ETEC540: Text Technologies

This commentary will review “Digital Literacy” by Teresa Dobson and John Willinsky, 2009.

The concept of literacy has assumed new meanings with the fast- paced growing of new technologies.  Dobson and Willinsky (2009) share insights with chronological discussion of how digital technologies have extended notions of literacy over the last few decades. Dobson and Willinsky  (2009) break the emergence of digital literacy into three stages: First, the public use of the computer in the 1980s for word processing; second, the rise of hypermedia and the Internet in the 1990s; and third, related to the more recent emergence of a networked information economy. It seems that each of these stages has gradually extended its grasp to generate new definitions of literacy that could be described in volumes. As the UNESCO that has published volumes on  literacy with the evolution of the term. In one of the lately definition of literacy the UNESCO refers to literacy as written communications in its various expressions, development context and life domain (Agneta, 2008).

On Digital Literacy, Dobson and Willinsky (2009) convey that what is literary digital are the various forms of reading and writing which has been electronically conveyed in codes. In the publication of the UNESCO, “Literacy for all: Making a difference”, Lind Agneta (2008) argues that ‘Literacy needs are enhanced by the rapid expansion and use of new ICT, and not exclusively in the North, since digital technologies require literate users. Digital literacy has, in fact, been recognized as a basic learning need for all (page 38, 39).

Cyberspace is expanding the potential of digital literacy as medium of expression that as it is discussed by Dobson & Willinsky (2009) is greater than with the print. It is far wider more global access to knowledge. Ong (1982) notes that reading and writing varies in its functions and uses across history and culture where political and economic issues play an important role. To this extent Dobson & Willinsky (2009) acknowledge that digital literacy ‘as new medium does indeed massage the message in aesthetic, as well as political, ways’(p. 2) and it is ‘the very currency that drives the global information economy’ (p. 1). In fact, the United Nations development program uses literacy as one of the key indicators in its Human Development Index, a measure that helps to inform policy makers in their society.  (United Nations Development Program, Human Development Report, 2003, p. 60).

Volumes may be necessary to hold the epistemologies of digital literacy. However, the  aspects acknowledged by Dobson & Willinsky (2009) offer great insights to understand digital literacy’ actual situation and future perspective. These aspects are: (a) digital divide, which refers to the gap between people with effective access to digital technology and those with very limited or no access at all; (b) new literacy study, which focuses in the social-contexts of literacy studies, and recognize the existence of multiple literacy as well; (c) digital archive that gives possibility to access to online books through digitalization projects like Gutenberg Project or Google Library Project among others; (d) information literacy that is related to what is required to operate within the new information systems, which is no less than digital literacy on the proliferation of literacies; and (e) collaborative knowledge with the use of social software in which Robson & Willinsky (2009) assert that it gives a substantial answer in how digital literacy differs from and extends the work of print literacy. ‘It speaks to how people’s literacy combines the taking in and giving back of words’ (page, 21).

On digital divide, Robson and Willinsky (2009) acknowledge a Digital Divide Report in 2006 that informed that the probability of someone in a high-income country who uses Internet regularly is 22 times greater than in a low-income country. The UNESCO in its webpage gives different perspective of the equation; it states that worldwide, one of every 5 people over 15 years of age in the world is illiterate. Does the literate people are digital literate as well? Perhaps no; in the initiatives given by The United Nations’ Report they suggest cost-effective solutions for bridging the “digital divide”, for instance a satellite-based distance education systems that can provide poor nations access to higher-quality education and training in advanced countries. At the same time the United Nations argues that ‘policy’, but,  not ‘charity’ will determine whether new technologies become a took for human development everywhere’.

There is another digital divide that seems no to be sufficiently acknowledged, I refer to the ‘ideological digital dividers’, who are people that their conservative minds prevent them to understand this historical moment of the mew medium expression (Dobson & Willinsky, 2009). However, I want to clarify that acknowledging this disturbance aspect of digital literacy does not mean a lack of enthusiasm for the ‘digital age’, it is because the value of digital literacy should continue to be the subject of public interest and scholarly (idem, page 22) with perception of reality.

References:

Dobson, T. and Willinsky’s, J. (2009) chapter “Digital Literacy”. This is a submitted draft version of a chapter for The Cambridge Handbook on Literacy.

Human Development Report: Making new technologies work for human development. (2001). Retrieved from: ·  hdr.undp.org/en/media/hdr_2001_en_overview.pdf

Lind, A. (2008). Literacy for all: Making a difference. UNESCO, International Institute for Educational Planning. Retrieved from: unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0016/001636/163607e.pdf

Ong, Walter. (1982.) Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. London: Methuen.

written by Danny Borges

The transition to digital text is resulting in many changes, including to paper based text itself.  In Gains and losses: New forms of texts, knowledge, and learning, Gunther Kress (2005) looks at this transition of moving from a mostly textual to mostly visual representation and how it is related to various factors, such as improved technology.  Kress argues that multimodal texts provide greater clarity and freedom, but his bias towards multimodality diminishes the effectiveness of his paper.

Kress explains that areas previously dominated by text are now co-existing with images (Kress, 2005).   These multimodal texts can even, at times, communicate more effectively with images.  The resulting tension between text and visual has brought about “a variety of responses, mostly negative, ranging from outright despair, anger and nostalgia to some still utopian voices on the other end of the spectrum” (Kress, 2005, p.5).  However, detractors fail to realize that “representation and communication are motivated by the social; its effects are outcomes of the economic and the political” (Kress, 2005, p.6).  Kress believes that the increasing use of multimodal texts will change the definition of ‘reading’ to be “taking meaning and making meaning from many sources of information” (Kress, 2005, p.17).

There are many benefits to using images.  For example, words are finite but images are infinite (Kress, 2005).  Also, Kress explains that, unlike text dominated books that require readers to follow a preset sequence in order to receive information, mediums such as websites allow readers to create their own knowledge and choose the path they take (Kress, 2005).  The screen’s potential, combined with advances in printing, have significantly influenced multimodality, including in the form of printed text.  In fact, the reader may even be afforded the opportunity of becoming the writer.  As a result, the views on writing are changing and authors must now consider medium, interactivity, and visual design, in addition to content and audience.

Despite some strong points supporting the importance of images, Kress weakens his paper with vague and inaccurate statements.  He states “only that which is worded can enter into communication; or else, that which is to be represented gets squeezed into the ill-fitting semantic shape of the existing word” (Kress, 2005, p.15).  By downplaying the ability of language to reword or describe something, Kress neglects one of languages’ greatest assets.  Instead, I believe the key question should be regarding the ability of images to display something abstract.  He goes on to pronounce that “speech and writing tell the world; depiction shows the world. In the one, the order of the world is that given by the author; in the other, the order of the world is yet to be designed (fully and/or definitively) by the viewer” (Kress, 2005, p.16).  However, Kress over-simplifies the dichotomy between text and image (Prior, 2005).  He also ignores the fact that the selection, manipulation, and arrangement of images can influence readers as much as written text.

Although Kress’ goal may have been to identify the ‘gains and losses’ of transitioning to “representation primarily through image” (Kress, 2005, p.5), he fails to balance his arguments in favour of multimodality with an acknowledgement of the advantages of text or disadvantages of increased image use.  Kress ignores the value of prose or the potential of the written word.  There are times when the voice, such as that in text, is the ‘primary experience’(Bolter, p.61) and others when images are avoided because of their unwanted associations.  As well, images can hinder imagination and improperly convey abstract ideas such as love, God, or freedom.  Furthermore, there are numerous pedagogical advantages to articulating knowledge over displaying it.

Kress chooses his examples selectively when he champions multimodal mediums, such as websites, and argues that text, such as books, forces the reader to follow a strict linear fashion.  However, he ignores a large list of important genres, such as newspapers, dictionaries, and magazines that are designed specifically for such a task.  He also fails to consider that digital multimedia provides not only an opportunity for students to create a richer multimodal text, but also produce “text with less semiotic work than before” (Skaar, p.40, 2009).  Although the use of images can provide more freedom, copying images can mean compromising with an image that isn’t an ‘exact fit’ (Skaar, 2009).  As well, there is no mention of different types of learners or gender differences.  He doesn’t consider that, at times, girls may prefer written text over images (Skaar, 2009, p.38).  Gains and Losses further loses credibility when Kress includes statements such as “the elites will continue to use writing as their preferred mode, and hence, the page in its traditional form” (Kress, 2009, p.18).  This ‘ideological thinking’ of connecting writing with power appears in several of Kress’ earlier works and detracts from his arguments supporting multimodality (Skaar, 2009).  He also seems to miss the fact that anyone with access to these new multimodal mediums may also be considered ‘elite’ to people from different socioeconomic backgrounds.

In Gains and Losses, Kress successfully brings attention to the growth of multimodaltiy and provides several reasons for why this is a positive development.  The co-existence of text and images can result in improved clarity, precision, and communication.  It also provides the reader with greater control over their learning.  Unfortunately, his paper fails to follow through on its title and provides only the gains of mutlimodality.  There are times when the replacement of text for images is a step backwards, such as when web designers try to avoid text at all costs, or students add images without much consideration.  Also, images may bring along many associations, some of which may be unknown to the author.  The increase of multimodality is a positive progression, but one that must be approached thoughtfully in order to limit the negative impacts on learning.

References:

Bolter, Jay David. (2001). Writing space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print [2nd edition]. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kress, Gunter. (2005).  Gains and losses: New forms of texts, knowledge and learning. Computers and Composition, 22(1), 5-22. Retrieved, August 15, 2009, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2004.12.004

Prior, P. ( 2005).  Moving multimodality beyond the binaries: a response to Gunther Kress’ “Gains and Losses.” Computer and Composition, 22(3), 23-30.  Retrieved from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W49-4F9F8M9-2&_user=1022551&_coverDate=01/01/2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1530061224&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050484&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1022551&md5=d9cd9d4e0578bf196b9eaf4843db80f4&searchtype=a

Skaar, H. (2009). In defense of writing: a social semiotic perspective on digital media, literacy and learning. Literacy, 43(1), 36-42. Retrieved from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-4369.2009.00502.x/pdf

Writing Spaces: The Computer, Hypertext, and the Remediation of Print – Chapter 3
Hypertext; the electronic link to related information networks and the impact on writing and reading

In Chapter Three of Jay David Bolter’s Writing Space: Computers, Hypertext, and the Remediation of Print, (Bolter 2001), the author examines the concept of hypertext and its impact on writing and reading. Hypertext creates a unique network structure that has become a new form of writing and reading. This informative chapter is a fascinating, historical, and critical analysis of print and hypertext, as it gives the reader a comparative look at how the remediation of print is both independent and codependent.

“Electronic writing will be felt across the whole country and history of writing: this new technology is a thorough rewriting of the writing space.” (Bolter 40).Bolter describes hypertext as a layering of writing and reading that provides interconnected informational writing. Hypertext consists of three basic units, namely pages, paragraphs, and graphics. They are related through links and provide the reader an easy, quick means to access other information connected to the topic. Bolter examines how the operational attributes of digital spaces change writing as we know it and the use of hypertext creates a technological transformation that he views as more powerful than the printing press. (Bolter 42) He further explains that without the concept of hypertext, word processing would merely be just electronic writing. He further argues that hypertext is the remediation of print.

Bolter’s view that electronic writing with hypertext is the remediation of print allows the controversy to continue. He maintains electronic writing and hypertext, “can be old and new and that is the remediation process; also an acknowledgement of both their connection with and their difference from print need to be realized.” He further contends that,” Hypertext is a process as much as a product.”(Bolter 44). He gives examples by saying the reader’s consciousness of the medium seems to link hypertext to literary traditions of modernism. The reader’s ability to follow the hyperlinks; likened to a superhighway mapping system, gives quick and direct access to more detail than ever before. Bolter makes comparisons to such writers as James Joyce to Michael Joyce. Here he argues that the reader of early literature did acknowledge the significant works, as they were drawn in by the medium. With hypertext, the reader is drawn in by visuals and hyperlinks. Bolter points out that, “It is possible to write in a hypertextual style for print.” (Bolter 40). He infers that it is possible to use print or handwriting to achieve many literary or rhetorical effects of hypertext, just as it is possible to write on the computer without taking advantages of hypertext linking.” (Bolter 41).

Hypertext is a term applied by Ted Nelson in the early 1960s. He wrote, “Literature is an ongoing system of interconnecting documents.”(Bolter 34). Bolter recognizes this definition of literature to mean that writings are also scientific and technical. He further points out that this is a fact long understood before the coming of the computer age. Bolter continues to argue that writing is a form of technology with an emphasis on the visual and verbal. He goes on to point out to the reader that electronic writing deals in spatially realized topics. He labels this writing “topography.” Bolter further states, “It challenges the idea that writing should be merely the servant of spoken language.”

Bolter makes further observations and comments that the hypertext advocates argue that,” hypertext reflects the nature of the human mind itself- that because we think associatively, not linearly, hypertext allows us to write as we think. “Ted Nelson (1984) seems to suggest that hypertext is natural to the mind.” (Bolter 42). He is making a comparison to thinking that tends to start with an idea and then springs forth in various related directions. Bolter contends that understanding the impact of hypertext and as a remediation of print requires a close inspection of both print and electronic writing. They connect with the idea and express differentness in the conceptual formation. The controversy over which option, print or electronic hypertext is better remains one to debate. Bolter asks, “Which form is better at constituting the real, the authentic, or the natural? Remediation is always an attempt to redefine these key cultural values.” (Bolter 43).

Bolter summarizes by stating that, “in this late age of print, the two technologies, print and electronic writing, still need each other.” Chapter 3 discusses the relationship by highlighting the benefits of both print and electronic writing and how they coexist together. Bolter’s last comment in the chapter reinstates that electronic hypertext is not the end of print, but instead the remediation of print. A point well to consider in the 21st century.

References

Bolter, Jay David. (2001). Writing Space: Computers, Hypertext, and the Remediation of Print [2nd edition]. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. ISBN: 0-8058-2919-9

McLuhan, M. (1967). The Medium is the Message. NEA Journal, 56(7), 24-27.

Ong, Walter. (1982.) Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. London: Methuen.

This commentary is based on the Digital Literacy reading as written by Dobson and Willinsky.   The authors detail the historical emergence of digital literacy within the last three decades through their perspective that digital literacy is a continuity and extension of print culture rather than a great transformation of print culture as other scholars may argue.

In first discussing the ability to manipulate text through the introduction of word processing as a form of digital literacy, the benefits as well as the drawbacks were reviewed. While there were conflicting results from the studies presented, the authors concluded that without knowing for certain what word processing has done to our writing, it has become the standard way we write (Dobson & Willinsky, 2009).  A point of particular interest is that of creativity.  While one study reviewed discussed word processing as a natural ally of the writing process and of creativity, I ponder in what manner does this apply? How is the ability to simply manipulate text increase the creativity of an individual? Word processing may certainly assist in editing and revisions, but the true creativity is composed by the individual.  Perhaps this lends itself to the fact that word processing while still unknown in what it truly contributes to ones writing, has only become the standard way we write.

Further to the discussion, Willinsky and Dobson comment that many scholars believe that the visual mode may be coming to have priority over the written and that meaning making and communication in the digital age therefore entails becoming well-versed in different semiotic modes, visual and textual, and verbal (Dobson & Willinsky, 2009).  In other words, writing and reading text is but a small part of the meaning making and communication process.  This may be potentially problematic as much emphasis in the past has been placed on the written word and therefore the development of visual literacy is required to participate in digital literacy.  How will individuals fare who do not learn well visually? Will these individuals be at a handicap and how will they adapt?  The transition to accommodate different semiotic modes would appear as a rebirth of information/knowledge in this form as such compositions as Shakespeare were initially only presented orally, progressed to  presentations in the written format and now has returned in its semi-original format presented in possible different semiotic modes of  visual, textual and verbal.

Digital literacy is also described as social practices in which texts are constructed, transmitted, received, modified and shared with processes employing codes which are digitized electronically (Lankshear, 1997, p.141).  While hypertext and hypermedia learning assist in the sharing of new and modified texts, this new form of learning is a drastic change from years past.  Previously, learning was thought to be the accumulation of knowledge and applying “what you know.”  However, it would appear that digital literacy entails the ability to navigate through the vast amount of information online simply seeking the information that is required.  Does this develop knowledge for individuals? I believe it does not as individuals are simply seeking information and not developing a foundation of simple knowledge from which they may grow, accumulate and develop.  Simply being connected to the Internet does not justify learning and the development of knowledge. After all, what knowledge would be learned if there was no connection to the Inte

The sheer quantity and range of texts available online has become a defining aspect of digital literacy (Dobson & Willinsky, 2009).  With the ability for more individuals to publish their works online and manipulate and share information with others the renewed topic of copyright and access has resurfaced.  To address this ongoing issue dating back to print, the open access model seeks to add this body of work to the universal library open to all readers (Dobson & Willinsky, 2009).  However, in opposition to this movement stand corporations in which revenues from publications and access drive their business model.  With the issue of copyright along with organizations such as Creative Commons who encourage more open access, this issue represents a time honoured clash between publishers, composers and access in which a solution may or may not be reached within the digital literacy medium.  Certainly digital literacy has added fuel to the fire in providing a greater amount of texts online but further discussions and inquiries will be required to resolve this situation if at all possible.

While the progression of digital literacy is very much a fluid process, Dobson and Willinsky have presented an interesting and informative perception of the emergence of digital literacy at the time of composition.  In today’s current digital environment which is changing at a record pace along with the increased participation by individuals of the global society as compared to print, only time will tell the true impact of digital literacy as a new medium.

References:

Dobson, T.M. and Willinsky, J. (2009). Digital Literacy. In David Olson and Nancy Torrance (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of Literacy, pp. 286-312. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lankshear, C. (1997). Changing Literacies. Buckingham & Philadelphia: Open University Press.