Continuity Theories & Digital Literacy
Throughout the readings lately, I found myself having difficulty “ploughing through”. I think this is happening for several reasons, and it has given me the opportunity to reflect personally and professionally. What has become clear to me recently is that the reading feels very hard because there is so much to think about. I am often rereading and making more notes than usual. In my personal reading, I thought of rereading as a sign that I “don’t understand” or “didn’t get it”. What I have grown to think, is that I am rereading because there is so much running through my head. While the reading is quite heavy for me personally and given the context (June, taking two courses, etc. etc.), the strategies I am using do not mean I “don’t get it”. They are simply helping me to understand. This was a bit of a personal “ah ha” but also made me see my students reading lives through a different lens.
When I started reading Chandler’s essay “Biases of the Ear and Eye”, I was able to put all of the reading and ideas into meaningful, personal understanding. My deepened comprehension started with the simple, but effective comparison of “…dichotomies versus continua, and the ear versus the eye” (Chandler, 2014). Everything Chandler was explaining made sense. In particular, the idea of literacy as a continuum and the idea that orality and literacy are in a dynamic relationship.
Digital technology and the research around the implications for the classroom, has identified that 21st century students require new skill sets to navigate literacy in the digital world. Digital literacy is the ability to understand, evaluate, and create using digital technologies. Eshet-Alkalai identifies five major components of being digitally literate.
• Photo-visual literacy – understanding visual messages.
• Reproduction literacy – is the ability to interpret and integrate existing ideas into personal creations.
• Branching literacy – constructing independently after navigating information and ideas in a nonlinear manner.
• Information literacy – the ability to think critically about information received through various media and technology.
• Social-emotional literacy – identified as the most complex type of digital literacy. These literacy skills involve mature reflection, analysis, and critique.
(Eshet-Alkalai, 2004)
Furthermore, Eshet-Alkalai explains that digital literacies are survival skills for the 21st century.
Digital literacy integrates all modes of literacy – reading, speaking, listening, viewing, and representing. The amount of information we are inundated with every day requires that 21st century learners use all modes every single day. Today, literacy is on the continuity theory continuum that emphasis the dynamic relationship between modes, not the separation. As educators, we cannot separate the skills learners and citizens need to be successful not just today, but in the future. The literacies that Eshet-Alkalai explains build upon each other; it difficult to have one without the other four.
With that said, I still believe it is important to explore and respect the different ideas that separate orality and literacy. These ideas help us see the relationship (or lack thereof) between orality and literacy. Without understanding the differences, we cannot appreciate and value the similarities.
Chandler, D. (2014, July 06). Biases of the Ear and Eye. Retrieved from Aberystwyth University: http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/litoral/litoral1.html
Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2004). Digital literacy: a conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital era. Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 93-106.
It was also difficult for me as well. Coming from completely different back ground, David Bolter’s writing space and Chandler’s essays “Biases of the Ear and Eye” “great divide” theories, linguistic and technological determinism helped me to make connection with course contents.
Rakhshanda
It’s always nice to hear that you aren’t alone – in times of glory or struggle. Thanks, Rakhshanda! 🙂
I am concerned with the fact that most of Ong writing focuses on knowledge as if it is something that is not related to the culture and the environment. This can be similar to Vygosky and Paiget understanding of Constructivism. I believe that the brain is already designed to consume oral and literal knowledge with high level of adaptation according to the environment. This is simply because the brain is equipped with senses that cover the oral “mouth & ears” and literal “eyes” sources. Similar to the findings of Chandler (Chandler, 2014) when the digital age required more combination of senses and skills. Still such combination will not be possible without the senses and capabilities of the brain. So the question is did we really change the thinking mechanics of the brain when our culture shifted from oral to literal? Or is it the fact that our brain is in a continuous state of development even within one culture that such change should not be considered?
Chandler, D. (2014, July 06). Biases of the Ear and Eye. Retrieved from Aberystwyth University: http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/litoral/litoral1.html
I agree with you completely! I do not believe that it is so simple or easy to divide literacy into oral and literal. Or rather, that they can be separated and share vast differences that have fundamental impacts on society and culture. While we may place great emphasis on one or the other, I believe that oral and literal are an integrated network that need each other.
Alison – I am with you as well! It has taken me several reads of Ong to feel as though I am understanding or absorbing what he has written! I had to re-assess myself as a reader and decipher what tools I needed to be successful as I read. Just so I’m clear -I thought I would define both terms before carrying on!
Orality is thought and verbal expression in societies where the technologies of literacy (especially writing and print) are unfamiliar to most of the population.
Literacy: the ability to read and write. Knowledge that relates to a specified subject.
According to Chandler, “some commentaries refer to idealized types of society as if ‘orality’ and ‘literacy’ were dichotomies or polar opposites”, but he does not see it as such and warns “us’ of thinking of them as opposites or inferior/superior one to the other.
Reviewing the research literature, Ruth Finnegan comments that ‘it is difficult to maintain any clear-cut and radical distinction between those cultures which employ the written word and those that do not’ (cited in Olson 1994, xv). This, I believe, is important to hear. We may be evolving as cultures in different ways, but that does not make one better than the other.
I personally believe that cultures must evolve in some way thanks to both orality and literacy. Our culture relies heavily on the written word to spread information but several communities still spread knowledge through oral means.
This ties into your final point: “Digital literacy integrates all modes of literacy – reading, speaking, listening, viewing, and representing.” I think that we no longer can see Orality and Literacy as separate but must begin to teach all the skills, combining them whenever possible to prepare our multi-literate students for many different types of situations ahead of them. You are right when you say that the literacies that Eshet-Alkalai explains build upon each other; we require all four!
Thank you for a great blog post! I learnt so much!
References:
Chandler, D. (2014, July 06). Biases of the Ear and Eye. Retrieved from Aberystwyth University: http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/litoral/litoral1.html
Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2004). Digital literacy: a conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital era. Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 93-106.
(SO fun to see an article from Aber! I studied there on exchange – it’s an incredible university! )
Thanks for you post Allison!
You know? after at least 20 years of the extended adoption of the internet I often wonder: Why do why keep using the term “digital literacy”? I mean, “digital” as opposed to what? Aren’t those 5 components applicable to just “literacy”? What do you think?
Ernesto, as I have been exploring the idea of digital literacy and reading some literature the term “digital literacy” struck me as redundant. To me it implies that digital is just a fad or phase. As you mention, digital life is well established and we are programming for our future with digital components foremost in mind. You cannot be literate in the 21st century without being digitally literate.
Thank you for your comments! It is nice to know that someone else shares your thinking and ideas. The idea that everything we have read or are talking about is integrated, has been one of the most reoccurring themes for me. I think we do a disservice to literacy and ourselves and students if we isolate everything that contributes to being literate.