The following is a reflection on course readings during weeks four and five of EDC532: Seminar in Digital Literacy with Dr. Julie Coiro.  The course is one requirement for a Certificate in Digital Literacy from the University of Rhode Island, U.S.

LABELING AND DEFINING LITERACY IN 2015

You may have noticed in your readings that some people use the term “digital literacy,” others use the term “digital literacies” or “new literacies,” and still others use terms such as “online reading comprehension” or “digital inquiry.”

• Why do you think some see literacy as singular and others as plural?

The debate about the singular term, “literacy,” versus the plural term, “literacies,” is an interesting one to engage.  This ties into the new literacies versus New Literacies debate in ways both direct and indirect.  First, it directly relates to the question because scholars who study new literacies are content experts who look for clarity in specifically defined research studies.  New Literacies scholars are theorists who look to draw conclusions across new literacies studies, seeking commonalities and differences among the varying fields.  Both schools of thought contribute to the greater whole.  Indirectly, I see this as a forest analogy:  new literacies are the trees and the New Literacies are the forest.  Without individual trees, there is no forest to visit.  Without the big picture of the forest, each tree stands alone and makes less of an impact.  To extend this analogy, the arborists are the new literacies scholars, offering information about each species, while the environmentalists are the New Literacies scholars, seeking to protect the forest and all its trees.  The ecosystem, then, is the sociocultural context for the text (tree/forest), reader (scientist), and activity(research study).  The RAND Model (2002) is clearly illustrated in this analogy.

In similar ways, some scholars view literacy as the overarching phrase encompassing many skills, while others view literacies as individual skills that are clearly labeled. Still others may choose to define Literacy (with a capital L) in theoretical practice.  Digital literacy scholars view the whole as a toolbox with changing tools.  The nature of the tools is ephemeral, “new” is only new for so long, and as new tools come into favor the learner must adapt.  Digital literacy skills, in the broad sense, give the learner strategies to use whatever toolbox he/she may encounter.  

I asked about this very issue during my week four RARE writing prompt.  After reading ideas from Hammerberg, Lankshear & Knobel, and Kupiainen, I ranted. “I am pursuing a certificate in digital literacy, yet I still feel like a neophyte when it comes to understanding basic terminology related to the field.  I understand that definitions evolve over time and that new terminology emerges to explain nuances in the field(s); however, I feel unprepared to answer the question, ‘What is digital literacy?’ because my own definition is constantly changing.”  My professor, Dr. Coiro, wrote a thoughtful reply. “Your increasing awareness of the messiness of literacy and the rapidly changing nature of literacy in relation to technology is the best we can all do to define digital literacy – it just keeps on changing.”  I also inquired about the process Dr. Coiro and Dr. Hobbs undertook when choosing a name for URI’s Certificate in Digital Literacy. Her reply included a discussion about her perceptions of digital literacy versus digital literacies and why the singular ultimately ruled. Coiro wrote, “When Renee and I labeled our summer institute, and eventually the certificate, as ‘digital literacy’, it seemed to be a term we could both agree on that was inclusive enough of the multiple literacies and perspective that different people bring to the table.”

What are some of the things that some people believe are “new” about literacy and would you agree or disagree and why? Does the use of uppercase and lowercase ways of thinking about new literacies (as described by Leu et al, 2013) add clarity or muddy the waters?

The New Literacies chapter provided me with the best understanding of “new.” When Leu, et al. wrote that “literacy is deictic,” I glimpsed the challenges that scholars of new literacies and theorists of New Literacies encounter.  As stated by Leu, et al., “…when we speak of new literacies, we mean literacy that is not just new today; it becomes new every day of our lives” (1150). This explanation allowed my mind to travel a distance I had not previously conceptualized. As explained after the previous prompt, the discussion in terms cleared my muddy waters and gave me a more distinct picture of the differences.

• Is there any benefit to talking about these processes as online reading comprehension or digital inquiry, or does it create more confusion?

I see the processes of online reading comprehension and digital inquiry as different steps on Digital Literacy continuum.  Coiro notes during her video from week five that students “require additional, new skills to read and effectively comprehend information online.” During her speech to international learners attending a conference in Columbia, Coiro illustrates the challenges that online readers face. She presents a lack of correlation between offline and online reading skills and demonstrates the need for qualified, purposeful, reading instruction.  “The Internet is a reading and writing issue” rather than a technology issue, Coiro argues, and online reading should not be done in the isolation of a computer lab under the sole direction of a technology teacher.  There are new literacies that students reading online texts must master, including: locating, evaluating, synthesizing, and communicating.  When studying “new fluency,” Coiro says, a researcher should not think about how many words per minute are read; instead, the fluent online reader should be measured by the words per minute that can be skipped to find relevant content.  This on-the-spot evaluation of a link’s relevancy and the choice of whether to click, or not to click, is just one example of a skill that is not needed when reading offline texts.

However, as powerful as online experiences may be, Coiro stresses the need for face-to-face communication to help make sense of readings. “Comprehension is about talking and thinking and meaning making right with the people that you’re with,” she announces to the audience. To put the point into context, she facilitates an audience turn-and-talk activity.  All of these practices tie into reading comprehension.

I view digital inquiry as another step along the Digital Literacy continuum. Lankshear and Knobel wrote about the shift from ‘reading’ to ‘new literacy’ studies in 2008.  Their historical examination of terms prior to the 1970s through more current times illuminated a sociocultural shift in literacies.  In my RARE Writing Prompt last week, I summarized the scholars’ big idea: “Prior to the 1970s, literacy was a term used when constructing informal solutions for those deemed illiterate due to life circumstances.  During the 1970s, the meaning of the word ‘literacy’ transformed into a formal term and education was promoted as a change agent for building literate populations.”  I believe that digital inquiry affords the learner a clear pathway for his/her reading comprehension pursuits. By developing a meaningful purpose for research, the learner is motivated to succeed. When looking toward a goal, the learner perseveres and has a reason to find, evaluate, use, and synthesize relevant information through digital inquiry. Reading comprehension is a necessary tool on the continuum; without understanding, the project will derail. Throughout this experience, the learner brings external experiences to the educational setting. Kupiainen calls this the home-school connection. Hammerberg (2004) asserts that comprehension is not just based on the reader and the text. Text, context, background knowledge, learning environment, and social interactions all play a part in the reader being literate from one situation to the next. The motivated learner, preparing a product/project/idea for an authentic audience, may be further inspired to create social change.  In this way, the Digital Literacy continuum is fully traveled, and the learner achieves the pinnacle of involvement, Jenkins’ participatory culture.

Which term do you prefer and why?

I prefer the term Digital Literacy to digital literacy or digital literacies.  During the URI Summer Institute in Digital Literacy, participants took part in a leadership activity called the “Digital Compass.”  I emerged as a NorthEast.  Those with compasses pointing north jump in and get started with activities right away.  Those pointing east look for the big picture.  As Summer Institute faculty member Kristin Hokanson explained, “I am a North East.  I like to see the big picture, and then I jump in.”  These words captured my leadership spirit perfectly; in fact, I had just uttered similar words at my leadership table.  In this way, the term Digital Literacy fits me best.  I am a “big picture” person. I like to synthesize the parts of the whole and make connections that tie different areas together.  I respect and need the digital literacies scholars, the compass west scholars who see the details of each field of study and each particular skill.  In the same way, I identify with the New Literacy scholars more than the new literacies scholars.  When I profiled Jill Castek, I found her to be a fascinating enigma.  She seemed at once a new literacies scholar, well-versed in particulars and focused in her classroom studies of youth dyads and reading comprehension.  One of her other studies, the one about adult literacy, seemed to be more New Literacy in nature. It looked to use specific tools for the education and empowerment, both task-related and social, of the formerly tech-unsavvy subjects. Castek’s adult literacy study portrays a New Literacies theorist who synthesizes specialty areas for social change. Perhaps I am misinterpreting Castek’s cognitive specialties with sociocultural leanings; perhaps her work is changing as years pass and literacies evolve.  I am still trying to find the term that best relates to leaders in the southern compass direction.  Where do the leaders who leave room for emotion and want to hear all voices belong?  Perhaps they too are New Literacies scholars, looking at the big picture, with a leaning to the west, listening to each voice in the new literacies specialties.

IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING

No matter what you call them, do you think the online reading/digital literacy skills, strategies, practices, and mindsets outlined in your readings from Week 4 and 5 are more, less, or equally important for today’s students compared to those related to offline reading comprehension, vocabulary, and/or fluency (as discussed in reading from Weeks 1-3)? Please explain your reasoning.

I think online reading/digital literacy skills, strategies, practices, and mindsets are equally important for today’s students compared to those related to offline reading comprehension, vocabulary, and/or fluency.  I say this because the two seem to me an oversized Venn diagram.  Imagine a circle on the left with the term offline reading comprehension and a circle on the right with the term digital literacy.  Each has its own set of skills inherent to the platform on which material is read.  In the center, there is an overlap of skills.  Proficiency in both types of reading are necessary in order for  proficiency in the intersect to come to realization.  With partial proficiency, or limited proficiency, in one or the other, the overlap becomes fuzzy.  It is in this central zone that I believe Digital Literacy exists.  Taking skills from both reading contexts,  offline and online, and applying them to new contexts is where true comprehension lies.  The reader who is proficient in both offline and online reading is able to apply digital literacies to any situation. Regardless of the print format (informational text, fiction text, newspaper, magazine, or cereal box) and regardless of the online format (PDF, website with hyperlinks, multimedia, database, game, computer code, or advertisement), the truly proficient learner will apply his/her knowledge across contexts.  While Coiro’s speech outlined a surprising lack of correlation between successful offline and successful online readers, she also noted a set of key new fluencies.  In the intersection of the Venn diagram, these fluencies exist. As the New Literacies chapter states, the reader must identify the problem, and then locate, evaluate, synthesize, and communicate (1164).

I agree with the view that literacy is deictic.  I believe there are “social forces at work today that frame, and are framed by, the changes to literacy we are experiencing” (1151). As literacy changes, so must the learner’s skills adapt.  A full skillset of multimodal comprehension strategies will be necessary to navigate terrain, whether traditional or digital. Through it all, expert instruction will lead learners across, and through, the Venn diagram of Digital Literacy.

————————————————-

Resources

Coiro, J. (2003). Expanding our understanding of reading comprehension to encompass new literacies. The Reading Teacher.

Coiro, J. (2013, December 11). Online Reading Comprehension: Opportunities, Challenges, and Next Steps. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsWDEr2fKxA

Hammerberg, D. (2004). Comprehension instruction for sociocultural diverse classrooms: A review of what we know. The Reading Teacher, 57(7), 648-656.

Kupiainen, R. (2013). Preface, Chapter 1, and Chapter 2 (p. IX – 16). In Media and Digital Literacies in Secondary School.

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2008). From ‘reading’ to ‘new literacy studies. In C. Lankshear & M. Knobel, New literacies: Everyday practices and classroom learning. Berkshire, England: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill Education.

Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, Castek, & Henry, 2013). New Literacies: A dual level theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment.