|
Post by wmm12d on Jan 25, 2016 14:12:11 GMT -5
The author seems to overemphasize the importance of considering digital literacy in the plural form. Literacy means the ability to read and write, or knowledge that relates to a specified subject. Therefore, I think that digital literacy is one of many types of "literacies", but that within the digital literacy category, as with all literacy categories, there are only plural competencies or skills that construct the subject literacy. These skills include, writing, speaking, learning vocabulary, empathy, compassion, awareness, and a long list of others. The skills required to achieve digital literacy are definitely in the plural, but the effective use of them constructs a knowledge or literacy in a particular subject. It is as if the author is using the terms "skills" and "literacies" interchangeably, which seems incorrect to me. He also states that in digital literacy, it is important to differentiate the physical, technical skills required to navigate through the digital wonderland, from those of understanding what they see in the digital world. When this is done, there is only the comprehending and interpreting of the data that is left, which hopefully results in subject literacy.
The image is a great one, as it relates to the article's point that a consumer of digital information must consider the various sociocultural aspects at play in the formation of the digital information they consume, and how such sociocultural influences color the data they consume.
|
|
|
Post by wmm12d on Jan 25, 2016 15:11:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wmm12d on Jan 25, 2016 15:16:08 GMT -5
This is the image to which I was referring. hannahhiester from group 3 posted it.
|
|
|
Post by kcornelison93 on Jan 27, 2016 12:08:40 GMT -5
Reposting from what I posted on the other forum the other day: In the Intro to the Knobel & Lankshear book, the authors say "A way of reading a certain type of text is acquired /only/ when it is acquired in a 'fluent' or 'native-like' way..." I understand that this is a reference to a discourse community but I don't think it is possible for any two people to come at any one text in the same way. They are always going to be bringing their own background to anything they read. What I mean to say is, are we still literate if we don't read things exactly the way they are intended (and I use the term "read" loosely)? Is it possible to be attuned to every single aspect of a discourse community?
|
|
|
Post by kcornelison93 on Jan 27, 2016 13:13:46 GMT -5
I also find it interesting that the Shanahan and Shanahan article states that "literacy is now clearly implicated in...avoidance of the criminal justice system (Beck & Harrison, 2001)..." Relating back to the school-to-prison pipeline.
|
|