Digital Literacy and Multiliteracies

The New London Group (1996) asserted that the mission of education is to “ensure that all students benefit from learning in ways that allow them to participate fully in public, community, and economic life. Literacy pedagogy is expected to play a particularly important role in fulfilling this mission” (p.1). How, then, do we define what it means to be literate and educated in modern society in which rapidly evolving technologies are fundamentally altering the way in which we absorb information through diverse modes of representation, particularly in the face of educational systems that are slow to evolve?

The speed and ease at which information and social connections can be accessed has made society more diverse and interconnected than ever before. Schools do not hold a monopoly on the accumulation of experiences and knowledge. Dobson and Willinsky (2009), citing the work of George Landow, argue,

Hypermedia revolutionizes education by freeing students from teacher-centred classrooms, promoting critical thinking, empowering students, easing the development and dissemination of instructional materials, facilitating interdisciplinary work and collaboration, breaking down arbitrary and elitist textual barriers by making all text worthy and immediately accessible, and introducing students to new forms of academic writing (p.5).

These affordances raise questions regarding how educators can best incorporate new technologies into their classrooms or into the design of online courses to engage students with the world, rather than cutting them off from it.

The American Library Association’s digital literacy task force defines digital literacy as “the ability to use information and communication technologies to find, evaluate, create, and communicate information, requiring both cognitive and technical skills” (Heiten, 2016). I agree with Dobson and Willinsky’s (2009) assertion that digital literacy is a “further extension of what writing first made of language” (p.1). As concepts of authority deteriorate towards a greater trend of “amateurisation,” however, the ability for students and the general public to be able to not only decode text, but to locate, critically analyze, and establish the relationship between them or how they are contradictory becomes increasingly critical (p. 19). As Kress (2005) stated, visitors of websites seek information, not knowledge; “it is the readers who fashion their own knowledge” (p. 10). Navigating through hypertextual information from various sources to build one’s understanding may require a different mental process than reading an enclosed and ordered text. I would disagree, however, with the arguments that contend that hyperlink texts are the more “natural” way for the human brain to associate information, as they were still created and organized in some capacity by an author who chose which links to embed.

I also disagree somewhat with Kress’s assertions that “words are (relatively) empty entities” requiring interpretation, while “depictions are full of meaning; they are always specific” (pp. 7, 15). While I understand the author’s argument and perspective, if speaking strictly of static images they too require interpretation and may lack crucial context. The visual has become not just a supplement to traditional text, but as an integral aspect of meaning making. Text is also visually designed, and thus all meaning making is multimodal. Technological developments are leading to increasingly complex modes of meaning.

The New London Group (1996) introduced the term “multiliteracies” to account for the increasing variety of text forms, including modes of meaning outside of language, as well as cultural contexts, subjectivities, and linguistic diversity in a globalized world (p. 5). They recommended the need for instructors to develop methods in which students can “show that they can implement understandings acquired through Overt Instruction and Critical Framing in practices that help them simultaneously to apply and revise what they have learned” (p. 28). This would allow students to create meaning in a more personal and contextualized manner by “designing” and redesigning” rather than passively consuming texts. This would lead to more diverse assessment processes.

The New London Group was clearly concerned with what they perceived to be an inadequate definition and practice of literacy education in schools in relation to an increasingly globalized world. Cope and Kalantzis revisited the case for a pedagogy of multiliteracies in 2009, asserting that the prediction of the trend of multimodality was correct, despite not predicting certain details. Ultimately, however, they concluded that there had not been much positive change, stating, “There is a deadening institutional inertia in schools and their disciplines, in the heritage physical architecture of school buildings and the institutional architecture of educational bureaucracy” (p. 182).

I cannot speak to secondary education, but it does seem that post-secondary education is making some positive strides in this field as the “digital divide” grows narrower; however, educational change continues to lag behind technological change. Education has a long-standing definition and tradition of what is deemed “academic,” which has proven slow to change. This is something I wrestle with in my current line of work on a daily basis. Academic journal articles continue to lack hyperlinks, perhaps due to notions of authority, and the lecture and emphases on traditional forms of literacy will continue to be utilized.

I would not subscribe fully to Prensky’s (2001) categorization of “digital natives” and “digital immigrants” based solely on innate generational differences, but I think it is fair to argue that older faculty who did not grow up with the technology that current students are familiar with are often reluctant to attempt integrating it into their teaching practice. I remember all too well sitting through the first ten minutes of class while an instructor tried in vain to get their Powerpoint slides working (this may be an extreme example). Johnson, Wisniewski, Kuhlemeyer, Isaacs, and Krzykowski (2012) argue that faculty anxiety of technology adoption can stem from a number of factors, such as a concern over resources, lack of compensation for curriculum development, a lack of recognition for embracing new technologies in tenure and promotion decisions, and a potential lack of technology infrastructure (p. 63).

To address these concerns technological innovation should be promoted and supported at an institutional level, so as not to rely on individuals to champion developments. This is not to say that traditional forms of literacy, or “mere literacy” as the New London Group (1996) coined, should be diminished in value as new forms of literacy are still being understood and new teaching practices developed. As Dobson and Willisnky (2009) stated, “competence with new technologies- particularly adolescents’ competence with new technologies- is often inappropriately reconstrued as incompetence with print-based literacies” (p. 11).

We have seen throughout this module and throughout this course that technological advances are not always accurately predicted. As tools evolve, educators should focus on the underlying principles, skills, and ethical concerns needed to adequately incorporate them in order to account for the increasing cultural and linguistic diversity, as well as the variety of text forms in today’s society.

References

Cope, B. and Kalantzis, M. (2009). “‘Multiliteracies’: New Literacies, New Learning. Pedagogies: An International Journal. 4(3), 164-195. Retrieved from http://newlearningonline.com/_uploads/pedagogiesm-litsarticle.pdf (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

Dobson, T. and Willinsky, J. Digital Literacy. In Cambridge Handbook of Literacy. Retrieved from https://pkp.sfu.ca/files/Digital%20Literacy.pdf.

Heitin, L. (2018, July 26). Digital Literacy: An Evolving Definition. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2016/11/09/what-is-digital-literacy.html.

Johnson, T., Wisniewski, M. A., Kuhlemeyer, G., Isaacs, G., & Krzykowski, J. (2012). Technology adoption in higher education: Overcoming anxiety through faculty bootcamp. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(2), 63-72.

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

New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92. Retrieved from http://newlearningonline.com/_uploads/multiliteracies_her_vol_66_1996.pdf (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. NCB University Press, 9(5), 1-6.