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.