The Evolving Definition of Literacy

By: Cathy C. at Fordham University

Remember the olden days when you communicated by “snail mail,” physically mailing a letter to your Aunt Cecilia or prospective business client? Hold onto your seat, because email is now considered “slow” as the need for speed drives us to instant messaging (IM) and texting. Change, especially technological change, is exponentially impacting our daily lives, including the classroom and training room. Are you sticking your head in the ground? Running with fear? Embracing new technology? Are you literate or illiterate in technology?

Literacy is primarily defined as the ability to read and write, and secondarily includes being knowledgeable and educated (Webster’s, 1996). The Partnership for 21^st Century Skills further broadens the definition by including information, media, and technology skills in 21^st century readiness (Partnership, n.d.). Today, in the broadest definition of literacy, if you do not have technology skills, you are illiterate. Many educators, ironically the cornerstones of traditional literacy, are illiterate in technology, struggling to navigate the technological world.

The whole world seems to have gone digital: digital natives, digital immigrants, digital media, digital cameras, digital picture frames, digital TVs, digital radio, digital divide, digital mania. Digital natives don’t even know a world without technology, while digital immigrants work to understand the brave, new technological world. Compounding the challenge is the digital divide, presenting ethical and practical issues resulting from those with little or no access to technology versus those with easy access to technology (King & Griggs, 2006). How does the digital immigrant teacher reach digital native students, and span the digital divide?

Reflecting on Prensky’s (2007) article “How to teach with technology: keeping both teachers and students comfortable in an era of exponential change” and my own experience in adult education and learning, I propose the following: If you can’t beat them, join them; know enough to be dangerous; and climb the pyramid, specifically Bloom’s taxonomy of learning.

If you can’t beat them, join them! Young students as digital natives have never known a world without personal computers, instant messaging, texting, email, search, websites, blogs, wikis, podcasting, digital cameras, Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, and scores of other technologies. Whether we like it, or not, students are informally learning from these technologies outside the classroom. So, why not harness the power of technology for formal learning inside the classroom? While I concur with Prensky’s (2007) theme that finding and applying the right information is very important, I believe you still need some information in your head. Lifelines are great on “Who Wants be to a Millionaire?”, but not always available or accurate in real life. Whether or not the information is in your head or on your iPhone, the technology train is leaving the station. So, let’s get on board, ensuring that every student and teacher has a seat, and enjoy the ride.

Know enough to be dangerous! Prensky (2007) promotes a technological division of labor with students taking the lead on emerging technologies, and teachers taking the lead on the learning objectives of why we are using technology. While I agree with Prensky’s thought that students will likely be more technologically savvy than their teachers, I believe teachers need a basic level of competency in order to confidently facilitate learning experiences. As teachers evolve from being the “sage on the stage” to “guide by the side,” they need the confidence and skills to facilitate learning with and about technology. Finally, I disagree with Prensky and believe that training can be part of the solution providing knowledge, skills, and ideas about effective learning with and about technology.

Climb the pyramid, specifically Bloom’s taxonomy of learning pyramid (Forehand, 2005). A critical role of the educator is to teach higher level thinking. Students can undoubtedly use technology to increase knowledge, comprehension, and even application. However, teachers can add higher level thinking experiences by facilitating analysis, syntheses, and evaluation. Students need to learn how to analyze, compare, contrast, design, modify, organize, evaluate, judge, critique, and interpret. For example, information from the Internet must be intentionally gathered, evaluated for relevancy and accuracy, and applied to problems (Jonassen, Howland, Marra, &Crismond, 2008). Prensky (2007) offers a compelling question about whether or not technology adds value. Teachers can help students to answer this question and understand the responsible use of technology.

Students and teachers need to be literate in the broadest definition of literacy. Yes, educators can learn technology from students, and students still need to learn from their teachers. Since we can’t beat students and technology, let’s join them and harness the power of learning with and about technology. In order for teachers to facilitate such learning, we need to know enough to be dangerous, competent and confident in learning with and from our technologically-savvy students. Finally, teachers are needed in order for students to climb the pyramid, specifically Bloom’s taxonomy of learning pyramid, to higher level thinking.

References

Forehand, M. (2005). Bloom's taxonomy: Original and revised.. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved February 4, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/.

Jonassen, D., Howland, J., Marra, R., Crismond, D. (2008). Meaningful learning with technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

King, K. P. & Griggs, J. K. (2006). Harnessing innovative technology in higher education. Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing.

Partnership for 21^st Century Skills. (n.d.). Framework for 21^st century learning. Retrieved, February 4, 2010, from http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=254&Itemid=119

Prensky, M. (2007). How to teach with technology: Keeping both teachers and students comfortable in an ear of exponential change (Electronic version). Emerging Technologies for Learning, 2.

Webster’s II New Riverside Dictionary (Revised ed.). (1996). Boston: Houghton Mifflin

Evaluating Content on the Web: What You See May Not Be What You Get

By Cathy C. at Fordham University

Who? What? Where? When? Why? How? I was a curious child, relentlessly bombarding my parents, older brother, and aunt with numerous and varied questions. After patiently attempting to answer my question, the next reply was usually, “Go look it up in the encyclopedia.” As a child, I accepted everything I read in an encyclopedia or textbook as truth. As I matured, I learned that written sources of information can have inaccuracies, misinformation, biases, outdated material, and inadequate coverage to the topic. At times, written sources of information may even attempt to persuade, dissuade, misinform, and mislead. What you see, or in this case read, may not be what you get!

The same is true with content on the Web. Using the Web, one can easily find abundant quantity about a topic, but what is the quality? In the case of encyclopedias and textbooks, editors and publishers may offer some additional scrutiny prior to publication. However, in the case of the Web, anyone can publish at anytime, and more and more of us are relying on that information. How to evaluate if what you see is what you get? Alexander & Tate (1996) offer a Web page evaluation procedure using checklists, based on the type of web page, and five criteria for evaluation: accuracy, authority, objectivity, currency, and coverage.

In the business banking world, web-based research is beginning to be used almost daily. Business banking client managers work with businesses from $2.5 to 25 million in annual sales revenue, actively working to attract new businesses to the bank and their portfolios. Client managers call on business owners, chief financial officers, and controllers in their place of business; offering banking services like loans, deposits, treasury management, merchant services, and credit cards. Resources, such as time, are always short, so client managers use the Web to more efficiently and effectively identify businesses that fit the annual sales revenue target. Once qualified as in the target, the client manager can us the Web to learn more about the business’s industry, history, products and services, ownership, key personnel, current media coverage, etc.

Though the Web often provides quantity about a business client, the client manager must evaluate quality. Alexander & Tate’s (1996) Business/Marketing page checklist and evaluation criteria can be used to provide a procedural approach, assuring greater consistency and quality:

· Accuracy: How accurate is a business’s self-reported data? Do other reliable sources corroborate the information? Links to SEC, industry group, Chamber? Is the website professional in format, spelling, grammar, etc.?

· Authority: Is this an official website? Who is writing about the business? In what capacity or role? What is the ownership structure? Can the address and telephone number be confirmed? Are there sponsors? No ads?

· Objectivity: What’s the bias? What is the authority’s relationship to the business and how does that affect opinion?

· Currency: When was the business’s website created or last revised? How current is information from other sources?

· Coverage: Is the page complete? What topics are covered? What are the scope and depth of the information? Product and services detail?

Is what you see what you get? In rare cases, client managers cannot find Web information about a business, which leads to questions about authenticity and size. Incomplete or poorly designed web pages create a negative first impression. Quality web pages with accuracy, authority, objectivity, currency, and coverage create a positive first impression, usually leading to a face-to-face call to explore a banking relationship that may ultimately save the business more time and money.

References

Alexander, J. & Tate, M. A. (1996). Web resources evaluation techniques. Retrieved September 27, 2009, from Widener University, Wolfgram Memorial Library Web site: http://www3.widener.edu/Academics/Libraries/Wolfgram_Memorial_Library/Evaluate_Web_Pages/Original_Web_Evaluation_Materials/6160/