Network Literacy
For this blog post I need to address the following questions:
How do McClure and Rheingold’s views on network literacy differ? What do you see as having changed between these authors’ definitions of being ‘network literate’?
How important are networks? For professional educators? For students? For rethinking teaching, learning and assessment?
McClure (1994) defines network literacy as “the ability to identify, access, and use electronic information from the network.” He says that it consists of knowledge and skills. The knowledge required is that of being aware of a range of networked information resources and services, understand the role of this information in problem solving and performing basic life activities as well as an understanding of how information is generated, managed and made available. The skills required include being able to retrieve specific types of information using information discovery tools, manipulate information by combining it with other existing information so as to increase the value of the information for particular situations and analyse and use information to resolve workplace and personal decisions and obtain services that will enhance their overall quality of life.
Rheingold’s views on network literacy are a little bit different. He draws on several researchers to convey his argument. The key points from Lesig that he highlights are that structure matters. Programming codes are created and evolve once created. Governments have power over these structures. Architecture (programming and legal) confers control. He considers whether or not the networks will be centralised or decentralised and therefore what kind of content is being made available to people. This connects with McClure’s definition as he states that being aware of a range of networked information resources and services is important however what quality of information resources and services can be accessed may impact on the ability to make workplace and personal decisions. The key points from Reed that he highlights are: that the value of networks changes with the way that networks are used. Reed refers to Sarnoff, the creator of the Radio Corporation of America, who said that the value of the network is dependent upon the number of receivers. That the few to many principle means it has more significance, that the collective of networks has more value than a network on its own. This then links to creating social capital which Rheingold sees as being the ease at which people can get things done together unlike a more individual approach by McClure’s definition. Rheingold’s definition sees a merging between social networks and technical aspects. It focuses on the collective and how having mutual interests is also key to ensuring that networks grow faster. From this the value and quality of the content changes so then networks are producing better resources.
In thinking about the importance of networks for educators and students it is evident that aspects of understanding and application can only improve when part of a wider collective. By reconsidering the value of networks there is potential for greater connection with others which could change the dynamic of learning and assessment.
