A broader definition of computer literacy

In Chapter 5 of Multiliteracies for a Digital Age (2004) Selber explores how instruction in english, composition and ICT tools should be integrated in higher education. This chapter examines the requirements for change in order for this shift to occur. Although much of his exploration and reasoning are related to higher education, I believe many of the arguments could be applied to how the literacy classroom in K-12 education will also need to shift as a result of the growing importance of ICT in daily life.

In his examination there are five nested and spiraling contexts that must be examined and utilized in order to make change; these are technical, pedagogical, curricular, departmental and institutional (Selber, p. 185). Certainly these 'nested contexts' (yes there is that context word again) ring of the elements involved in TPCK - where change of instruction to a more powerful model with the integration of many quality aspects of teaching and learning results from the interaction of many forces, not a simple switch to a technical solution.

In his analysis I really appreciated two elements that I have not yet found in the TPCK model literature. First he acknowledges the struggle and needs of change in an educational setting. Although the TPCK model can be implemented by a single teacher, this chapter helps to explore how to make the change process more systemic in nature. The second elements, which is certainly present in the TPCK literature (but I haven't read anything on it explicitly yet) is the fact that the 'nested contexts' mean that teachers and those in education need to shift away from 'either/or' to a more systemic approach. "Systemic approaches offer teachers a conceptual frame of reference that shifts attention away from oversimplified cause-effect relationships, often between just two variables, and toward networked conceptions in which causation is considered to be a mutual, multiple, and contingent phenomenon, one that can be difficult to trace and pin down" (p. 190). I love this move away from simplification of solutions and towards a realization that in order to make change in educational settings we will need to approach and development many layers at once.

Another point that is emerging in much of this literature on changing the nature of literacy instruction with the inclusion of multiliteracies is the fact that these shifts will cause fundamental shifts in the authority of the teaching position and teachers will need to be able to embrace their role as co-learner in the educational process (p. 201). It seems to me that this shift in role is a salient point to discuss with preservice teachers as it may be in conflict with the model they experienced as a student. Another avenue of exploration for me might be to consider having students redesign an existing unit from practicum in 302 - as way to help them take a static form of teaching and shift it (this idea came from a project that Selber has his students do - a webdesign project for a 'client' in the local area - I love the idea and think it could foster great development and conversation on many levels p. 220).

His ideas were exciting on many levels to me. He agrees that there is a shifting landscape in what it means to be literate and that shift means a shift in the teaching and learning contexts must occur. I believe his ideas could be taken out of higher education and considered for education in general, but certainly appreciate his passion and interest in shifting how english departments and technology infrastrutres, personnel and curriculum interact.

Instant Messaging

Similar to my last post A. O'Connor in her article Instant Messaging Friend or Foe of Student Writing? (2005) suggests that the either/or approach to formal writing or informal communication does little to help students navigate the worlds they live and learn in. Instead perhaps there is opportunity to teach the role of audience in writing and engage students in more learning through this conversation.

She has a great analogy in her piece - about how we dress - we dress differently to do yardwork than we do to go out on a Saturday night. Somehow we learned this difference, and teachers today may need to engage with helping students learn this difference as we all confront the world of multiliteracies.

Repetoire of Writing Practices

In a recent article We Learn What We Do: Developing a Repertoire of Writing Practices in an Instant Messaging World (November 2008) G. Jacobs researched the social practice of IM and engaged in a case study of one young student to learn how the formal writing process of writing and online chatting interacted and impacted each other. She argues that CMC (Computer mediated communication) " is not poor writing but is a response to social needs as mediated by technological constraints" (p.204). At one point in the case study she presents she is talking with the subject of the case who maintains that IM is not writing, "it's talking". I found this distinction fascinating since it makes sense given the slang, interruptions and nature of the communication, but because it was put down with a keyboard - I considered it writing.

Similar to my post on identity I think the key here to better understanding these tools socially and educationally is to begin by talking with those students and people who use them, to better understand the perceptions at play. Jacobs argues" Good writing then, is writing that meets the purpose of the author and fulfills the requirements of the audience as defined by the social and cultural expectations of the community in which the writing is used" (p. 205). In these conversations about perceptions it would also be appropriate to discuss the role of audience with students such that they can be explicitly taught when and why certain forms of communication are appropriate in certain contexts. Instead of just simply correcting or dismissing these conventions Jacobs suggests engaging students in conversation and allow the student to develop a meta-awareness of the context and audience issues.

In addition to engaging in conversation Jacobs also suggests, and I agree that teachers must try new forms of media to better understand the medium before dismissing it as having no place in school. Perhaps students today have the potential to develop more forms of writing than in the past, and we as teachers can help this process.

Bloom's Taxonomy Revised

In reading an article from EducationSector - Measuring Skills for the 21st Century I discovered that former colleagues of B. Bloom's had proposed a revised taxonomy for learning. Their work was published in the book a Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing.

Although the idea of levels remains the same, how they are presented and worded has changed. A quick visual here might help.

What was also interesting to note is that the article, and I think good practice suggests that students do not need to learn in 'order' of the levels, but rather the levels should be integrated to provide richer learning experiences for students and to engage them as thinkers.

Literacy and Identity

According to Williams (2008) "today's online technologies have young people reading and writing far more than they were 20 years ago" (p. 682). As she goes on to explore in her article "Tomorrow will not be like today" Literacy and identity in a world of multiliteracies this change means that students have more opportunity to create and shape their identity than before. And while the opportunity might exist for more play with identity; Palfrey and Gasser (2008) in Born Digital found that " young people tend to express their personal and social identities online much as people always have in real space, and in ways that are consistent with their identities in real space" (p. 21). Regardless of how much students choose to play with identity Williams suggests, as do Palfrey and Gasser that students need to engage with caring adults in dialogue on what it means to have the options and opportunities, such that we can learn from them, and they can learn more about future implications from adults.

I have to be honest that this dialogue does not seem to occur as much as perhaps it should, and perhaps it is because there is such a divide between the languages and experiences of the generations involved. I therefore think that this must all begin with listening to experiences and sharing understandings about digital identity. Once we have listened then perhaps we can begin to have the conversation about how to better use these tools to engage and transform learning.

Mutliliteracies Framework

The multiliteracies framework proposed by the New London group suggests that people today (especially traditional aged students) are constantly involved with many forms of communication media. The richness of these forms of communication media necessitate the use of new pedagogical approaches to designing instruction for students to be engaged. They suggest this definition for these new literacies:

The new literacies of the Internet and other ICTs include the skills, strategies, and dispositions necessary to successfully use and adapt to the rapidly changing information and communication technologies and contexts that continuously emerge in our world and influence all areas of our personal and professional lives. These new literacies allow us to use the Internet and other ICTs to identify important questions, locate information, critically evaluate the usefulness of that information, synthesize information to answer those questions, and then communicate the answers to others.

The design framework proposed is a pedagogical approach to planning instruction that is in line with new media developments. The framework of planning for engagement with multiple modes of language suggest that students should learn through engaging projects with more than just written language as both the form to learn from, and the way to document learning. The approach has three stages and seems similar to the work by Wiggins and McTighe on Understanding by Design with attention to multiple intelligences. Additionally this work certainly seems in line with the TPCK model. Certainly the multiliteracies framework suggests using pedagogical approaches to reaching students that will be in line with their experiences, and using many forms of technology to accomplish this goal. Also the model gives consideration towards planning with a strong content knowledge background to ensure that students achieve the desired goals. Leu et al. also argue that simply using any technology to teach does not represent teaching within this new framework - a perspective consistent with the TPCK model that it is not to use technology for the sake of the tool, but rather the goal of the learning. In this example it appears that the students through flexible grouping might experience extremely varied instructional experiences, and little thought is given to designing these experiences to match the goals for each students. There seems to be a more haphazard approach to planning, and then hoping that the students each get the desired learning from the experience.

More investigation into this model will be helpful to see what is said on designing with students in mind. This model does suggest five domains of meaning: visual design, spatial design, audio design, gestural design and linguistic design that comprise the multiliteracies. These five domains stretch my understanding of literacy and really do suggest that the new forms of literacy are about interpreting and using much more than just written language.

Additionally in reading the work of Leu, Kinzer, Coiro and Cammack (2004) it is clear that the role of the teacher will change with these new literacies, because the teacher will no longer be the most ICT literate person in the classroom, and therefore the relationship between teacher, students, content and learning shifts.

Leu et al. http://www.readingonline.org/newliteracies/leu/

Ryan, M. (2008). Engaging Middle Years Students: Literacy Projects That Matter. Journal of Adolescent

& Adult Literacy, 52(3), 190-201

Participation Gap

Another way of looking at the digital divide (or divides) is through what Palfrey and Gasser call the Participation Gap. As they suggest in Born Digital "the harder issue arises when you realize that access to technology is not enough. Young people need to learn digital literacy- the skills to navigate this complex and hybrid world" (p.15). On a wiki of the Digital Natives Project they pose these questions:

Questions for Discussion

1. How do we explore the nuances of the participation gap, taking into account the impact of social inequality and parental fluency?
2. Who is our digital native? Do we accept the premise that digital natives process information in a different way than immigrants? How do we empirically explore the digital generation gap?
3. Does the technology develop first, or the social norms about how the tools are used? Are the technological limitations of these tools transforming the way natives socialize and understand themselves?
4. How do youth in different countries use online socialization tools differently, and what is the significance of these differences? How do on-line social activities affect off-line identity development?