The New London Group defined the fundamental purpose of education in its responsibility to “ensure that all students benefit from learning in ways that allow them to participate fully in public, community, and economic life” (The New London Group 1996). In discussing the changes to literacy itself, digital literacies – while ever-evolving – must be viewed through the lens of its function. Just as the first instances of the written word, digital literacies communicate meaning. However, beyond this underlying function, digital literacies also embody an “extension” of literacy as it “carries with it the potential for a far wider, more global access to knowledge” (Dobson 2009). Specifically, word processing provides a diverse range of multidisciplinary opportunities whether it be improving the written output through collaboration or facilitating research in conjunction with the writing process (Dobson). This conversation regarding the impact of word processors on literacy reminded me of Erin Millar’s article titled, “Wikis, Digital Literacies, and Professional Growth” and “Classroom of 2020: The future is very different than you think.” In her article, Millar requests that the reader cast their imaginations into the future to consider the role of technology in the classroom, and she directs this exercise to reveal the independence technology grants students to create knowledge and engage in meaningful learning. Just as Dobson writes, Millar identifies collaboration and student-directed learning as natural reactions to digital literacy in the classroom. In fact, extending the pedagogical focus to “modes of representation much broader than language alone” encourages interaction between students of varying ability, in turn, enhancing the competence and knowledge of the students involved in these contributive, technological relationships (The New London Group 1996). Regarding these relationships, word processing also produces community within classrooms as students learn respect for each student’s intelligence and begin to recognize that their knowledge may be uplifted and perfected by that of their peers. This is readily visible in the writing process; whether it be a creative writing piece or a lab report, the opportunity to interact – even digitally and remotely – and engage in refining each other’s work is a process that encourages academic and human capacities. Returning to The New London Group’s definition of the educational mission, competency in word processing allows students to navigate working life with the skills to “access to new forms of work through learning” (The New London Group 1996). Just as technology is changing the classroom, literacy in the working world shifts as well; examining digital literacies, therefore, garners even greater significance. The New London Group writes, “As teachers, our role is not simply to be technocrats. Our job is not to produce docile, compliant workers. Students need to develop the capacity to speak up, to negotiate, and to be able to engage critically with the conditions of their working lives” (The New London Group 1996). By engaging students in digital literacies in the classroom, they are simultaneously being prepared for life outside the classroom. Not only is the quality of student writing and thought improved through collaboration and engaged inquiry of word processing, but the global opportunities are significant (Dobson 2009). Word processing has revolutionized the accessibility of text, particularly in poorer countries where technology empowers young learners and narrows educational gaps (Livingston 2016). The potential of word processing as it pertains to accessibility is truly revolutionary.
Dobson, T., & Willinsky, J. (2009). Digital Literacy. In D. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Literacy (Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology, pp. 286-312). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Livingston, S. (2016, August 23). Classroom technologies narrow education gap in developing countries. Retrieved July 18, 2018, from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2016/08/23/classroom-technologies-narrow-education-gap-in-developing-countries/
Millar, E. (2018, May 09). Classroom of 2020: The future is very different than you think. Retrieved July 18, 2018, from https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/canadian-university-report/classroom-of-2020-the-future-is-very-different-than-you-think/article4620458/
The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review 66(1). Retrieved July 18, 2018, from http://newarcproject.pbworks.com/f/Pedagogy of Multiliteracies_New London Group.pdf
Stephanie Kwok
August 8, 2018 — 3:03 pm
Hi Zarah!
You’ve raised some interesting points in your post. I especially liked what you mentioned about how digital literacies “must be viewed as a lens within its function”. We are at the point where the written word is representative of much more than its basic meaning. Digital text technologies encourage children to be educated about digital literacy and what that encompasses. While it does facilitate better opportunities for collaboration and research, students must be taught to develop awareness for how to properly use these technological tools and systems. We often assume that children, being ‘digital natives’, are more adept at using technology instinctively. However, while this may be true of technical usage (using iPads, computers, and other electronic devices), we must consider reinforced education on ethical and philosophical concerns in our teachings.
In the event that they do not receive proper training, children, who later become uninformed adults, end up becoming part of the problem rather than solution. Those who do not strive to become respectable digital citizens online may engage in malicious or fraudulent online behavior. These behaviors may include, but not be limited to, harassment, denigration, online bullying and stalking. Dobson touches upon these issues, saying that there are also issues of government and employer surveillance and tracking as well as “groups with criminal intent (e.g., fraud, child pornography, terrorism, and so on) that advance their cause with the help of digital forms of literacy” (Stone, 2007; Wall, 2001, as cited in Dobson, 2009, p. 21). As such, it is important that while we reap the benefits of word processing and digital literacies within the classroom, we should not shy away from discussion with our students about their disadvantages and consequences either.
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.