Well there’s the caterpillars in my garden:
(Hundreds of the buggers) . They make me go ‘Hmmm’
Then there’s streetart and how fantastic and generous the artists are to put it out there for all to see (even though some people just walk past).
And isn’t it amazing that some people can concetrate so hard that they can read a small screen for hours in the middle of New York’s Chinatown:
Then there is the range of cakes available in Starbucks:
(And how is it that Miles always leaves a bit?)
But also there is the difficult pithy problem of trying to sort out what digital literacies are.
I think that if you come at the definition from technology based disciplines and epistomologies, digital literacies are skills and knowledge needed in order to make technology work It is about ‘how do you use the web?’ Or ‘what can I make my mobile phone do?’ ‘What is the best way to use Google?’ or ‘ What is better, Google or Yahoo?’ (etc.) Or ‘how do I do a podcast?’
Whereas if you come at it from the angle of a literacy/language specialist, , you are thinking about
‘What kind of text does technology produce?’ and ‘How does this affect the message?’
‘How do texts change when we have more technology available?’
Do readers respond diffrently to digital texts?
What do we need to learn?
What are the social implications?
How does the meaning change?
How do the different modal properties work together?
What are the affordances and constraints?
If we have a broad definition of text, does that mean that we need to broaden our notion of literacy? I am happy to think about speech as spoken text and I am happy to analyse speech in context and therefore take into account the range of modes that contribute to the meaning of that text … e.g. what people are wearing; where and why the speech event takes place (etc.) But I do not think this is literacy.
I think literacy involves writing/reading. But I also think that because context contributes to meaning, that literacy is never JUST about writing. So we have to think wide. But not too wide. Just because something is digital does not mean it is literacy. Just because something is communicating meaning, does not mean it is literacy. This does not mean I value the written word more than other types of communication. It is just that literacy is something in particular.
I would say the focus of what literacy is, should be more focussed at how it is “decoded” or “read”. By truly understanding how a text is broken down, we can then begin working on creating texts that meet the needs of those “readers”.
Comment by Chris Best — July 31, 2006 @ 11:24 pm
Hmm, Chris, I don’t know about that. The broader stuff seems more signifcant to me- how we make meaning and all that. Joolz, i really enjoyed this post and will take the last half to Burgundy to contemplate.Re caterpillars, it just conjured up unpleasant memeories of the year I grew broccoli (?Brocolli?) . We had hundreds of caterpillars and to stay organic had to stamp on them. Yeurghh.
Comment by Mary Plain — August 1, 2006 @ 5:56 pm
PS That cake is evil.
Comment by Mary Plain — August 1, 2006 @ 5:57 pm
I am so pleased that you are debating the meaning of the ‘digital literacies’. I agree that a person’s perception of ‘digital literacy’ may be influenced by their background. I have an educational-technological background and [having read many descriptions and definitions] came to the [possibly naive] conclusion that Internet literacies “… include the knowledge, understanding, skills and attitudes necessary to effectively, safely and ethically pursue personal, educational and work related tasks or activities when communicating and information seeking on the Internet” (in progress). I now feel that this perception is a million miles from one a “literacy/language specialist” might use (if they thought it could be encapsulated). I suppose I feel young people should be aware of issues of Internet identity, community and language use - but so that they use the Internet “effectively, safely and ethically”. I am now very confused and feel I need to reconsider everything I have read and thought about literacy!
Comment by Peter Stordy — August 1, 2006 @ 6:06 pm
You stamped on the caterpillars??? That’s amazing!!! I have a vision of you wearing wellies and jumping around killing caterpillars. When we were in New York, Miles had a different Starbucks cake everyday. The above example was on day two.
As for Dig lit … because Chris was a student of Anya’s I think he uses the word ‘decoding’ to express the idea of ‘working out how the meanings are encoded’ .. at least that is how I interpreted it. Glad you both found it interesting; I think I am reviing my earlier way of using the term ‘literacy’ as I think I was using it too broadly before. I think I need to think about it more though.
Comment by DrJoolz — August 1, 2006 @ 8:01 pm
The cake and the caterpillars are both fascinating texts, digitally mediated on your wonderful blog. My view is that we are doing a literacy thing in elaborating on these texts with our keyboards. Yes they are texts in their own right and can be ‘decoded’ or ‘read’ but here (in this text) become a context for the practice of literacy….now of course I don’t mean to privilege lettered representation in any way by saying this, and it must be acknowledged that in many situations literacy texts mean very little without a surrounding context.
Comment by on-the-run — August 1, 2006 @ 8:54 pm
Hmm. Yes thanks again Guy. Glad this post has prompted responses like this. I really think we need to work at defining digital literacies before moving on in a blased way, using the term so loosely.
Comment by drjoolz — August 2, 2006 @ 10:13 am
The caterpillar experience was gross but necessary. Can’t remember if I wore wellies.. probably just trainers.
I agree we need to worry away at this definition thing before we go much further. One for October perhaps.
Comment by Mary Plain — August 2, 2006 @ 1:32 pm
Wonderful photographs - particularly the caterpillar. I am pleased you have started a discussion about literacy - particularly what you call the ‘digital literacies’. I agree that the ‘discipline’ alters the way you perceive them. I have an educational-technological background and previously came to the naive conclusion that they include the knowledge, understanding, skills and attitudes necessary to effectively, safely and ethically pursue personal, educational and work related tasks or activities when communicating and information seeking on the Internet. This appears to be a very different view of the ‘digital literacies’ compared to a literacy/language specialist. I have even read descriptions of e-literacy that imply that it is ‘only’ concerned with the teaching of reading-writing through Web pages. I am now totally confused and look forward to reading more comments.
Comment by Peter Stordy (Outsider inside) — August 2, 2006 @ 2:12 pm
Wonderful photographs - particularly the caterpillar. I am pleased you have started a discussion about literacy - particularly what you call the ‘digital literacies’. I agree that the ‘discipline’ alters the way you perceive them. I have an educational-technological background and previously came to the naive conclusion that they include the knowledge, understanding, skills and attitudes necessary to effectively, safely and ethically pursue personal, educational and work related tasks or activities when communicating and information seeking on the Internet. This appears to be a very different view of the ‘digital literacies’ compared to a literacy/language specialist. I have even read descriptions of e-literacy that imply that it is ‘only’ concerned with the teaching of reading-writing through Web pages. I am now totally confused and look forward to reading more comments.
Comment by Peter Stordy (Outsider inside) — August 2, 2006 @ 2:14 pm
Test from an outsider
Comment by Peter Stordy — August 2, 2006 @ 2:19 pm
Wonderful photographs - particularly the caterpillar. I am pleased you have started a discussion about literacy - particularly what you call the ‘digital literacies’. I agree that the ‘discipline’ alters the way you perceive them. I have an educational-technological background and previously came to the naive conclusion that they include the knowledge, understanding, skills and attitudes necessary to effectively, safely and ethically pursue personal, educational and work related tasks or activities when communicating and information seeking on the Internet. Very different!
Comment by Peter Stordy — August 2, 2006 @ 2:23 pm
Cheers Peter; not sure that you were naive, but think that it is just a question of perspective. I am not sure how it has happened that the word ‘literacy’ has started to be used to mean the same as ‘understanding’. For example in phrases like ‘emotional literacy’ and so on. Perhaps it started with things like genre theory leading to the National Literacy Strategy in the UK, which then used terms like science literacy (meaning knowledge of the words, language, meanings and spellings of science) ‘literacy’ came to be adoptedas a generic term meaning ‘knowledge or skills or understanding in a particular area.
Comment by DrJoolz — August 2, 2006 @ 9:23 pm
I have just read Colin Lankshear & Michele Knobel’s chapter on New Literacies and they seem to agree with what you’re saying – in the 1980-90s some conceptions of literacy started to become a metaphor for ‘competence’ or ‘proficiency’. They suggest that the word ‘literacy’ may have been chosen because it connotes ‘know the language’ of a technology, domain of practice, mode of thinking or reasoning. This is starting to make sense ….
Comment by Peter Stordy — August 3, 2006 @ 9:07 am
aha. Cheers for this Peter; I have not read that chapter so that is a really useful reference.
Comment by DrJoolz — August 3, 2006 @ 9:37 am
I’ll use this as an opportunity to fumble my way onto your blog, finally … my core focus is information literacy which is a term that has emerged from the library and information community. There is ongoing debate about whether it’s the right phrase to use, although now it’s used so commonly used worldwide I think it’s a bit of a dying argument, whether it’s the right phrase or not. Librarians opposed to it don’t object so much because they feel the word “literacy” is being misused, but rather because it sometimes isn’t liked by their clients/readers e.g. because it implies you can be information illiterate. It’s being used in the “competence” way that Peter mentions, and in a number of languages (e.g. Swedish, German) it’s translated as “Kompetenz” (etc) but in other languages (e.g. Spanish) there’s debate about whether to use the (rather long) literal translation of IL or something that means “information competence”.
Comment by Sheila Webber — August 3, 2006 @ 11:30 am
Me again, partly to apologise for being incompetent with my HTML in the above posting, but also to add that the “information” in IL is “information content” as opposed to the technology - “information” being a term that obviously continues to be chewed over by researchers in my discipline (which is the soft, qualitative end of information science). I take the approach that information is medium independent so channels and sources can be people, blogs, books, magazines, images etc etc., and people in different cultures & disciplines differ in what they perceive or prefer as sources. I think that reading your & Dr Kate’s & other linked-to blogs is fascinating in helping me understand more about what your field of digital literacy means, but also to see more clearly what might be between IL and digital literacies and also the way different disciplinary lenses affect how all this is experienced….
And also, your photos are great!! (should have said that first, you can tell I’m a socially imcompetent information scientist
Comment by Sheila Webber — August 3, 2006 @ 11:44 am
Michele and Colin describe what they mean by ‘literacies’ in their excellent draft chapter:
‘socially recognized ways of generating, communicating and negotiating
meaningful content through the medium of encoded texts within contexts of
participation in Discourses (or, as members of Discourses)’
(a href=”http://www.geocities.com/newliteracies/Chapter3.pdf” ” title=”New Literacies: Concept and practices”>)
I am still thinking about the implications of their definition. It certainly encompasses DrJoolz and Sheila’s conceptions of literacy, but would it include conceptions of computer literacy, visual literacy or emotional literacy where encode text is consequential? Michele and Colin mention that they would consider “someone who photoshops an image” as engaging in literacy! Now I am getting confused again. Please would someone help!
Comment by Peter Stordy — August 4, 2006 @ 9:17 am
Sorry - like Sheila I have messed up the HTML (and I teach it!). The link to Colin and Michele’s excellent draft chapter is:
.
It is a shame you cannot edit a comment you have posted.
Comment by Peter Stordy — August 4, 2006 @ 9:21 am
Try again (maybe it does not like the colon):
Comment by Peter Stordy — August 4, 2006 @ 9:23 am
Last attempt - sorry to mess up the discussion! Very embarrassing - I am hyper-illiterate
New Literacies - Concept and practices
Comment by Peter Stordy — August 4, 2006 @ 9:27 am