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.