As most people reading this will already know, I’m studying towards an Ed.D. at the moment. My (tentative) thesis title is What does it mean to be ‘educated’ and ‘digitally literate’? The impact of ICT and the knowledge society upon education in the 21st century.. You can find my thesis proposal here and bookmarks related to my studies here. My current thinking is that I’m just going to focus on the concept of what ‘literacy’ means in the 21st century as it’s a huge and confused (confusing?) field.

Because of my studies and deep interest in this field, I was delighted to come across Ben Grey’s blog post entitled 21st Century Confusion, which he followed up with 21st Century Clarification. Ben’s an eloquent and nuanced writer, so I suggest you go and read what he has to say before continuing with this blog post.

The above blog posts sparked a great conversation on Twitter, of which I was part. The hugely influential Will Richardson suggested, as we were getting a little frustrated with being limited to 140 characters, that we have a live session via Elluminate the following day. You can find a link to the archived session here.

My own thoughts about that skillset/mindset/ability range we’re trying to quantify and describe by using terms such as ‘digital’ or ’21st century’ literacy are still a little jumbled. I’ve read, and am continuing to read a lot on the subject (and related areas), notes on which you can find on my wiki.

For now, though, here’s some highlights:

1. Literacies as ‘umbrella terms’

Many of the literacies or ‘competencies’ that are being put forward are described in ways that suggest they incorporate other literacies. Take for instance, this definition of ‘information competence’ (Work Group…, 1995):

Information competence is the fusing or the integration of library literacy, computer literacy, media literacy, technological literacy, ethics, critical thinking, and communication skills.

And again (Doyle, 1994)

In the last decade a variety of “literacies” have been proposed, including cultural, computer, scientific, technical, global and mathematical. All of these literacies focus on a compartmentalized aspect of literacy. Information literacy, on the other hand, is an inclusive term. Through information literacy, the other literacies can be achieved (Breivik, 1991). In attaining information literacy, students gain proficiency in inquiry as they learn to interpret and use information (Kuhlthau, 1987).

Ryan Bretag’s post, The Great Literacy Debate, introduced me to a word to describe this that I hadn’t come across before – deictic. This means that ‘literacy’ tends to be used in a way heavily dependent upon context. I couldn’t agree more!

2. Literacies defined too broadly or narrowly

As referenced above, if a type of literacy being put forward by an individual is defined too broadly, it becomes an umbrella term and of little practical use. Initially, I liked Judi Epcke’s comment that she’d heard Jason Ohler define literacy as “consuming and producing the media forms of the day”. But this began to trouble me. Aren’t consuming and producing different skills? And if they’re skills, is ‘literacy’ involved?

But then, defined narrowly, it’s easy to come up with counter-examples. For instance, if we define 21st Century Literacy in relation to technology, it begs the question ‘does literacy in the 21st century relate to printed matter at all‘. The answer, of course, would have to be yes, it does.

3. Do we need new definitions?

I share the despair of Gunther Kress (2003, quoted in Eyman) when he sees new forms of ‘literacy’ popping up all over the place:

…literacy is the term to use when we make messages using letters as the means of recording that message….my approach leaves us with the problem of finding new terms for the uses of the different resources: not therefore “visual literacy” for the use of image; not “gestural literacy” for the use of gesture; and also not musical “literacy” or “soundtrack literacy” for the use of sound other than speech; and so on.

Semantics are important. Whilst we can’t keep using outdated words that link to conceptual anachronism (e.g. ‘horseless carriage’) we must be on our guard against supposed ‘literacies’ becoming more metaphorical than descriptive.

Concluding thoughts

One educator left the Elluminate discussion on 21st Century Literacies before had really got going. He mentioned that he was in favour of deeds rather than words. I can see what he means, although as I have already stated, semantics are important.

But there comes a point where one has to draw a line. In my thesis, I’m using a modified version of the Pragmatic method, as spelled out by William James (1995:82)thus,

To ‘agree‘ in the widest sense with a reality, can only mean to be guided either straight up to it or into its surroundings, or to be put into such working touch with it as to handle either it or something connected with it better than if we disagreed… Any idea that helps us to deal, whether practically or intellectually, with either the reality or its belongings, that doesn’t entangle our progress in frustrations, that fits, in fact, and adapts our life to the reality’s whole setting, will agree sufficiently to meet the requirement/ It will hold true of that reality.

Thus names are just as ‘true’ or ‘false’ as definite mental pictures are. They set up similar verification-processes, and lead to fully equivalent practical results.

I’m looking for a definition that doesn’t ‘entangle my progress in frustration’. I’m yet to find it, but I’ll keep on looking! :-p

References:

• Doyle, C.S. (1994) Information literacy in an information society: A Concept for the Information Age, DIANE Publishing
• Eyman, D., Digital Literac(ies), Digital Discourses, and Communities of Practice: Literacy Practices in Virtual Environments (Cultural Practices of Literacy Study, Working Paper #12, no date)
• James, W. Pragmatism (Dover Thrift Editions, 1995)
• Work Group on Information Competence, Commission on Learning Resources and Instructional Technology (1995), quoted by Spitzer, K.L., et al. Information Literacy: essential skills for the information age, 1998, p.25

First off, for those who attended the seminar I did with Futurelab on Saturday, below is embedded my part of the presentation. It’s all very visual, but I’ll flesh out what I said below:

| View | Upload your own

After Dan Sutch looked at some of the overall barriers/resistances to change he’s found through his research under the Teachers as Innovators umbrella, it was my turn. It’s easiest for the purposes of this blog post to go through each slide – although in reality I hope it was a bit smoother than that…

Perceived barriers – There are some innovations which never get off the ground not because of actual barriers but because there is a perception that things cannot/will never change. The best way to find out if something is a barrier is to attempt to cross it!

Actual barriers – Nevertheless, schools and educational institutions in general do have very real barriers (or, as Dan pointed out, resistances) to innovation. I gave the example of telling pupils they could take a photo using their mobile phones at the end of the lesson, instead of writing down their homework. I was told in no uncertain terms by a senior member of staff that this undermined the school ‘no mobile phones in school’ policy.

Mixed signals – But the above is a perfect example of mixed signals. Pupils in my school do bring their mobile phones, MP3 players, etc. into school. Parents want them to in order to be able to contact them about after-school arrangements, and some teachers (like me) want them in lessons to enhance learning. As far as I see it, the opponents in most schools are the governors acting on behalf of what they think parents want. Working against the resistance/barrier can help clarify the issue.

The dividing line – There are sometimes, however, dividing lines which one must not cross. The decision not to allow a particular innovation may have a very good basis which a teacher hasn’t realised. In that case, the individual must be respectful of the wishes of the governors and local authority. Annoying people and ‘putting their backs up’ doesn’t get anyone anywhere!

Possibilities – My current focus is on the potential of mobile technologies, those which students already own, in order to enhance learning. This includes revision slideshows, geotagging, simple games, viewing video and audio files (via Bluetooth) with mobile phones, and videos and podcasts on devices such as the iPod. There are many possibilities with using such devices: filming experiments in Science, for instance.

Anachronisms – If we don’t embrace new technologies we are left with an anachronistic education system. To a very great degree, we’ve already got this. What are classed as ‘the latest ideas’ (which are probably themselves a couple of years old) are shoe-horned into an outdated system. What we need are new pedagogies, not dictated by technology, but which makes use its possibilities.

Technology = cheap – There are always going to be objections that implementing technological solutions is an expensive business. Not the case! Why don’t we use what students have already got? OK, so there’s one pupil who hasn’t got a mobile phone or can’t afford the way it’s being used. Can’t the school afford to subsidise that? And what about the vast sums of money (not to even go into the forests of trees being chopped down) for photocopying? (REFERENCE)

Prohibition – That’s not to say, however, that using technology is always the best or most productive system. Mobile phones shouldn’t be allowed in exams (as we currently have them), for example. We do need a debate as to when and where they should be used, though. This will probably vary school-to-school, area-to-area and country-to-country.

Threat – The reason technology isn’t being adopted on a massive scale, the reason why some view it as a waste of money in education, is because we haven’t got the pedagogy behind it correct yet. But, perversely, we can’t develop that pedagogy until we use the tools. Educators need to come together formally and informally to share best practice and built up, case-by-case, examples of best practice.

Creativity – So let a thousand flowers bloom! Some projects and activities will crash and burn. We shouldn’t be afraid of things going pear-shaped or failing. We are (or should be) preparing pupils for life in the real world, after all!

Enabled – I’m optimistic about the future. There’s some great projects that I’ve heard about, some fantastic networks I’m part of, and technology is already making a massive impact on the learning lives of many pupils. We do, however, need to develop pedagogies and keep up-to-date (as much as possible) as what technology can offer.

Connectivity – At the end of the day, it’s all about making connections. One of the best things teachers can do is become part of a community which supports them in their use of technology. Behold the power that is Twitter! Ewan McIntosh used it in his session at BETT and got around 10 answers to a question inside a minute. Now that’s powerful…

That concluded my part of the presentation. Lots of questions were asked, the audience looked engaged and enthused, and the illustrator I had appointed (Baddiel & Skinner-style) to record my babbling recapped things nicely! :p

Finally, after being distinctly underwhelmed by the ‘big-hitters’ on Friday at BETT (apart from, to be honest, Microsoft’s PopFly), I discovered some little gems:

• Asus/RM Minibook (got to get one of those…)
• Elluminate (hopefully some kind of deal to be struck with EdTechRoundup)
• BBC Blast! (encouraging young people to become more creative)

I’m going to leave it there. If you’ve made it to the bottom of this post, well done! If you were at BETT, I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments section. Equally, if you weren’t and you’ve any questions/thoughts/feedback, fire away!