linoit

Posted on November 24, 2012 by learle

For the Rip.Mix.Feed activity, I decided to try something new out. www.linoit.com

I have been collecting ideas and articles from the web for the past couple of years. I have them saved in my Delicious, Pinterest, Twitter accounts and in my school Facebook account (I have two accounts with Facebook – one of which I use only with my students to let them know about upcoming events and help keep our school page updated). So, this new app that I have discovered is a place where I am trying to combine many of the pins/posts/tweets/etc. that I have all over the place!

I have since thought of creating a couple other pages within this app for my classes. I would like to use these other bulletin boards as a place for my lesson planning. I have seen sticky note lesson plan concepts on-line before, but using real paper-based sticky notes. I really liked the idea of using linoit as my lesson plan book because it is easy to adjust and move around lessons if need be and of course web-links, pictures, videos, etc. can be posted there. However, I do not yet have this concept started as I am mid semester in all of my courses and prefer to start at the beginning so that things are better organized.

Posted in Rip.Mix.Feed. | Leave a comment

Digital Literacy and Digital Natives

Posted on November 24, 2012 by Rocky Lam

In our current information age, the sheer amount of data presented to viewers in digital space is simply overwhelming. Although digital natives successfully integrate themselves with new technologies, digital immigrants must continue to adapt to a new environment of literacy. Our continual transition from orality to literacy, and subsequently, secondary orality, as supported by Ong, illustrates different ways in how we code and encode language to communicate. Bolter (2010) questions the future of text-based modes of communication, in how that changes the way we think about technology and how we learn. This is especially true as digital natives become acquainted with technology at a much faster speed, and educators need rethink how to teach in order to be effective. By understanding digital literacy and multiliteracies, such as the impact of digital overload, online education and social media, teachers can better use technological tools effectively to rethink educational pedagogy.

Processing Information
The vast waves of data in today’s world have redefined how individuals interact with literature. As readers are inundated with digital overload, we must find ways to cope with the large amounts of fragmented sources of information. Frye (1963) notes that people no longer read vertically, gaining a deeper understanding of the text, but rather read horizontally, gaining a broad range of understanding from literature. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, before the popularity of the printing press, books were limited to only upper classes. Members that did possess the very few books would have repeated readings of the text and gain multiple perspective from it. With the development of technology that allowed for mass communication, such as the printing press and the internet, information was readily available to different classes in society. The abundance of information led individuals to develop ways to handle and organize for it to be effectively used. This change coincides with Postman’s (1992) perspective, where new technologies alter the way we think about text. Our definition of being “well” read depended on the quantity of books read, rather than the quality of understanding the text, and teachers must understand that processing information in a different way benefits how digital natives think.

En Mass Education
With the low cost and accessibility of the internet, there has been a popular shift in how we think of education. No longer is learning limited to the four walls, but education now expands into the massive borderless digital world. Wright (2011) explains that the development of Khan Academy, a non-profit educational organization that provides free online instructional videos, help students revise specific bits of learning to gain a better understanding. With an internet connection, learning opens up to anyone that wants to gain an insightful knowledge on any topic. Similarly, the introduction of Coursera, an online higher education company, allows students from all over the world to participate at the same time, listening to lectures and doing homework assignments in mass numbers. From teaching a course of 400 students on campus, professors can reach over 100,000 students in an online course (Friedman, 2012). This participatory community is parallel to McLuhan’s ‘global village’, where our electronic technology has become an extension of our senses, increasingly linking the people around the world even though we are thousands of miles away. Thus, through the use of new technological tools, the rise in popularity of these online courses, adaptive to digital natives, changes how we critically think about educational pedagogy.

Social Media
The shift to use social media, such as Twitter, Facebook and WordPress, as a form of communication is a relatively new idea. A growing number of teachers are implementing the use of social media to stay connected and build relationships with students and parents inside and outside of school (Clark, 2011). Scholastic Instructor (2012) indicates that there is an average of 552 million users that use Facebook on a daily basis. As there are many parents that have accounts, teachers can create a Facebook page, and upload information and instant updates on how students are doing in the class. Furthermore, students can blog about their learning on websites like WordPress and have instant feedback from parents and peers. Students can create, edit and share their projects through an online platform, synthesizing knowledge and creating work that has a purpose and an audience in mind. Bolter’s (2011) construct of living in a visual culture is a reality, where hypertext and hypermedia is integrated in how we represent text and visual technologies, transforming how we think of traditional ways of teaching and learning to match the today’s learning needs.

Conclusion
The rise of digital space has forced us to redefine our understanding of literacy. With the immense amount of information presented on the internet, our ability to decipher and organize information needs to be honed in to determine what is useful or not. Online organizations reach a larger audience by teaching online, unifying the world into a global village. Social media connect with parents and allow student work to be filled with authenticity and meaningfulness. Writing can now take place in many different shapes and forms, combining different text, images and media, represented as hypermedia. The understanding of digital literacy and multiliteracies allows us to rethink and redefine literacy through the ages, and the meaning of literacy will continue to evolve for the years to come.

References

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

Clark, H. [hollyclarksd]. (2011, October 8). Social Media in Education – Teaching Digital Natives in 2011. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zKdPOHhNfY

Friedman, T. (2012, May 15). Come the Revolution. The New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2012/05/16/opinion/friedman‑come‑the‑revolution.html

Frye, N. (1962). The Educated Imagination. The 1962 CBC Massey Lectures. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/episodes/massey-lectures/1962/11/09/massey-lectures-1963-the-educated-imagination/

Ong, Walter. (1982.) Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Methuen.

Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York: Vintage books.

Scholastic Instructor (2012, November). Social Media for Teachers. Retrieved from http://www.mediabistro.com/alltwitter/files/2012/11/social-teaching.jpg

Wright, N. (2005). e-learning: What does it mean to learn and teach with technological tools? Retrieved from http://www.formatex.info/ict/book/154-160.pdf

Posted in Commentary 3 | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Digital Literacy: The Need to Prepare Students for the 21st Century Workplace

Posted on November 24, 2012 by Deborah S

Dobson & Willinsky (2009) noted that the “digital aspect of literacy, invisible to the naked eye, is the very current that drives the global information economy” (p. 1).  The need for a digitally literate population is critical if Canada is to successfully compete in the world economy, especially given that the service sector comprises 70% of Canada’s gross domestic product (GDP) and employs 76% of the Canadian population (Chinien & Boutin, 2011).  The challenge facing educators is how to ensure today’s students are prepared for the 21st century workplace.

Importance of Digital Literacy

Bawden (2001) noted that “as digital technology becomes ubiquitous, workers will increasingly need an appropriate set of digital skills to access and process information using digital systems and tools” (as cited in Chinien & Boutin, 2011, p. 14).  Due to globalization, Canada now competes with other countries and “while the production of hard goods is important, national prosperity heavily depends on increasing productivity in the service sector” (Information and Communications Technology Council, 2012, p. 6).  Unlike past trading, however, where the focus was on raw materials, today’s trade takes place in a knowledge economy without borders.  As noted by the Information and Communications Technology Council, (ICTC), (2010), digital literacy “is the fundamental requirement for effective participation in the world’s economy” (p. 1).

Canada’s productivity problems are not new, as Statistics Canada noted that Canada’s productivity from 1981 to the second quarter of 2012 was 0.1 per cent lower per year (as cited in McKenna, 2012, para. 3).  This drop in productivity is consistent with the recent rankings by the World Economic Forum where Canada dropped from 10th place in 2010 to 2011 to 14th in 2012 to 2013 in the Global Competitiveness Index (World Economic Forum, 2012).

Digitally literate individuals are viewed as being more flexible and adaptable (Ng, 2012), as well as capable of working more efficiently (Information and Communications Technology Council, 2010).  The ICTC (2010) concluded that digital literacy is needed “to retain flexibility and mobility of career and job openings” (p. 6).  The ICTC (2010) also identified that digitally literate individuals can positively impact productivity, innovation and research and development in a number of ways, such as “speed[ing] up the responses of companies to commercial opportunities, extend[ing] academic research more deeply and quickly, and exchang[ing] best practices with global colleagues” (p. 2).

Dobson & Willinsky (2009) noted the existence of a digital divide based on factors such gender, geography (developed vs. developing world), and income.  The ICDC (2010) suggested the existence of another disparity known as the digital literacy divide, where “some groups are falling behind in their [digital literacy] skills and have less access to new technology” (p. 6).  This divide could lead a digitally illiterate worker to be “condemned to ever-shrinking choices of employment” (Information and Communications Technology Council, 2010, p. 6).  Not only would this situation have a negative impact on the worker, but the economy would also suffer as Canada will likely face a shortage of skilled workers due to the impending mass retirement of baby boomers (Information and Communications Technology Council, 2010).  So how does Canada position itself to ensure it has digitally literate workers?

Educational Needs

Eshet-Alkalai (2004) and Lankshear & Knobel (2008) noted that many attempts have been made to define digital literacy, resulting in definitions that “are quite different in nature and often inconsistent” (as cited in Nelson, Courier & Joseph, 2011, p. 96).  Gilster (1997) noted that digital literacy is an “essential life-skill – becoming as necessary as a driver’s license” (as cited in Bawden, 2001, p. 21).  Since the definition of digital literacy is “still incomplete” (Aviram & Eshet-Alkalai, 2006, para. 32), Nelson et al. (2011) suggested this inconsistency “challenges the effective design of curricula and courses targeting digital literacy” (p. 95).

Gilster (1997) postulated that the fundamental skill of digital literacy should be “critical thinking” and not “technical competence” (as cited in Martin & Grudziecki, 2006, p. 254).  For example, students should be able to use critical thinking to assess the credibility of an Internet source when completing research.  Based on experience, this is not always the case, and as observed by Cheney (2010), students “typically use information that finds them, rather than deciding what information they need” (as cited in Hobbs, 2011, p. 16).  Nelson et al. (2011) noted that “a focus on the appropriate application of skills (digital competence), i.e. situational embedding, as opposed to just a mastery of skills is crucial” (p. 104).  The importance of applying digital skills was also echoed in the DigEuLit project, which posited that “the informed uses of digital competence within life situations” (Martin & Grudziecki, 2006, p. 258) was critical.  The New London Group (1996) postulated that simulating life situations could involve “work relations of collaboration, commitment and creative involvement” (p. 72).

Ng (2012) posited that the teacher plays a pivotal role in helping students acquire digital literacy skills, and that educators “need to know how to use the tools and model their uses or explicitly teach their students about the technologies and their uses” (Ng, 2012, p. 1077).  Margayan, Littlejohn & Vojt (2011) also suggested that students have a “limited understanding of how technology could support their learning and that their expectations of learning with technologies are influenced by their lecturers’ approaches to teaching (as cited in Ng, 2012, p. 1077).

Conclusion

As noted by Aviram & Eshet-Alkalai (2006), “the digital era is not going to disappear, and the need for education to respond to the growing digital tide is rapidly increasing” (para. 90).  To prepare students for the 21st century workplace, curricula must focus on the acquisition of digital competence by applying skills to real-life situations wherever possible.  In addition, teachers should model appropriate technology use during lesson delivery and provide students with opportunities to use technology on a regular basis. A digitally literate workforce is necessary if Canada is to improve its productivity and successfully compete on the world stage.

References

Aviram, A., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2006).  Towards a theory of digital literacy: Three scenarios for the next steps. Retrieved from  http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2006/Aharon_Aviram.htm

Bawden, D. (2001).  Information and digital literacies: A review of concepts.  Retrieved from http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/bitstream/10150/105803/1/bawden.pdf

Chinien, C., & Boutin, F.  (2011). Defining essential digital skills in the Canadian workplace: Final report.  Retrieved from http://www.nald.ca/library/research/digi_es_can_workplace/digi_es_can_workplace.pdf

Dobson, T., & Willinsky, J. (2009). Digital literacy.  Retrieved from http://pkp.sfu.ca/files/Digital Literacy.pdf

Hobbs, R. (2011). Empowering learners with digital and media literacy.  Knowledge Quest, 39(5), 13-17.

Information and Communications Technology Council. (2010).  Digital literacy: Canada’s productivity opportunity.  Retrieved from http://www.ictc-ctic.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/ICTC_DigitalLitWP_EN_09-10.pdf

Martin, A., & Grudziecki, J. (2006). DigEuLit: Concepts and tools for digital literacy development.  Retrieved from http://www.ics.heacademy.ac.uk/italics/vol5iss4/martin-grudziecki.pdf

McKenna, B. (2012).  Canadians even less productive than thought over past 30 years.  Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/canadians-even-less-productive-than-thought-over-past-30-years/article4608828/

Nelson, K., Courier, M., & Joseph, G.W. (2011).  Teaching tip: An investigation of digital literacy needs of students.  Journal of Information Systems Education, 22(2), 95 – 109.

New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92. Retrieved, August 15, 2009, from http://newlearningonline.com/~newlearn/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/multiliteracies_her_vol_66_1996.pdf

Ng, W. (2012).  Can we teach digital natives digital literacy?  Computers & Education, 59, 1065– 1078.

World Economic Forum. (2012). Global competitiveness index 2012 – 2013: Canada.  Retrieved from http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness

Posted in Commentary 3 | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Digital Literacy: Applying a Fluid Definition

Posted on November 23, 2012 by troos

In their chapter titled Digital Literacy, Dobson and Willinsky (2009) present and analyze the development of digital literacy in a chronological manner.  They begin with the use of the personal computer and word processors in the 1980s and end with the collaborative nature of knowledge creation made possible through today’s connected society.  Clearly, through the evolution of media as described by Dobson and Willinsky, a fluid definition of digital literacy has been required to continually accommodate new and changing media of communication.  Chase and Laufenberg (2011) refer to this as the “squishiness” of digital literacy.  They indicate that it leads to three essential questions for educators, “What is it? How do I teach it? How do I know if my students have learned it?” (p. 535).

Aspects of Digital Literacy

Some aspects of digital literacy are generalizable and therefore more concrete and useful in understanding digital literacy at a practical level.  The New London Group (1996), in defining multiliteracies, proposed six modes of meaning.  They differentiated between linguistic, visual, audio, gestural, spatial and multimodal as patterns in media productions of which students need to be aware. These are necessary to effectively access information sources, interpret and remix information and develop new forms of information.  In eliciting these patterns, Avarim and Eshet-Alkalai (2006) suggested students need technical-procedural, cognitive and emotional-social skills.  Further, Eshet-Alkalai (2004) defined five necessary cognitive skills:

  1. photo-visual (reading/interpreting information in visual/graphic form)
  2. reproduction (creating new information production using scattered bits of what already existed)
  3. branching (being able to understand and use hypermedia)
  4. information (being able to differentiate between what is useful/important and what is useless/harmful)
  5. socio-emotional (being able to engage at an emotional level in non-face-to-face environments)

From the ideas of the New London Group and Eshet-Alkalai, Ng (2012) developed a visual representation of these skills where Eshet-Alkalai’s five cognitive skills are interspersed among three overlapping circles containing technical, cognitive and social-emotional aspects.  Futurelab (Payton & Hague, 2010) also presents a clear image of overlapping skills.

Teaching Digital Literacy

In describing the skill sets students are expected to exhibit to show their digital literacy, how integrate digital literacy into teaching becomes clearer.  A further description by Futurelab (Payton & Hague, 2010) also helps:

To be digitally literate is to have access to a broad range of skills, practices and cultural resources that you are able to apply to digital tools. It is the ability to make, represent and share meaning in different modes and formats; to create, collaborate and communicate effectively; and to understand how and when digital technologies can best be used to support these processes. Digital literacy involves critically engaging with technology and developing a social awareness of how a number of factors, including commercial agendas and cultural understandings, can shape the ways in which technology is used to convey information and meaning (p. 4).

This description triggers ideas of how digital literacy skills can be brought into the classroom.  Using websites such as The Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus and critically analyzing the information through source verification is opportunity to engage students.  Gumble (2012) relates a three week American literature project she calls The Art of War.  Her students analyze information in a variety of modes (audio, video, image, text) related to war events.  The students remix the information using an online video creation service called Animoto.  The video must include text in the form of correspondence letters, journal entries, songs, political cartoons, photographs, and poems while with appropriate citations.  Gumble concludes, “Through projects like The Art of War, educators and students can journey together through a myriad of sources to make authentic ideas come to fruition in creative, exciting, and personal ways” (p. 436).

Mitigating Factors

In studying classroom practice of digital learning skills, researchers found several influences on effective implementation.  Henderson (2011)  found teacher expectations of technology use in the classroom are different than what is done at home.  As a result, the skills students learn at school are not transferable to other situations.  Henderson attributes this school-home divide to a lack of tools and access at school as well as teacher inexperience.  In addition, Henderson concluded that teachers do not connect the teaching of technology with literacy and, as a result, often do not incorporate many necessary skills as the technology is being used.  Sefton-Green, Nixon and Erstad (2009) came to the same conclusion regarding the home-school divide when they saw teachers integrate technology into preparing but not delivering their lessons.

Another influence is the nature of the digital skills.  Avarim and Eshet-Alkalai (2006) found that when comparing their five cognitive skills at different age levels, children performed better at photo-visual, reproductive and branching while adults performed better at information.  He hypothesized that there may be inherent differences between those who are born into the non-linear format of the internet and those who take on digital technologies later in life.  He suggested that if some of the skills become innate through environmental exposure, it may be difficult to have students “learn” these skills in contrived lessons.  Avarim and Eshet-Alkalai also theorized that developmental level and innate learning style could significantly affect the acquirement of these skills.  They conclude that much theoretical work is still required to fully understand the links between digital literacy and learning.

Conclusion

In conclusion, determining whether students have learned the expected digital literacy skills should be similar to any other skill.  If the students can exhibit the skill in an authentic context, then they could be said to have learned that skill.  However, the mitigating factors need to be studied and resolved to develop authentic assessments for these skills.  If we want students to transfer the digital literacy skills they learn in the classroom context, then they must match what they will experience outside the classroom.  All of this reflects the New London Group’s (1996) suggestion that general literacies must be taught in situations mimicking real experiences using explicit instruction to teach the skills along with critical framing where the students analyze their work metacognitively and then have opportunity to apply their learning in new contexts.

References

Aviram, A., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2006). Towards a theory of digital literacy: three scenarios for the next steps. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, (2), 1–11. Retrieved from http://www.eurodl.org/index.php?p=archives&year=2006&halfyear=2.Archives2006/II&article=223

Chase, Z., & Laufenberg, D. (2011). Embracing the Squishiness of Digital Literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(7), 535–537. doi:10.1598/JAAL54.7.7

Dobson, T., & Willinsky, J. (2009). Digital literacy (Draft Version). The Cambridge Handbook on Literacy (Draft., pp. 1–30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http://pkp.sfu.ca/files/Digital Literacy.pdf

Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2004). Digital literacy: A conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital era. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(1), 93–106. Retrieved from http://www.openu.ac.il/Personal_sites/download/Digital-literacy2004-JEMH.pdf

Gumble, A. (2012). Finding a Voice: Freedom through Digital Literacies. The Educational Forum, 76(4), 434–437. doi:10.1080/00131725.2012.707568

Henderson, R. (2011). Classroom pedagogies, digital literacies and the home-school digital divide. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 6(2), 152–161. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/docview/1022283005/fulltextPDF?accountid=14656

New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review (Vol. 66, pp. 60–92). Retrieved from http://www.pwrfaculty.net/summer-seminar/files/2011/12/new-london-multiliteracies.pdf

Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy? Computers & Education, 59(3), 1065–1078. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.016

Payton, S., & Hague, C. (2010). Digital Literacy Professional Development Resource. Bristol: Futurelab. Retrieved from http://www.futurelab.org.uk/sites/default/files/Digital_Literacy_Resource.pdf

Sefton-Green, J., Nixon, H., & Erstad, O. (2009). Reviewing approaches and perspectives on “digital literacy”. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4(2), 107–125. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/doi/pdf/10.1080/15544800902741556

 

Posted in Commentary 3, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The E-Volution of Literacy Pedagogy

Posted on November 23, 2012 by kstackhouse

Introduction

The acquisition of literacy skills has been fundamental for several generations now in order to improve quality of life and work (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009).  The influences of electronic writing, hypertext and hypermedia have contributed to create many new forms of literacy.  In today’s education, work, and social life one must develop what is known as multiliteracies.  This term implies that there is more than one type of literacy at play at any one given time.  The New London Group (1996) and Cope & Kalantzis (2009) have presented cases for the use of the term multiliteracy, what it entails, and how it is impacting our lives.  Extending from ideas submitted in a Vista posting; (Stackhouse, November 9, 2012) the discussion of multiliteracies and pedagogy needs to be understood and explored by educators.

The Adaptive Nature of Communication

Ong (1982) and Bolter (2001) present historical perspectives on how communication has evolved.  From the early oral, writing and print traditions mentioned by Ong (1982) to the transformed writing spaces of electronic hypertext/media environments reviewed by Bolter (2001) it is clear to see how modern literacy has developed.  In this sense, digital literacy and electronic writing with the use of hypertext and hypermedia are not separate from traditional literacy.  They are part of the continuum of change of human communication.

With the newest forms and spaces of reading and writing Bolter (2001) shows that reading in the linear is limiting and that we should read “multiply” to avoid closing “off possible courses of action” (Bolter, 2001, p. 151). Bolter (2001) discusses the reader as a second author, where the reader is able to contribute to the text and pass it along to other readers (p. 153). Good writing was considered to be stable and authoritative (Bolter, 2001) where in modern literacy there is a move towards dynamic forms of interaction between the author, the reader, and the text.

Characteristics of Multiliteracies

Cope & Kalantzis (2009), revisiting the work initiated by the New London Group (1996), present the changing nature of our roles as workers, citizens, and in our personal lives.  In each area there are greater demands on skills, communication, dealing with knowledge, and diversity.  Thus, multiliteracy as “all forms of representation, including language, should be regarded as dynamic processes of transformation rather than processors of reproduction” (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009, p. 175).  This points to a process of meaning making that respects the learner’s involvement.  Cope & Kalantzis (2009) recognize then that through this process there must be a shift in the focus of literacy instruction.  This shift encourages innovation, creativity, and diversity of thought.

Through the progression of meaning making and communication tools there are newer ways to recognize the various modes or “multimodality of meaning” (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009, p. 178).  The modes identified; written language, oral language, visual representation, audio representation, tactile representation, gestural representation, representation to oneself, and spatial representation all represent various ways in which we can express and experience meaning-design or meaning making (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009, p. 178-179).  To expand on this we must consider how these various modes can interact in concert or apart from each other at any given point.  These multimodalities, in connection to one another, lead to the need and use of multiliteracies.

Alexander (2008) begins his article with a quote from Yancey (2004) that discusses how students are participating in writing and reading paper, electronic writing, uploading images, audio, blogs, editing videos, and more without any demands for participation taking place.  The ability to manipulate and interact with what we read and write through multiliteracies is very engaging.  Students (and others) are participating in a networked environment that takes advantage of Web 2.0 and multiliteracies.  Web 2.0 incorporates the use of social networking and social software tools (Alexander, 2008).  Key components of Web 2.0 include; microcontent (small contributions), openness, connection and social filtering (Alexander, 2008).  These factors work to create metadata and “folksonomies” as contributors participate in gathering, filtering and maintaining content (Alexander, 2008).

Multiliteracy Pedagogy

Literacy strategies, such as Situated Practice (New London Group, 1996), dealing with the community of learners being immersed in the learning and practice of skills in meaningful situations seems to be the approach that best suits multiliteracies.  Through this approach learners engage with the material(s) and other learners.  Through situated practice, combined with overt instruction and critical framing, learners can move towards transformed practice (New London Group, 1996). Kalantzis & Cope have reviewed these strategies and have labeled them as “experiencing, conceptualizing, analyzing and applying” (as cited in Cope & Kalantzis, 2009, p. 184). Learners can use the skills they have mastered to adapt to the demands placed on them in new and innovative ways with others or on their own.  The benefits of multiliteracy pedagogy stimulate ideas of the learner as central and involved in the development of their meaning making. Cope & Kalantzis (2009) discuss the benefits obtained through the introduction of multiliteracy pedagogy where learners gained perspective on: cultural diversity, heritage, citizenship, collaboration, and technology.  Educators are aiming to meet mission statements that target the same goals presented:

“that would equip students with the knowledge and skills necessary to be active and informed citizens and workers in a changing world – a world of diversity and on in which our means of communication and access to information are changing rapidly” (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009, p. 191).

Conclusion

Understanding what literacy means today and what it incorporates is important for educators.  As professionals we need to be discussing this; and it is worthwhile to bring this discourse to our students. Their perspectives might naturally include electronic writing, word processing, hypertext/media as all part of the concept of literacy. If this is the case and culture is adopting these forms of literacy we should then drop the terms digital or “multi” in front of the literacy discussion. The definition of literacy should include the newer forms of literacy rather than distinguishing one from the other.

References:

Alexander, B. (2008). Web 2.0 and emergent multiliteracies. Theory into practice, 47(2), 150–160. doi:10.1080/00405840801992371

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

Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). “Multiliteracies”: New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4(3), 164–195. doi:10.1080/15544800903076044

Ong, Walter. (1982.) Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Methuen.

Stackhouse, K. (2012, November 9) . The evolution of literacy [Msg]. Message posted to https://www.vista.ubc.ca/webct/urw/tp0.lc5116011/cobaltMainFrame.dowebct

The New London Group. (1996) “A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies:Designing Social Futures.” Harvard Educational Review 66(1), pp. 60-92.

Posted in Commentary 3 | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Digital Immigrant Instructors: Not Obsolete Just Yet

Posted on November 23, 2012 by joypenner

Introduction

As early as 1962, Englebart (1963) pondered how learning (and by implication, education) might change if knowledge could be easily accessed and associative learning made possible. Though these concepts are now ubiquitous we continue to consider the same issue today. In their article, “Why Professor Johnny Can’t Read: Understanding the Net Generation’s Texts,” Mabrito and Medley (2008) seek to explore this question and provide some suggestions for the way forward.

Wired Differently?

Foundational to Mabrito & Medley’s (2008) observations and solutions is the premise that the Net-Generation’s (N-Gen) brains are “wired differently” (p. 2) to the previous generation. This change, they believe, includes ways of thinking and information processing. They base their thesis on the theory of “adaptational neuroplasticity” (p.2). According to this theory, “our brains are plastic, flexible and subject to change throughout life in response to changes in the environment” (Helsper & Enyon, 2011, p. 3). Accordingly then, given a “lifelong immersion” (Mabrito & Medley, 2008, p. 2) in digital media (since 1982), the N-Gen student now thinks, learns, and perceives the world differently. Conversely, the previous generation of educators, although they may be “technologically literate” (p. 1), are not skilled in 21st century digital media, nor do they understand how their students learn.

Mabrito & Medley (2008) are not the first to consider the thinking divide between generations. According to Tapscott (2009), the term “Net Generation” (2009) was his invention back in 1997. He defines them as the first generation “to be growing up digital” (p. 2). In 2001, Prensky labeled this divide with the terms “Digital Natives” and “Digital Immigrants” describing it as a “really big discontinuity” (pp. 1-2). While each of these authors have valid observations, this kind of divide thinking is problematic, and there is a growing body of oppositional literature (Hargittai, 2010; Helsper & Enyon, 2009; Kennedy et al., 2007).

Issues

On reading the works of Prensky (2001), Tapscott (2009), and Mabrito & Medley (2008), one would surmise that all Net Geners are technologically savvy and effective learners quite apart from their educators. Human development however is rarely dichotomous in nature and the assigning of the date 1982, as the beginning of the Net Generation is problematic. Hargittai (2010) found that the Net Gen is not “universally knowledgeable” when it comes to the digital realm (p. 109). Even among “wired” first year university students, she found that gender, ethnicity, and socio-economic factors predicated a wide-range of understanding of the Internet. Similarly, a study on first-year Australian university students in three different schools found that there was significant diversity in technology usage among this group (Kennedy et al., 2007). The proponents of a divide theory do not take into consideration that because our educational system is largely unchanged, students in the N-Gen have and are being schooled in the predominately text-mode of learning thereby allowing them to move freely between the two modes. While they may be “bathed in bits” (Tapscott, 2012) they are still equally exposed to traditional forms of learning, precipitating a more gradual and subtle change than previously declared.

Mabrito & Medley (2008) (as well as others) seem eager to establish a brain rewiring theory for the N-Gen, however they do not account for the educators who have also been steeped in digital technology at least as long as the N-Geners. If the brain study is true, then it is true for anyone, including the previous generation. Is it conceivable then that instructors of the previous generation, given time, can become comfortable after continual exposure to digital media? Prensky (2001) declares outdated “Digital Immigrant instructors” (p.2) to be the main problem in education today. Once again we are fed a “Great Divide” theory. Kennedy et al., (2007) call for moderation in raising the possibility “that current students and teachers might have a more complex mix of skills and experiences with new technologies” (p. 518).

A New Pedagogy?

Based on their theory of rewired brains, Mabrito & Medley (2008) deduce that new pedagogical thinking is required, They believe that the N-Gen, characterized as digital, connected, experiential, immediate, and social (Barnes, Marateo, & Ferris, 2007; Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005; Prensky, 2001), have a different learning style to the previous generation. But is a shift in pedagogy necessary? Best practice in education dictates that we get to know our students, understand how they learn, and help them learn accordingly. Mabrito & Medley (2008) offer Wenger’s community of practice, and Vygotsky’s social construction of knowledge as part of this new pedagogy. These theories of learning are not new, but the tools are what have changed. Sound pedagogical practice helps us decide, “which modes, methods, activities, and actors are most cost and learning-effective” (Anderson, 2008, p. 68). Determining “aptness of mode” and “aptness of fit between mode and audience” (Kress, 2005, p. 19) is best practice regardless of learning styles.

Conclusion

With the amount of information available, today’s students have the possibility of knowing far more than students from previous generations. However, they do not universally inhabit the digital educational spaces touted by many authors. Barnes, Marateo, & Ferris (2007) urge educators to learn from the Net Generation, but continue to teach them in engaging ways. The Net Generation needs to be taught how to discern good information, and how to pool that information for their own interest and problem solving needs (Englebart, 1963). Students must be guided in the creation of useful “paths of meaning” (Bolter, 2001, p. 35) that the digital age affords. For this to happen, teachers must first be cognizant of the new possibilities of thinking and learning that our electronic structures provide. This is sound pedagogical practice no matter which generation one inhabits.

Anderson, T. (2008). Towards a theory of online learning. In: Anderson, T. & Elloumi, F. Theory and practice of online learning. Athabasca University.
Barnes, K., Marateo, R., & Ferris, S. P. (2007). Teaching and learning with the Net Generation. Innovate Journal of Online Education, 3(4), 771-772.

Bolter, J.D. (2001). Writing space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Englebart, Douglas. (1963). “A conceptual framework for the augmentation of man’s intellect.” In Hawerton, P.W. and Weeks, D.C. (Eds), Vistas in information handling, Volume I: The augmentation of man’s intellect by machine. Washington, DC: Spartan Books. Available (as “Augmentation of human intellect: A conceptual framework”): http://web.archive.org/web/20080331110322/http://www.bootstrap.org/augdocs/friedewald030402/augmentinghumanintellect/ahi62index.html

Hargittai, E. (2010), Digital Na(t)ives?: Variation in Internet skills and uses among members of the “Net Generation”. Sociological Inquiry, 80: 92–113. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-682X.2009.00317.

Helsper, E. & Eynon, R. (2011). Digital Natives: Where is the evidence? LSE Research Online. Available at http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27739/.

Kennedy, G., Dalgarno, B., Gray, K., Judd, T., Waycott, J., Bennett, S., … & Churchward, A. (2007). The Net Generation are not big users of Web 2.0 technologies: Preliminary findings. In ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007 (pp. 517-525).

Kress, Gunter. (2005). Gains and losses: New forms of texts, knowledge and learning. Computers and Composition. 22(1), 5-22. Retrieved, October 27, 2012 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2004.12.004

Mabrito, M., & Medley, R. (2008). Why Professor Johnny can’t read: Understanding the Net Generation’s texts. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 4(6). Retrieved November 15, 2012, http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=510&action=article.

Oblinger, D., & Oblinger, J. L. (2005). Educating the Net Generation (Vol. 264). Washington, DC: Educause.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants part 2: Do they really think differently? On the Horizon, 9(6), 1-6.

Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital: How the Net Generation is changing your world. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Tapscott, D. (2012). Four principles for the open world. TEDGlobal 2012.

Posted in Commentary 3 | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Web 2.0 Storytelling – Scaffolding a New World

Posted on November 23, 2012 by jenniferschubertubc

As digital natives, today’s typical students are quite familiar with utilising the internet to connect with others. Mobile applications allow users to upload content at a moment’s notice, affording real time sharing. Amateur bloggers, photographers, artists and authors are beginning to tell their own stories at an earlier age with the increased affordability and accessibility of technology.

“Web 2.0 Story-telling: The Emergence of a New Genre,” explores how social media and digital sharing networks have changed the landscape of traditional storytelling. Instead of a tale having the standard Freytag Pyramid structure (exposition – rising action – climax – falling action – denouement), these new stories are continually evolving through collaboration, commentary, and adaptation. (Alexander & Levine, 40) Information no longer exists as static text on a webpage, but is constantly revisable through efforts of not only the original author but through efforts of a worldwide audience.

The amount of sharing platforms that exist on the internet are virtually endless and span various forms of expression ranging from quick phone snap photography (through applications such as Instagram) to 140 character snippets of text (twitter). These tools not only allow users to share their thoughts and experiences, in essence their stories, in real time, but allows the public to comment, share, and build upon these stories with their own reactions. This in effect alters the story. The initial content or aim of the message may not change, but the path it follows as a result of interaction may transform it into something completely different than the author had originally intended.

In 2007, Alan Levine led a project that had an ultimate goal of utilising 50 separate, free, Web 2.0 tools capable of mixing medias (text, image, sound, etc.) to create an embeddable or linked message, to tell a simple story of a missing dog. The mission of the project was not to rank the tools but to show the potential of what already exists and prove how many tools exist in cyberspace that users may not be aware of. (Alexander & Levine, 51) The study also proved to show the dramatic increase in both the accessibility and breadth of collaborative, creative tools and the differing results that could occur from the use of one over the other.

Last spring, I completed a research proposal on the advantages of fandom in the world of education. Merriam-Webster defines fandom as “the state or attitude of being a fan.” In more specific terms, fandom involves being part of a community that shares a common interest in a particular piece of media (book, movie, television programme) or a person of interest (actor, sports star). Through the exploration of various social sharing sites, I found a large subculture of storytellers who have taken existing text of what they enjoy and have turned it into an entire community of transformative works including works of fiction, illustrations, remixed audio/video works and extensive commentary both based on the object of the fandom and that of a personal nature. Users, both anonymous and known, who agreed to participate in a questionnaire ranged in age from fourteen to sixty-five.

A reluctant, self-conscious writer, I found a forum for others to review my work as an anonymous author, writing under a penname. As a result of that work, I was asked to join a round-robin type of experimental, improvisational writing group. Each contributor is assigned a character, who already exists in a separate fictional world, but in the group story is taken out of their historical origins and thrust into a present day, modern working world situation. Though these existing characters already have well-established, recognizable attributes, individual authors can, and often, bring personal experience into their own writings, ultimately changing the original character. These changes are often subtle and not enough to make them unrecognizable, for there are established parameters to work under.

Each post in this fictional role play causes the next responding author to adapt and change his/her response, thus constantly changing the story. Since both the authors and the audience are internationally based, the story is asynchronous. Viewers and creators can participate at the leisure, though there is a bit of pressure for the characters to keep the story moving! At times when authors can be online at the same time, the story can be read as it is created (in real time); those readers who have busy schedules can “catch up” with the story at any time by going directly to the archive and reading the posts all together. This particular role play encourages audience participation, from simple commentary to active suggestions.

The research of last spring also led me to take an international journey of my own this semester. Notorious for living in the moment and eventually forgetting details of my travels, I decided that I would document this adventure online through posts on the social media site tumblr. Having lost my computer to hard drive failure, I have relied heavily on mobile technology to keep up with studies, classmates, friends and family. I have utilized multiple apps to edit photos, record video of experiences, type up quick notes and chat with those near and far. My photos have been commented upon and shared on Instagram and twitter, often leading to new and interesting connections. Notices of events posted on twitter and tumblr have led to my own success in navigating the other side of my professional life in a foreign land.

Social media has the ability to change everyone’s story. Comments and sharing often lead to the spread of information, resulting in an international scaffolding of knowledge. It is important to know how to navigate this vast world of information, however, being sure to question what is real and fictional. It is just as easy to share truth as it is to pass along fiction. The more we are willing to share, responsibly, the less restrictive the world becomes.

 

Resources

Alexander, B., and Levine, A. (2008).  Web 2.0 story-telling: The emergence of a new genre. Educause Review. 43(6), 40-56. Retrieved November 22, 2012, from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0865.pdf

Fandom. (2012.) Merriam-Webster. Retrieved November 22, 2012, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fandom

 

(If you are interested in viewing my travelogue, click HERE.)

Posted in Commentary 3 | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Web 2.0: A Modern Manuscript

Posted on November 23, 2012 by cmck


Hello,

I have chosen to write my third commentary about how web 2.0 is bringing together many aspects of writing technologies, past and present.

Because I wanted to embed Twitter and Blog feeds into the text to support my argument for changing writing spaces, I had to set this up in my own WordPress. UBC’s wouldn’t let me embed the feeds.

Please click here to take a look at my third commentary.

Enjoy,

Chris Mckenzie

Posted in Commentary 3, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 4 Comments

The Power of Images and Sound

Posted on November 23, 2012 by mcquaid

[vimeo]http://vimeo.com/48236494[/vimeo]

I came upon this video by accident today, and, aside from bringing a rush of feelings and memories, it made me think of this course. It reminded me of our readings about text forms becoming more visual (for better or for worse), as well as the thoughts about how much information and meaning sounds and images can pack into short snippets. While text can sometimes sum up beautifully a memory or visual (whether you think it can do so better than some images or not) the written word just can’t do it as fast as an image or sound can. Take a look at the video above, and see what you think / feel.

Posted in Rip.Mix.Feed., Technology, Text | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Tumblring through my overseas adventure

Posted on November 22, 2012 by jenniferschubertubc

When I was desperately trying to figure out what to work up for the Rip.Mix.Feed. project, it hit me that I was already working on telling a story through various web tools. As some of you know, the hard drive in my laptop failed about halfway through my trip. This has made keeping up with coursework very tough as I’ve been borrowing laptops and wifi extremely piecemeal over this semester. Fortunately I have been able to continue documenting my trip through various apps and wifi over my iPhone.

http://americanfangirlinlondon.tumblr.com

I’ve been reluctant to share my adventure blog, as it is extremely personal, even though it is a public blog. I have used different tools such as Instagram, qik and YouTube to add multimedia pieces to my tumblr blog. I have been able to do this all “on the go” (depending on wifi availability) which I have found fascinating and extremely helpful in documenting the moments in real time. Some of the experiences are not outlined in detail due to privacy issues… both mine and the people I have been lucky enough to commiserate with on this journey.

This blog serves as not only a way for me to keep a record of my adventures but also as a way to reach out to friends and family and let them know what is going on beyond an email or phone call. I can show people what I’m seeing and paint a much more interesting picture of what I’m doing or how I’m feeling at any given moment.

I have not had any issues, but I have a few young followers that have had some anonymous users bullying them by telling them to harm themselves or do other destructive things. Some of the things I’ve seen are sickening, to put it mildly. I think blogging is a great way for students to share moments of their lives, but it is important to note that filters, blocks and security measures are there for a reason and should be considered when setting up blogs for younger users.

Posted in Rip.Mix.Feed. | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment