Summary of Digital Literacy - Essay Example

?This is a briefing paper which represents a summary of the practitioner’s specialism – Digital Literacy. It explores the questions: “Is digital literacy more than just using a computer?” Two other questions are: “Is digital literacy covered in enough depth in the setting?” and “Should digital literacy lessons be taught earlier?” It also discusses challenges practitioners might face when dealing with children who find it easier to use a laptop than to write with a pencil. Modern technology has become an inseparable part of today’s society. It is the contemporary reality that ICTs or Information Communication Technologies have entered all spheres of our life. As a teacher of ICT, the practitioner finds himself using it more and more every day. In the context of formal education, ICT is recommended to be used by children from their earliest years. Siraj-Blatchford & Siraj-Blatchford (2000) position that since the early age children ought to be finding out as well as identifying the uses of ICT in everyday life. Computers along with programming toys are recommended for use to support learning. Use of play will provide a well-structured foundation for the later use of applications. In other words, the priority of modern education is to integrate ICT across the curriculum. The term ICT is used in modern education when one speaks about digital literacy. While the first associations with this term are the Internet, mobile phones, computers, Facebook, television, games, and Twitter, in education a few scholarly definitions are used. Specifically, Hague (2010), who says that ‘digital literacy’ is a confusing term, provides the following definition: digital literacy constitutes “critical and creative and cultural practices that allow one to understand and share the meaning and knowledge in different modes and formats through various forms of engagement with technology and media” (Hague 2010, 6). Next, Ofcom (2009) defines digital literacy as “the ability to use, understand, and create media and communication” (Ofcom 2009, 6). In his turn, Livingstone (2009) speaks of digital literacy as of an individual’s ability “access, analyse, evaluate and create media” (Livingstone 2009, 191). Whereas modern authors have different visions of what digital literacy is, they agree that this term is hard to define. Indeed, Eshet-Alkalai (2002) says that the term’s indistinct use leads to ambiguity as well as misunderstanding, low-quality communication, and development of misconceptions. It is noted that a certain inconsistency exists between the supporters of the view that digital literacy is majorly about technical skills and those who support the view that digital literacy is about focus on both cognitive and socio-emotional aspects of functioning in an extensively digital environment. Hence, one of the research questions in this paper is “Is digital literacy more than just using a computer?” Two other questions are: “Is digital literacy covered in enough depth in the setting?” and “Should digital literacy lessons be taught earlier?” First of all, let us critically analyse views on the problem of the nature of digital literacy and its major components in available academic sources. The very concept of digital literacy, the term that is widely used today, was introduced by Gilster (1997) back in 1997. Gilster (ibid) provided a generic explanation of digital literacy rather than a list of competencies and skills that defined digital literacy. In his view, digital literacy is simply an ability to comprehend and utilize information from a range of various sources, i.e. a sort of literacy typical for the digital age. Needless to say, the definition was quite broad, but it evidently opened the door to interpretations by different authors. While the term had been used before, it was Gilster (1997) and then Eshet (2002) that contemplated digital literacy as a broader concept. Specifically, Gilster (1997) explicitly observes that digital literacy is all about mastering ideas rather than keystrokes. In other words, he distinguishes the concept of digital literacy from a narrow view of the latter as a number of technical skills. Gilster (ibid) asserts that the knowledge assembly should be gathered from various sources, not just one, e.g. the Internet. To him, digital literacy is a term that denotes “the ability to understand and use information in multiple formats from a wide variety of sources when it is presented via computers.” In his turn, Eshet (2002), similarly to Gilster (1997), spoke of digital literacy as of a particular kind of thinking and a special mindset. Eshet-Alkali & Amichai-Hamburger (2004) explain that digital literacy is more than simply being able to use particular software or an ability to operate a digital device. Rather, it encompasses a series of complex skills (namely, cognitive, sociological, motoric, and emotional) which users need to apply if they want to effectively explore digital environments. Based on their authentic conceptual model, Eshet-Alkali & Amichai-Hamburger (ibid) distinguish five basic digital skills which make up the concept of digital literacy (Eshet-Alkali & Amichai-Hamburger 2004, 421). These are: photo-visual skills (involves the ability to read instructions from various graphical displays); next, reproduction skills (using digital reproduction competence to create new materials from initial ones); also, branching skills (these involve construction of knowledge based on non-linear and hyper-textual navigation); plus, information skills (assessment of quality of information and its validity), and, finally, socio-emotional skills (i.e. comprehending those “rules” which work in the cyberspace and using these comprehended rules in the communication which happens within the cyberspace online). The authors call digital literacy a survival skill in the atmosphere of the technological era. They underline the role of the modern education system predominantly in teaching information and reproduction skills (Eshet-Alkali & Amichai-Hamburger 2004, 421-427). Hafner & Jones (2012), the authors of “Understanding Digital Literacies”, use the term in plural. Analysis of their approach allows claiming that this is conditioned by the fact Hafner & Jones (ibid) closely relate digital literacy to various media, or to be more precise to various practices related to these media. Besides, the term is probably used in plural to show its complexity. Specifically, Hafner & Jones (2012) define digital literacy as “practices of communicating, relating, thinking, and being associated with digital media” (Hafner & Jones 2012, 13). It is suggested that development of digital literacies is not just about mastering certain technical aspects of digital tools, but learning to utilize these tools in order to do something in the context of the social world (this, for example, includes management of social relationships and people’s social identities in a variety of complex situations). In other words, digital literacy is not simply about operating computers or cell phones, but also about being able to adapt affordances and constraints of the aforementioned tools to specific circumstances. On a deeper level of understanding, digital literacy involves the process of mediation or mediated action, i.e. the process which involves appropriation of these tools with the aim to establish certain social practices (Hafner & Jones 2012; Scollon, 2001). The process of mediation is inseparable form that of tension: tension evolves between the constraints and affordances of available digital media and the creative approach of people as they adapt them to their particular social goals (Hafner & Jones 2012, 13). While some, like Hafner & Jones (2012), Eshet-Alkali (2002) and Eshet-Alkali & Amichai-Hamburger (2004), understand digital literacy as a concept related to knowledge assembly and critical thinking, others still equate it with mere computer literacy (Williams & Minnian, 2007). Still others understand digital literacy purely as network literacy with focus on the use of the Internet and a range of other networked resources (Kauhanen-Simanainen, 2007). On the international level, the broader concept of digital literacy, which was developed by the UNESCO (2011) Institute for Information Technologies in Education and is similar to the one suggested by Gilster, has gained recognition. UNESCO Policy Brief (May, 2011) looks at digital literacy as a necessary component of life skills. Discussing its content, the authors of the document admit to the fact that digital literacy “has become much more than the ability to handle computers” (IITE 2011). They compare it with the traditional concepts of numeracy and literacy in terms of its basic and essential nature. Digital literacy, hence, encompasses a set of fundamental skills among which there are the production and application of digital media, retrieval and processing of various kinds of information, taking part in different social networks in order to generate and share knowledge, as well as a display of numerous computing skills on a professional level (IITE 2011). It is a core skill that impacts employability and acts as a catalyst since it enables people to acquire other significant life skills. IITE Policy Brief (2011) have come to a conclusion that digital literacy is an umbrella term which covers a few clusters of skills which are sometimes used as synonyms despite the fact that they differ in content. These are: ICT literacy (is defined as a range of user skills enabling active participation in a computer-supported society whose cultural activities and services are distributed on the Internet); technological literacy (it used to be referred to as computer literacy and denotes technical and user skills of computing); information literacy (is about an individual’s ability to find and retrieve information, as well as process and utilize it optimally). In this context, the umbrella term ‘digital literacy’ is recommended to use along with other literacies (competence in mathematics, as well as reading and writing) as integral components of education (IITE 2011). In the context of the information society of today, digital literacy is perceived as a life skill. Therefore, critical analysis of the current trends in modern academic thought with reference to digital literacy allows distinguishing two major approaches to understanding of the concept. The first is about defining digital literacy as a narrow concept with emphasis on acquisition of computer or technical skills. The second approach is about understanding digital literacy as a broader notion which entails, above all, knowledge assembly and development of critical thinking through digital media. It appears that the second approach, which was started by Gilster (1997), is more popular both on national and international levels. It was fixed by the UNESCO policy (2011). It offers understanding digital literacy as a specific mode of thinking and mindset, as well as capability of mastering ideas through the use of digital media, etc., rather than technical skills of using the media. The next question that this research attempts to answer is whether digital literacy is covered in enough depth in the school setting. According to the data provided by the Ofsted Report (2009) “The Importance of ICT”, at Key Stage 1 the situation is that of improvement, specifically rising standards and growing achievements (Ofsted 2009). Pupils in primary schools that were under observation overall effectively utilized ICT for the purposes of communication of their ideas and making presentations of their work. At the same time, the visits to the primary schools fixed that at Key Stage 1 pupils were less skilful in gathering and handling various data and exerting control over events with the help of ICT. The majority of primary schools effectively ensured that children got fully entitled to the National Curriculum for ICT despite the fact that the curriculum itself was not well-balanced. It was found that teachers would typically pay more attention to those aspects of digital literacy where they felt confident enough. At best, teachers carefully integrated technology into the existing curriculum and that was boosted the rise of standards. In those schools, the high level of managerial culture and good leadership were fixed with reference to the issue of ICT development. In addition, the improvements that were fixed resulted from efficient use of self-evaluation that informed investment both in training and resources (Ofsted 2009). As for how well digital literacy is covered among students of the secondary school, the report fixed good/improved achievements in 41 schools out of the total number of 92 schools that were visited (Ofsted, 2009). In the remaining schools, 41 educational establishments were assessed as satisfactory in terms of their ICT coverage whereas 10 – inadequate. Importantly, the inadequate mark was given to nearly 1/5th of all visited schools at Key Stage 4. To be more precise, in those schools the ICT curriculum was not adequate, students learnt up to ambiguous standards and qualifications, and did not have good assessment. Despite the fact that those students utilized ICT quite well in order to present their work, pass their ideas, and utilize and manipulate carious digital media, those standards that the schools had for programming, as well as the uses of databases and spreadsheets were unsatisfactory. Also, it was fixed that teachers tended to give excessive emphasis to the process of teaching how students should use specific software applications instead of assisting them in acquisition of the skills that would be genuinely transferable (Ofsted, 2009). On a minus side, some schools displayed low effectiveness of response to serious failings. Further, at Key Stage 4 the following tendency was fixed: those students that decided they would not pursue an ICT qualification while at Key Stage 4 got no statutory entitlement to the National Curriculum for ICT. Despite the fact that teachers generally demonstrated adequate subject knowledge and were able to effectively use ICT in order to improve their practices of teaching, both primary and secondary school practitioners used inadequate assessment methods. Same applies to evaluation of how well the resources invested in ICT impacted learning: only nearly a half of schools displayed adequate practices in this sphere. Students, who took vocational qualifications instead of GCSEs, were subject to a restricted challenge in digital literacy development. Despite the fact that the initiative to engage girls in ICT development through participation in Computer Clubs for Girls and taking up vocational courses was recognized successful, the number of girls that chose to study ICT post-16 dramatically fell (Ofsted 2009). Careful analysis of the data provided by Ofsted 2009 Report allows finding out whether digital literacy has been covered enough in a school setting. Specifically, the information collected and analysed evidences that there are some gaps in digital literacy coverage. Comparing the results of this research with findings provided by other researchers, it appears that British practitioners at school tend to speak about ICT learning rather than use the term digital literacy, which is quite broad. This may well be explained by general confusion that teachers typically feel about the use of the term ‘digital literacy’. According to the data published in “Digital Participation Strand1: Final Report”, instead of the term digital literacy teachers would use digital learning. Also, teachers are likely to use the term digital literacy to speak about teaching literacy through the use of ICT. In addition, some of them do not perceive it as a separate field, rather a component of other things (namely, overall literacy). Still others use it to refer to comfortable ways of “using the technical side of things” (Hague 2010, 5). In this context, the coverage of digital literacy was not evaluated based on agreed definition of the term as a broad concept oriented at skills development and ability to apply them to practice rather than purely technical knowledge. It was evaluated on the basis of understanding that; generally speaking, the term digital literacy may be to some extent applied to speak about modern-day school practices. This vision is supported by the information that teachers themselves are not confident in what meaning this term should be used (Hague 2010). In this context, the following conclusions can be made: Digital literacy coverage in British school setting mostly concentrates on ways of ICT application to various practices at school and in real life; Digital literacy coverage is not sufficient if one wishes to go on to pursue vocational qualifications. However, in the context of the recent educational reform in the UK, which will also influence the very existence and value of vocational training, this problem is put aside. Digital literacy coverage worsens with age in schools: the best results are demonstrated by pupils of the primary school, which is natural, since the latter gets funded by the government. More emphasis should be given to teaching essentially digital literacy at all levels of the curriculum The area most in need of effective changes is Key Stage 4 where assessment methods need to be improved, areas to study within the domain of ICT should be expanded, and standards should be clarified. Therefore, one may say that there is still insufficient digital literacy coverage in the national curriculum. Finally, the answer to the third research question which asked whether digital literacy ought to be taught earlier may be found as a result of careful analysis of the experts’ opinions and current research. Today digital literacy skills start to be taught at school, namely at Key Stage 1. Given wide access to digital tools and media, this approach is justified by the fact that in the UK children start to actively use the Internet while at the age of 5-7 years. They mainly use the Internet at their households. The tendency is that the age when children start using the Internet at home gets lower with each year. Statistically, 3% of kids ages 5 to 7 have access to the World Wide Web from their bedrooms. This is slightly lower than the incidence of TV watching among children aged the same (5-7). While some parents may argue that introducing children to the idea of digital literacy starting from the age of 5 is not good, the common sense suggests that if they start using all these tools anyway; why not utilize this want to their own advantage? Besides, the number of children who wish to learn about digital media at school is very high - 47%. To compare, children of the older age would rather learn from peers. That is why, making school the venue for development if digital literacy since the earliest stage is justified. If to speak about earlier practices of digital learning and digital literacy development, one should mention that many specialists support the idea the earlier the better, yet it is up to parents to decide. For example, Siraj-Blatchford & Siraj-Blatchford (2000) assert that from their earliest years, children ought to locate and identify various uses of technology on a daily basis. Moreover, they ought to use both computers and electronic programmed toys to back up their learning. Young children require the opportunity to play with computers and explore them the way they do with various other forms of ICT. Such approach will form the foundation for a significantly more structured use of various applications later in their lives (Siraj-Blatchford & Siraj-Blatchford 2000). Siraj-Blatchford and Whitebread (2003) conclude that in the pre-school setting computer skills training should be provided as well as ICT activities should be included in the curriculum (Siraj-Blatchford & Whitebread, 2003, 125). Yet, the early exposure to too many technologies and excessive computer use in pre-school age are dubious from the perspective of physical health. The question arises: maybe it is better to form a set of other skills and life preferences in these children. In order to avoid raising a robotized kid forever glued to the screen? The practitioner’s personal experience of teaching digital literacy skills to young children has been quite rewarding. The practitioner found for many children it was easier to write using a laptop than to write with the pencil. Thus, the aim was to motivate and encourage such children to learn to write with the pen. Another problem exposed by the practitioner was unrestricted use of the Internet. Lots of materials uploaded into the Internet are not appropriate for children and may disturb them. Thus, it is recommended that the adequate approach be found to teaching literacy correct y sills – on the ground of balance between both. Bibliography Eshet-Alkali, Y and Amichail-Hamburger, Y. 2004. Experiments in digital literacy. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7 (4), p.421-429. Hafner, C and Jones, R. 2012. Understanding digital literacies. Routledge. Hague, C. 2010. “It’s not chalk and talk anymore”: School approaches to developing students’ digital literacy. Futurelab. Gilster, P. 1997. Digital literacy. New York: Wiley. IITE. 2011. Policy brief: Digital literacy in education. Accessed 15 April 2013. Kauhanen-Simanainen, A. (2007). Corporate literacy: discovering the senses of the organization. Oxford: Chandos Publishing. Livingstone, S. 2009. What is media literacy? Intermedia, 32 (3), 18-20. Ofcom. 2009. UK children’s media literacy: 2009 interim report. Accessed 15 April 2013. Ofsted. 2009. The importance of ICT. Crown Copyright. Siraj-Blatchford, I and Siraj-Blatchford, J. 2000. More than computers: Information and communications technology in the early years. London: Early Education. Siraj-Blatchford, J and whitebread, D 2003. Supporting ICT in the early years: Supporting early learning. . Mc-Graw Hill. Willams, P., & Minnian, A. (2007). Exploring the challenges of developing digital literacy in the context of special educational needs communities. In S. Andretta (Ed.), Change and challenge: Information literacy for the 21st century (pp. 115–144). Adelaide: Auslb Press. Read More