Module 1.1 and 1.2

michaela.crook1INF533

It is evident from this week’s readings (found in Module 1.1 and 1.2) that the evolution of literacy is accosting the way that education is delivered, how language and literacy skills are taught, and subsequently learnt. With this evolution of deictic literacy, we have seen an influx of terms, such as, hypertext, e-literature, interactive literature, simulation literature and games, digital narratives, appification, cyber-space, embedded media, transmedia, to name a few. Digital technologies have consequently re-envisioned, transformed and re-configured literacy systems, bringing reading cultures and the skills of many into the 21 Century (Albrechtshund, 2019; Leu et al, 2011; . Yet, this everchanging field is hard to document (in a library systemic sense) and evaluate (educational value and quality) (Albrechtshund, 2019).  Features of digital literacies include graphics, illustrations, hyperlinks, videos, conversational components, discussions, dialogue, ‘hot spots’, embedded games, interactivity, sounds, music, movement, language in verbal and print forms, creative and collaborative opportunities for the viewer, and are often non-linear (James and De Kock, 2013; Yokoda and Teale, 2014; Walsh, 2013).

In the readings for the 1.1 and 1.2, the authors generalise the pros and cons of both traditional print literacy and that of digital or screen-based literacy with some steering towards one more than the other (for example Jabr (2013) is seemingly in support of traditional over digital). On my blog I will be posting a table I have created that explores these pros and cons.

Lamb (2011) states that reading is defined as the “process of constructing meaning from symbols” and that a book is simply “a published collection of related pages or screens.” Therefore, it can be surmised that neither print nor digital are exclusive from one another; rather they are complementary, enabling rich learning to take place. In saying this, traditional print text is supported by more thorough research and data due to its longevity. Interestingly, Yokota and Teale (2014) comment that the lack of research on and “outpaced fundamental conceptual understanding” of digital literacies is both scary and exciting, as it is largely unknown but may also lead to new opportunities for researchers and educators to explore.

The readings have led me to believe that ideally, digital literacy should be designed and utilised in a way that offers readers with the opportunity to “interact with texts in ways that support their reading process and enhance the enjoyment of the text” (McGeenan et al, 2018). Yet, these digital texts must undergo a rigorous and systematic approach by educators to deem their appropriateness for the reader. This rigorous and systematic should analyse:

  • the medias form, readings conventions, accuracy, reliability, and bias (Leu et al, 2015),
  • the learners ability to identify, locate, evaluate, synthesize and communicate information found within a digital text (Leu et al, 2011 & 2015),
  • whether or not the digital text enhances or distracts, is integral or incidental, or is supportive or over reliant? (Lamb 2011),
  • the appropriateness for the targeted reader/learner (Leu et al, 2015),
  • the texts presentation and interactive integrity (Yokota and Teale, 2014),
  • whether or not the supplementary features align with story and deepen meaning (Yokota and Teale, 2014),
  • whether it is aligned with the criteria (Yokota and Teale, 2014),
  • how the text utilizes its digital features, and deepens conceptual knowledge (Yokota and Teale, 2014),
  • Is the presentation of the text easy to navigate and appropriate, and does it provide features that are not possible in traditional print? (Yokota and Teale, 2014),
  • Does the interactive features and supplementary features maintain integrity to the main story or context? (Yokota and Teale, 2014),
  • Does the text and its features make sense of how children learn to read and learn in general.

To finish, I found it interesting that McGeehan et al (2018) drew attention to the fact that digital literacies, as a tool, is “more reliable” when taught by certified or experienced educators. To often I have found that educators are utilising digital literacies and devices as “filler” activities and not as opportunities to enrichen learning. Often this is due to outdated training or limited learning experiences. Perhaps as a TL there is space here for collegial training, on top of students skill development within digital literacy learning.

 

References:

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *