Jane's debate summary

At the start...
At the commencement of our debate I hadn't given much thought to the idea of digital storytelling. To tell the truth, the term 'digital storytelling' stirred up nostalgic, black polo-neck thoughts of community filmmakers - lugging huge (granted - analogue) video cameras round Fitzroy laneways in the early 90's.

As the debate began by defining digital storytelling (and digital literacy) my limited perception was replaced with a curiosity about the possibilities of digital storytelling and new literacy.

Jo's perspective as an ICT co-ordinator who uses digital storytelling in her teaching practice has been invaluable in anchoring our debate in practical terms.

Each week our debate had a different focus around the following themes:

*Is the digital storytelling approach practical and effective (for teaching digital literacy)?
*Does it distract from other areas of digital literacy?
*Are there better ways to address dangers/threats online?
*Is it valid to use teaching and learning time to address digital literacy?

Jo and I both agree that digital literacies need to be incorporated into the curriculum. But underlying that affirmative statement is the tsunami of definitions, possibilities and various contexts in which notions of digital literacy (and indeed digital storytelling) can be interpreted.

So what is digital literacy?
One of the commonalities seen in the interpretation of a new technological pedagogy is the sense that issues are as vast and mindbending as the cyberscape itself. Many of the statements that I have read around digital literacy are sweeping and broad, like this example from the 2004 paper “Toward a theory of New Literacies Emerging from the Internet and Other Information Communication Technologies”

“The new literacies of the Internet and other ICTs include the skills, strategies, and dispositions necessary to successfully use and adapt to the rapidly changing information and communication technologies and contexts that continuously emerge in our world and influence all areas of our personal and professional lives. These new literacies allow us to use the Internet and other ICTs to identify important questions, locate information, critically evaluate the usefulness of that information, synthesize information to answer those questions, and then communicate the answers to others.” (Leu, et. al., 2004 p.2)

Educators like Jones-Kavalier and Flannigan put forward a technological determinist view that the expansion of cyberspace into all aspects of modern first world life demands that we define, disseminate and support the instruction of new literacies:

“With the advent of a new millennium and the rapidity with which technology has changed society, the concept of literacy has assumed new meanings.” (Jones-Kavalier and Flannigan, 2006 p.1)

Do we need to teach digital literacy?
The alternative opinion seems to suggest that it probably isn't helpful to spotlight digital literacy as yet another skill set to be added to the bundle. This approach seen in the work of takes the stance that the core skills that have always driven 'old-fashioned' pens'n'paper literacy still apply – it is only the context that is different. This approach is reflected in the McRae article Is digital literacy killing critical consciousness?

Literacy armageddon?
At the more hardcore end of this spectrum are theorists like Birkets (1994) and Postman (1995) who put forward the idea that using computer technology is harmful to the evolution of literacy – leading to:

“...poor concentration skills in dealing with lengthy and deep textual reading, poor writing skills, and a superficial understanding of issues, due to lack of in depth reading.” (Sutherland-Smith 2002)

Commentators like Nicholas Carr (Is Google Making Us Stupid) and Ben Macintyre in this article in the Times: The Internet is killing storytelling also echo the idea that cyberculture is dismantling our past understanding of narrative with hyper-linked, jump cut chunks of torrential information – forcing and moulding our brains to be less receptive to deep thinking:

“Narratives are a staple of every culture the world over. They are disappearing in an online blizzard of tiny bytes of information” (Macintyre, 2009)

iphone babies
If I see another slideshare that features a picture of a baby playing with an iphone I might just scream – or all those 'digital native' type kids with paper signs and passive, plaintive stares – nasty! Are these web presentation cliche's growing as exponentially as the web itself? The purpose of this mini-rant is to highlight the sentiment that these types presentations are peddling – that we can't predict what this exposure to the net and associated info toys will bring the new generation and it is our duty to prepare the next generation for the challenges ahead.

Related to this are the questions raised in our debate is – are these iphone spawn getting so much exposure in everyday life, that we shouldn't bother? – does the school literacy focus also need to be dominated by technology?

In the paper Digital participation, digital literacy, and school subjects, Hague and Williamson review recent studies and make that claim that although children are confident users of new media, their judgement, critical skills and technical ability may not be what it seems. They state that:

“The problem with the 'digital natives' idea, then, is that it often overestimates the amount of knowledge that young people have about digital technologies and digital cultures.” (Hague and Williamson, 2009, p.12)

Based on this view and my own anecdotal experiences, I'd argue for balance and a sense of teaching context, history and culture of technology using all sorts of methods, not just technology.

Key themes in our debate

An Engaging tool. The idea of student engagement (central to a social constructivist approach) was discussed by Jo as a distinct advantage for digital storytelling in meeting digital literacy learning needs. The idea engagement with the process of creating a digital story also seems to fit with a constructionist model as defined by Seymour Papert:

“Constructonism notion of learning by building and exploration through play (from a Piaget perspective) in a context where “... the learner is consciously engaged in constructing a public entity, whether its a sandcastle on the beach or a theory of the universe” (Papert and Hare, 1991, p.)


While engagement is valid argument it is probably worth noting that other activities involving creative expression, lateral thinking and fun are not limited to an online environment but can be equally as useful in teaching aspects of digital literacy. I find myself leaning toward this view as quoted in Hague and Williamson from Burn, A and Durranm J (2007) from Media Literacy in Schools: Practice, production and progression, who note:

“It is also important that young people learn about technologies rather than just being taught with or through them.” (from Hague and Williamson, 2009, p.14)

Cheap and easy. The low cost of using digital storytelling in the classroom and the relative ease of use was another perspective used by Jo to sell the idea of digital storytelling as the best approach for digital literacy. She also suggests that as digital storytelling is close to current practice it is a soft and accessible way to introduce technology to the classroom.

While broadly I agree with these statements, I can see the risk of using the techonology for its own sake, the problems inherent with distractions and focus on a product rather than a process. Rather than relying on what we know, shouldn't the approach be more in line with risk taking and brave changes to curriculum to mirror the astonishing new cyber landspace?

'Developing the digital literacy of young people within school subjects recognises that as the world changes school subjects should too.” (Hague and Williamson, 2009, p.5)

The whole 'best' thing
In the spirit of a debate, I initially put on my argue hat to say that you can't really claim one strategy as the best in an arena as complex and embryonic as digital literacy. Based on comments, collaboration, discourse and research over the last few weeks, I have come to believe that this is true. One of the stated principles of connectivism states that “learning and knowledge rests in a diversity of opinion” (Siemens, 2004) – expanding on this thought I suggest that in the case of digital literacy education, learning rests in a diversity of experience. Areas of learning such as filtering, ethics, safety, authenticity, critical thinking, value should not be limited to one format or subject:

'Already technologies are changing the ways in which we engage with subjects like geography, English, and science. GPS systems, online hypertext narratives and physical simulations and visualisations are all recent developments related to these subjects” (Hague and Williamson, 2009, p.5)

In spite of all my digital storytelling harping, I fully respect and admire Jo's case studies and successes with digital storytelling models in the classroom.

And after all that...

We ended up agreeing on the idea that digital literacy skills need to be addressed in the school curriculum K-12 to meet the forcast work and life skills for the next generation.

Jo has made a case for digital storytelling as one of the best means for teaching digital literacy skills based on the familiarity of narrative, ease of use and engagement. I'd like to support digital storytelling as a great strategy, but would like to see it used as one among many tools (not all of them online) in a unified, whole school approach to addressing digital literacy.

Thanks heaps to Jo and to all who commented for making this debate so lively and enjoyable.



References

Carr N. (2008) Is Google making us stupid? Atlantic July/August 2008 retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/6868/on 25/5/2010

Hague, C and Williamson, B, Digital participation, digital literacy and school subjects: A review of the policies, literacture and evidence, August 2009, Futurelab, www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/.../lit.../DigitalParticipation.pdf


Jones-Kavalier, B.R & Flannigan, S.L (2006) Connecting the Digital Dots: Literacy of the 21st Century, retrieved on 22 May 2010 fromhttp://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/EDUCAUSEQuarterlyMagazineVolum/ConnectingtheDigitalDotsLitera/157395

Leu, Donald, J, Jr., Kinzer, C.K, Coiro, J.L, Cammack, D.W, Toward a Theory of New Literacies Emerging From the Internet and Other Information and Communication Technologies, 2004, Retrived from http://www.readingonline.org/newliteracies/leu/ on 31/5/2010

Macintyre, B., The Internet is killing storytelling, 5 November, 2009, The Times Online, retrieved from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/ben_macintyre/article6903537.ece on 31/5/2010

McRae L. 2004 Is digital literacy killing critical consciousness? Online Opinion retrieved from http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2810 on 2/6/2010

Papert, S and Hare,I, Constructionism Ablet Publishing Corp 1991, Chapter 1, Situating Constructionism, retrieved from namodemello.com.br on 2/6/2010

Siemens, G, Connectivism, 2004 retrieved from http://www. connectivism. ca/about. html …, 2008 – devrijeruimte.org on 2/6/2010

Sutherland-Smith, W. (2002) Weaving the literacy Wed: Changes in reading from page to screen, retrieved on 22 May 2010 fromhhttps://ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=6437896&site=ehost-live