- 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment