shared Canvas Week 1 discussion. Respond to one other person’s reflection.

Article: No Longer a Luxury: Digital Literacy Can't Wait by Troy Hicks and Kristen Hawley Turner

Reflection: As long as I have been engaged with the use of technology in schools the articulation of the questions have been problematic. The subtitle of the article states, "Following a passionate plea for teachers to incorporate technology in more meaningful ways, the authors offer specific suggestions for teaching in-depth digital literacy skills." Fortunately, the nature of the article does not address the above statement. Incorporating digital tools for skill acquisition should not be the focus of instructional design. The authors, Troy Hicks and Kristen Hawley Turner take a telelogical approach to educating students. Propose problems and communication situations that require students to use the affordances of technology to solve them. The student's experience must allow them to not only use the technology but to do so while developing those attributes that distinguish us as human beings. We conceptualize, innovate, and create as well as problem solve, develop insightful questions, and make symbols. Technology amplifies our ability to do so across time and space but technology cannot transform our nature unless we relinquish our attention to our essence. Indeed, technology may illucidate the essence of our students and enhance our ability to connect with them and engage them if we are conscious of the student-centered purpose of education. Otherwise, technology can shroud the essence of the student in a mire of digital noise and useless information.

Article: Digital Literacies, Digital Literacies Go to School: Potholes and Possibilities by David O’Brien and Cassandra Scharber

Reflection:

     The authors accurately catalogue several difficulties with the incorporation of digital technology into schools. However, these are widely recognized and the solutions to these difficulties are rather unimaginative.

     There is certainly a gap between the “digital literacies practicies youth engage in outside of school and the ways literacy is framed in official standards and assessments.” (O’Brien, Scharber) The more value that is placed upon the standardized test scores the greater the problem. The solution proposed is to “braid together new literacies and old.” I would prefer to use the analogy of old literacies being nourished by the energy that comes with the new possibilities of digital literacy. We do not even know yet what can be created and therefore don’t have anything to braid with the old.

     And, yes, new digital literacies are not always compatible with traditional school structures. However to say that “digital technologies in schools should be driven by educational purposes rather than social ones” (O’Brien, Scharber) , in my opinion, can be easily misinterpreted. We are as much social beings as rational beings. We must learn to better manage social boundaries in the digital world but social use of digital technology should not be juxtaposed with educational use. Subservient, perhaps, but not juxtaposed. Social interaction is a way to make meaning and it should not be absent from any learning experience.

     The digital divide has been discussed at length in the media. Again, I would frame the questions themselves much differently. “Some researchers have suggested that efforts to improve people’s circumstances with technology have gone unfulfilled because the digital divide has been defined as a technical issue rather than as a reflection of broader social issues.” (O’Brien, Scharber) I would prefer to say that digital media elucidates and amplifies human thought thus providing voice to perspectives that were previously unheard. The amplified voice of the previously unheard is mingled with perspectives that were previously unchallenged. I believe this is referred to as disruption, which in itself serves a creative purpose.

      I also agree with the possibilities suggested. However, I also believe that the possibilities could be broadened in scope. The possibilities go beyond “bridging the old with the new” (O’Brien, Scharber). They go beyond “transform(ing) how you express ideas(O’Brien, Scharber). The possibilities allow for a greater emphasis on learning about the world and each other. Increased interaction of varied viewpoints allows for an increased understanding of various viewpoints. It is the responsibility of educators to manage the learning and the social interaction for the greater good.

Excerpt: New Literacies: From ‘reading’ to ‘new’ literacies by Colin Lankshear and Michele Knobel

Reflection:

     It is very interesting how Freiere’s work is presented as the basis for the evolution of reading and writing instruction to a more comprehensive discussion about literacy. The contextualization of literacy within the social situation that defines it provides a context for a more effective and relevant discussion about both how to improve the quality of consumption of information and production of impactful ideas. Understanding that a shared social context is fundamental to participation in a common literacy is essential to effectively creating a text-based discussion.

     The 1970’s literacy crisis was based more on a new awareness of the importance of literacy for survival in a post-industrial economy than on a failure of reading and writing instruction. The changes in education called for in this new economy are in large part represented by the emphasis on literacy. Lankshear and Knobel argue that a minimum level of literacy competency is required for economic prosperity. This lead to increased to increased emphasis on accountability for school’s success in literacy instruction. The data revealed a stark difference in literacy competence based upon the cultural context of the students. This has lead to a revelation of differences in literacy based upon socio-economic and racial differences. Many argue that the assessments used are prejudiced and therefore do not reveal levels of competency but rather differences.

     Green’s three-dimensional model of literacy proposes three aspects of education: ‘the operational, the cultural, and the critical.’ (Lankshear and Knobel) The language aspect is categorized as operational. It describes the ability to appropriately adjust the use of text and other media in various context. The context of literate expression is often defined by its’ cultural background. The ability to critically analyze and create meaning in various social situations requires a control of not just the words but an understanding and ability to express the complex interactions of culture.

     “Bawden conceives of digital literacy as an essential requirement for life in a digital age in terms of four constitutive components; underpinnings, background knowledge, central competencies, and attitudes and perspectives.”(Lankshear and Knobel) This organization of digital literacy resonates with my experience and thinking about the important aspects of digital literacy. The underpinnings describe the basic computer skills needed to function in a digital world. The importance of the background knowledge as the substance of the digital expression is fundamental to placing meaning as paramount to digital literacy. The meaning is expressed as an interaction of digital and non-digital expressions referred to as central competencies. Of course, the direction of the meaning created in determined by the attitudes and perspectives of the digital user.

     The reoccurring theme for the investigation into new digital literacies is that they are not entirely new but well connected to the ‘old’ literacies. While the symbols are now expressed physically as binary code and displayed on an LED the rules of expression and the formats used are mostly based upon traditional literacies. New affordances and amplifications are evolving but are very much rooted in traditional conventions. The challenge seems to be maintaining control over the purpose of literacy as the possibilities of digital expression grow exponentially. It is important for educators to consciously manage the digital tools so that they reveal student thinking and amplify the expression of open dialogue that will ultimately result in expanding our ability to express the truth of our world and ourselves.